We have already demonstrated that censure is not levelled at the mujtahid (independent jurist). Indeed, we even say that the one who pronounces the unlawful to be lawful bears a greater sin than the person who merely commits the act itself; yet, whoever enjoys a legitimate excuse remains excused.

If it is asked: “So who, then, is subject to punishment? For the one who commits this prohibited act is either a mujtahid or someone who follows his opinion, and both appear to fall outside the scope of punishment,” we reply:

The answer may be given from several angles:

First: The intent is simply to clarify that this deed calls for punishment, whether or not anyone actually performs it. Thus, if in every instance the performer happens to lack one of the conditions for punishment, or possesses something that wards it off, that in no way detracts from the act’s being forbidden. We still know it to be unlawful so that whoever recognises its prohibition will abstain from it; and it is part of Allah’s mercy toward the one who does commit it that an excuse is established on his behalf.

This resembles the case of minor sins: they are forbidden, even though they are erased when one avoids the major sins. The same applies to every disputed prohibition. Consequently, once it becomes clear that the act is unlawful—even though the mujtahid or his follower may be excused for performing it—this does not prevent us from holding the conviction that it is indeed forbidden.

Second: Clarifying the ruling serves to remove the doubt that keeps punishment from attaching. The excuse that arises from a mistaken belief is not something we aim to preserve; rather, the objective is to eliminate it as far as possible. Were this not so, conveying knowledge would not be obligatory, and leaving people in their ignorance would be better