people in their ignorance would have been better for them, and leaving the evidence concerning uncertain issues unexplained would have been better than explaining it.

Third:

Explaining the ruling and the threatened punishment helps those who refrain from such acts remain steadfast in avoiding them. Were it not for this, the practice would become widespread.

Fourth:

This excuse is valid only when a person is unable to remove it. Whenever someone can ascertain the truth but neglects to do so, he is not excused.

Fifth:

Some people may commit the act without either exercising independent scholarly judgment in a manner that permits them to do so or following scholarly authority in a manner that permits it. In such a person, the grounds for the threatened punishment are present without this particular impediment. He therefore exposes himself to the threatened punishment and incurs it, unless another impediment exists, such as repentance, good deeds that erase sins, or something else.

This, however, may vary: a person may think that his independent judgment or his following scholarly authority permits him to act, sometimes being right in this and sometimes mistaken. Yet whenever he sincerely seeks the truth and is not diverted from it by following his desires, Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity.

(Tenth:

If allowing these hadiths to retain their implications necessarily brings some scholars exercising independent judgment within the scope of the threatened punishment, and if this is inevitable on either supposition, then the hadith remains free of any countervailing argument and must therefore be acted upon.