How do we reconcile the hadith (modesty and faith are two companions, and if one is removed, the other is removed) with your statement that there is practical disbelief and creedal disbelief?

The questioner : You stated that the heart is reflected in the outward appearance and that they are twins, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So if a person’s outward actions indicate practical disbelief, how do we reconcile this? How do we say that they are two companions and one mold, and now we say there is practical disbelief and creedal disbelief? May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : We do not say that this practical disbelief is creedal disbelief; every Muslim must believe in that. As for the hadith you are referring to or citing as evidence, it does not contradict the distinction we mentioned earlier. Nor do I know of anyone who says that this hadith definitively proves that the one who commits a sin is a disbeliever in his heart. It is well known that this is the position of the Khawarij in the past and the Ibadis among them in the present. It is impossible for a Muslim not to commit a sin. If you understand that this hadith contradicts these realities that a Muslim must acknowledge, it means that no Muslim would remain on earth, because no one is infallible after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). For example, the great and serious incident of the slander: when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) received news from some of the hypocrites who spread the scandal, his position regarding Aisha was not the position of one connected to heavenly revelation, although he is always connected to it, except as Allah wills. While he was waiting for the certain news from the sky, his position was that of any human being. The point of this story is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) began asking those who had a connection to the Lady Aisha, among the women, maidservants, and relatives, such as Ali, and so on. The point is that the Messenger entered upon her and said: So does that mean that, may Allah forbid, if she had committed the scandal, she would have apostatized from her religion? The answer is no. So interpret your hadith in any interpretation that does not conflict with these giants of legal realities in which there is no disagreement among Muslims except the extremists from the Khawarij who declare a Muslim a disbeliever for committing a major sin. On this occasion, I advise those who today cling to, or claim to cling to, the Book and the Sunnah that they must understand the Book and the Sunnah as our righteous predecessors did, foremost among them Abdullah ibn Abbas, the interpreter of the Qur'an, who had the merit of opening the minds of Muslims to this legal reality: that there is disbelief less than disbelief. As Allah the Exalted said: Reality testifies that many of those who issue rulings, whether their ruling is on themselves, their people, or their nation, must have a disbelief that is either disbelief that exits the religion or disbelief less than disbelief. This is due to what I mentioned earlier: that none of us is free from disobeying Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Do we imagine that every sinner must be a disbeliever in the sense of apostasy, while he himself acknowledges that he has disobeyed Allah or the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? He acknowledges this reality and may seek forgiveness when he awakens from his heedlessness. This is not called disbelief of apostasy, but rather disbelief less than disbelief, as Abdullah ibn Abbas said. Therefore, we must take our creed from our righteous predecessors, for they are the ones who understood the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and transmitted these correct concepts to us. It is not permissible for a Muslim to act arrogantly today, especially if he is in the beginning of his pursuit of knowledge, and say, "I understand from such a verse that these rulers, for example, are all disbelievers who have apostatized from their religion, and that it is obligatory to rebel against them," while he cannot rebel against his own family, let alone the rulers. Therefore, we should understand this matter properly.