We therefore say:

People have discussed whether qualified jurists are correct or mistaken, and whether or not they incur sin, in subsidiary and foundational questions. We shall present several useful, comprehensive principles.

The First Principle:

Is every person capable, through his own independent reasoning, of knowing the truth in every disputed question? If he is not capable of doing so, but exercises independent reasoning and expends his utmost effort without arriving at the truth—rather, he adopts a position he believes actually to be true, although it is not actually true (1)—does he deserve to be punished or not?

This is the foundation of these questions. People hold three positions concerning this principle, each espoused by a group of speculative thinkers.

The first is the position of those who say that Allah has established evidence pointing to the truth in every question by which it may be known, and that everyone who exercises independent reasoning and expends his utmost effort is capable of knowing the truth. Whoever fails to know the truth in a foundational or subsidiary question does so only because he has neglected what is required of him, not because he is incapable.

This is the well-known position attributed to the Qadariyya and the Muʿtazila. It is also the position (2) of a group of speculative theologians other than these.

They further say: As for theoretical questions, there are decisive proofs by which they may be known. Thus, anyone who fails to know them has not expended his utmost effort in seeking the truth and consequently incurs sin.

As for practical questions of Sacred Law, they hold two positions. The first is that these are like theoretical questions, and that every question has a decisive proof; whoever contradicts it incurs sin. Those who hold this position are