Most jurists also impose the prescribed punishment on one who drinks the type of nabīdh whose ruling is disputed (1), even if he acted on an interpretive judgment. Likewise, they order that a rebellious party acting on an interpretive judgment be fought in order to repel its rebellion, even though they do not regard him as a flagrant sinner because of that interpretation.
It is established in the Sahīh that when Alī sent Ammār ibn Yāsir and al-Hasan to Kūfa to assist him against Āisha (2), Ammār ibn Yāsir said:
“We know that she is your Prophet’s wife in this world and the Hereafter. Yet Allah has tested you through her to see whether you will obey Him or her.” (3)
Thus, Ammār testified that she was destined for Paradise and would be the wife of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in the Hereafter. Despite this, he called upon the people to repel her by whatever means they could, whether through fighting or otherwise.
If Ammār testified that she was destined for Paradise yet fought her, why could Uthmān not testify that Ammār was destined for Paradise yet strike him?
The most that [can be said is that what] occurred was that this one and that one [and this one] were sinful in the matter (4). We have already established the general principle that these people are attested to be destined for Paradise, despite having sins.
[Response to a fabricated hadith cited by the Rāfidī concerning Ammār, may Allah be pleased with him]
As for his statement:
“And the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said concerning him:
‘Ammār is the apple of my eye. He will be killed by the rebellious faction. May Allah not grant them my intercession on the Day of Resurrection.’”