have two positions at two different times within a single category of issues. Thus, at one time he may give one answer concerning one of its individual cases, and at another time give a different answer concerning another case. If the individual cases are equivalent, he will have two positions concerning them. If there is no distinction between them that an independent jurist could adopt, [then, without disagreement, his position concerning them is one and the same. But if the distinction is one that an independent jurist might adopt], a group of them, including Abū al-Khattāb, said that no ruling should be extrapolated. The majority—such as Judge Abū Yalā—said that the answer should be extrapolated, provided that he himself did not recognize the distinction, as indicated by his principles. Some among them extrapolate the answer whenever they consider the two cases equivalent, even if it is not known whether he distinguished between them.

If he distinguished between some cases and others while consciously considering both, then, if the distinction rested on a basis in the Sacred Law, it counts as one of his positions. If, however, it rested on customary practice, sensory observation, or the like—matters in which experienced practitioners may know more than jurists who have not dealt with them directly—then in reality he did not distinguish between them as a matter of the Sacred Law. It was merely a worldly matter of which the scholar was unaware. Scholars are the heirs of the prophets, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “You know more about the affairs of your worldly life; but as for what pertains to your religion, that is for me.”

Such scholarly variation concerning the very same issue or issues of the same kind may also be called a contradiction, because contradiction consists of two propositions differing by negation and affirmation. If at one time he said, “This is forbidden,” and at another time said of it or an analogous case, “It is not forbidden,” or made a statement entailing that it is not forbidden, then his two positions contradict one another. Yet he is correct in both, according to those who hold that every independent jurist is correct and that, in the reality of the matter, Allah has no ruling for an independent jurist other than what that jurist believes it to be.