Likewise, the statement, “I wish his mouth were filled with sugar,” extends to someone whose recitation fulfils what Allah has commanded. Nevertheless, anyone who recites when recitation is forbidden, believing it to be commanded, or omits what is commanded, believing it to be forbidden, is rewarded for his scholarly judgment and forgiven his error—even though a scholar may speak about an act he considers obligatory or forbidden in terms appropriate to its obligation or prohibition.

This does not involve wishing that the mouths of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, or of any believers, should be filled with heated stones or straw. For most reports of those Companions reciting behind the imam concern silent prayers, whereas the critics’ censure concerns those who recite during audible prayers. Thus, the censure and the practice did not concern the same circumstances. Even supposing that they did coincide among the early generations, this would be no different from their coinciding among later generations. In that case, each speaks on the basis of his own scholarly judgment.

This is no more serious than one leading Companion saying to another in the Prophet’s presence, peace and blessings be upon him: “You are a hypocrite, defending the hypocrites”; or someone saying: “Let me behead this hypocrite.” Nor is it more serious than their fighting one another during the civil strife on the basis of interpretation, or their invoking curses and the like during qunūt (the supplication in prayer), despite the Prophet’s authentically reported words, peace and blessings be upon him:

“Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking one another’s necks.”

And his words:

“When two Muslims confront one another with their swords, both the killer and the one killed are in the Fire.”

Thus, if this threatened punishment is averted from them on account of their interpretation