or not. If it never applies in a disputed matter, it follows that nothing is forbidden unless its prohibition is unanimously agreed upon. Everything whose prohibition is disputed would therefore be lawful. This contradicts the consensus of the Muslim community, and its falsity is necessarily known from the religion of Islam. If, however, prohibition does apply, even in a single case, does a scholar exercising independent judgment who considers that forbidden act lawful incur the blame and punishment due to someone who declares the forbidden lawful or commits it, or does he not?

Whether the answer is that he does incur them or that he does not, the same applies to the prohibition which, by agreement, is established by a hadith containing a threat, and to the threat established in a disputed matter, subject to the distinctions we have explained. Indeed, the threat concerns the person who performs the act, whereas, in principle, the punishment for declaring the forbidden lawful is greater than the punishment for committing it without believing it lawful. Thus, if an act may remain forbidden in a disputed case while the scholar exercising independent judgment who considers it lawful escapes punishment for doing so because he is excused, then there is all the more reason for the person performing the act to escape its threatened punishment.

Just as the scholar exercising independent judgment does not necessarily fall under the consequences of this prohibition in terms of blame, punishment, and the like, neither does he necessarily fall under its threatened punishment. A threat of punishment is merely one form of blame and punishment. If he may fall under this general category, whatever answer is given concerning some of its forms also answers the others. Nor does it help to distinguish between lesser and greater blame, or between severe and mild punishment, for the objection that arises from a small measure of blame