But if this is said to mean that it is correct or sound, evidence must be provided to establish its correctness. A statement or action proceeding from anyone other than the Messenger is not, in itself, proof that the speaker or doer is correct. If that exercise of independent judgment is known to be mistaken, accepting his state means exempting him from censure, not declaring him correct.

Likewise, accepting his state and allowing him to continue may mean letting his judicial ruling stand without overturning it, allowing his legal opinion to stand without objection, or permitting those entitled to rely on his authority and follow him to do so. Those lacking the requisite knowledge may rely on and follow scholars and religious teachers whom it is permissible to follow, in matters they have not recognized as mistaken. Some of this, however, falls within the second category: that which is not known to contravene the revealed law.

In such cases, his state is accepted when he is known to be excused, or known to be sincere in his path and the matter may be an exercise of independent judgment on his part. These, then, are “three circumstances” in which his state is accepted because he is unable to obtain the relevant knowledge and the truth is hidden from him in a way that excuses him.

An example of (the second)—his inability to comply—is when he experiences states that compel him to tear his clothes, slap his face, utter objectionable cries, or shake violently. If it is known that the cause of this was not forbidden and that he is overcome by it, his state is accepted. If there is doubt whether he is overcome or merely pretending, but he is known to be truthful, it is said, “His state should be accepted without objection,”