you will often find those who object affirming displeasure, censure, and punishment, while those who approve affirm pleasure, praise, and reward. Both may be mistaken, with the correct view lying in “a third, intermediate position”: that there is neither praise nor censure, neither reward nor punishment.

The explanation is this: when something a person says or does is known to contradict the Quran and Sunnah, constituting a false statement or a forbidden act, he may nevertheless be excused in two circumstances: (the first) is his inability to obtain the relevant knowledge; (the second) is his inability to follow the truth prescribed by the revealed law.

An example of (the first) is when the person experiencing the state is bewildered and insane, and is no longer held accountable. If it is said of him, “His state should be accepted without objection,” meaning that he is neither censured nor punished—not that he is judged correct in it—then this is sound, just as it is said of other insane people. But if what is meant is that the statement itself is correct, then this is mistaken.

The same applies when his state results from an exercise of independent judgment, as in matters disputed among people of knowledge and religion. If it is said, “His state should be accepted without objection,” just as one says, “He is allowed to maintain his independent judgment,” meaning that he is neither censured nor punished, then this is sound.