Thus, what occurred when Uthmān disciplined Ibn Masūd [and Ammār] (1) may well belong to this category.
If even those who fight one another may each have exercised independent legal judgment and had their error forgiven, then this applies all the more readily to those who merely dispute with one another (2).
Alternatively, it may be said: He exercised independent legal judgment, and so did they. Such cases (3) occur frequently: a man does something on the basis of his independent judgment, while the ruler determines that the Muslims’ welfare cannot be secured unless he is punished—just as it cannot be secured without punishing a transgressor, even if he repents after his case has been brought (4) before the ruler.
Thus, if adulterers, thieves, and those who drink intoxicants repent after being brought before the ruler and the prescribed punishment has been established against them, the punishment is not waived for them (5) because of their repentance. Rather, they are punished even though, by virtue of their repentance, they deserve Paradise (6). The prescribed punishment itself becomes something for which they are rewarded and recompensed, and through it Allah expiates whatever requires expiation.
Suppose a man killed someone whom he believed liable to be killed in legal retaliation, or took property that he believed was truly his. If the slain person’s family and the owners of the property then asserted their rights before the ruler, judgment would be rendered in their favor, and anyone who refused to deliver to them what had been awarded would be punished—even if he had acted on an interpretive judgment and was indeed blameless before Allah.