in the sense of incurring sin. A third view holds that this applies to an initial scriptural ruling, but not to one that abrogates an earlier ruling. All three views are found in the school of Ahmad and elsewhere.

Accordingly, if a jurist exercising independent judgment has not heard certain abrogating texts or texts whose scope has been restricted, and has had no means of learning of them, their ruling is not binding upon him. He is obeying Allah by acting upon the abrogated or general text and incurs no sin in doing so.

There are three views on this point:

One holds that he must follow the underlying ruling, and that if he errs, he is mistaken before Allah and, with respect to the ruling, has failed to do what he was commanded. Yet those who hold this view also say that he incurs no sin. This is contradictory, for anyone who fails to do what he has been commanded is sinful. How, then, can he fail to do what he was commanded without being sinful?

Another view holds that he was never commanded to follow the underlying ruling; it is not a ruling applicable to him, nor has he mistaken Allah’s ruling. Allah has no underlying ruling applicable to him other than the one he has reached. Nor may he be described as mistaken, for in their view, error necessarily entails sin. Yet they concede that, had he known that ruling, he would have been obliged to act upon it, and it would have been applicable to him. The dispute is therefore one of terminology. By prohibiting the use of this expression, however, they have contravened the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Companions. Moreover, their statement that there is no underlying ruling is mistaken. Rather, Allah’s underlying ruling