as well, since contradiction is a conflict between two statements, one affirming what the other denies. Thus, if at one time he says, “This is forbidden,” and at another time says of the same thing or something equivalent, “It is not forbidden,” or says something implying that it is not forbidden, then his two statements contradict each other. Yet he is correct in both according to those who hold that every jurist exercising independent judgment is correct, and that Allah has no ruling binding upon that jurist in reality other than what he believes it to be.

The majority, however, maintain that Allah has a ruling in reality, which the scholar recognized in one of his two statements but failed to recognize in the contradictory statement. His failure to recognize it despite his efforts is forgiven, and he is also rewarded for seeking the truth and striving to discover it.

For this reason, some liken conflicting scholarly judgments to abrogating and abrogated rulings in the laws of the prophets. There is, however, a distinction between them: both the abrogating and the abrogated ruling are established by Allah’s pronouncement of a ruling, both in reality and outwardly, unlike one of the scholar’s two contradictory statements. This concerns someone who fears Allah in what he says, while knowing himself to be acting piously and following the right path.

As for those driven by whims and contentiousness, they are blameworthy for their contradictions, because they speak without knowledge and without sincerely seeking what they ought to seek.

Accordingly, the implications of a person’s statement are of two kinds: