and neither may require the other to obey him, just as neither prophet may require this of the other. Evidence previously hidden from him may become apparent, leading him, through independent judgment, to abandon an earlier judgment. This resembles abrogation in the case of a prophet; however, the former sets aside a belief, whereas the latter actually repeals a ruling.

Followers must follow those rulers and scholars entrusted with their affairs in matters where such following is permissible and where following their independent judgment is commanded, just as a community must follow whichever prophet is sent to them, even if his law differs from that of the preceding prophet. Yet the variation and change in the law as it applies to these people does not arise from any variation in the command itself revealed to the Messenger, but from differences in their circumstances. One apprehends the revelation that reaches him, both by hearing it and by understanding it, while another is unable to apprehend that message: either he cannot hear it because he has no opportunity to hear that scriptural text, or he cannot understand it because he does not grasp what the first understood from the text. When he is incapable, he bears no sin for what lies beyond his ability. One may recognize the other’s inability and error and excuse him for it, or he may not recognize his inability. Neither may be able to determine which of them has apprehended the truth and reached the correct conclusion.

For this reason, some have declined to call such a case an error, arguing: “Religious obligation is conditional upon ability. Whatever knowledge a person was incapable of attaining did not constitute Allah’s ruling in his case, so he cannot be said to have missed it.”

The majority, however, say that he has missed it, as indicated by the Sunnah and scholarly consensus, but that his error is excused. This is what is meant by the statement that he was unable to apprehend and know it. Yet