the objection to the curse encompassing the one applies equally to its encompassing the other. Nor can this argument be escaped by saying, “The former is one of the great figures of the Muslim community and among the most virtuous of the truly faithful, whereas the latter is one of its lesser members.” Their difference in this respect does not prevent them from sharing the same ruling. Just as Allah, glorified be He, forgives a scholar qualified to exercise independent judgment when he errs, He also forgives an ignorant person who errs and has no opportunity to learn. Indeed, the harm caused by a layperson committing a forbidden act, without knowing or being able to learn that it is forbidden, is far less than the harm arising when an imam declares lawful something the Lawgiver has forbidden, without knowing or being able to learn that it is forbidden.

For this reason, it has been said, “Beware of a scholar’s slip, for when he slips, a multitude slips with him.” Ibn ‘Abbās, may Allah be pleased with them both, said, “Woe to the scholar on account of his followers!”

If the scholar is pardoned despite the great harm arising from his action, then the other person has an even greater claim to pardon, given the lesser harm arising from his action. They do, however, differ in another respect: the scholar has exercised independent judgment and expressed his view on that basis, and his efforts to spread knowledge and revive the Sunnah yield benefits so great that this harm is eclipsed by them. Allah has distinguished between the two in this respect: He rewards the scholar qualified to exercise independent judgment for his efforts, and the learned person for his knowledge, with a reward in which that ignorant person has no share. Thus, both share in pardon, but they differ in reward.

It is impossible for punishment to befall someone who does not deserve it, whether eminent or lowly. This impossible case must therefore be excluded from the hadith in a manner that encompasses both groups.