This is an issue that the jurists have neglected and are blundering about, but they have not achieved any benefit. We have shown that no believer has ever been freed from sin that is not tainted by obedience at all, and obedience has been purified and is not tainted by disobedience. There is no disobedience unless the believer accompanies it as a disobedience that is forbidden for him to do, and belief that it is a disobedience is an act of obedience to God. Al-Hajjaj or anyone else, in the case of immorality, is a believer who is obedient to his faith, but his disobedience is weakened by resisting his obedience, and in the event that he prays or obeys in any of his actions, he is not a sinner, but rather he is obedient, so he who has erased God from his heart prefers immorality to faith and obedience, with immorality weakening over obedience due to the similarity of belief in the fact that this is the case. The act is immoral, so they said: It is not permissible for a sinner to l