What is the meaning of the phrase: "The necessary implication of a school of thought is not itself a school of thought"? And is it correct or not?

The questioner : He saysThe questioner : What is the meaning of the phrase: "The necessary implication of a school of thought is not itself a school of thought"? And is it correct or not?

The Shaykh : It is correct in itself, and its meaning is that a person may say something, and the necessary implication of that statement is a meaning that does not cross the mind of the one who said it. So when a discussion arises between him and some people, these people point out to the speaker that such and such is necessary for you, and he says: No, I did not intend this, but I intended this. The necessary implication of a school of thought is not itself a school of thought. This statement contains a degree of precision and is known among the people of knowledge. I will give you an example of what Muslims have been afflicted with, both in the past and in recent times. When those who deny the attributes take a specific stance toward the Salafis, who believe in the Book of the Lord of the Worlds without likening Allah to creation, and without figurative interpretation or denial of the divine attributes, the opponent comes and interprets some of those attributes in ways that lead to a prohibited matter. What is this prohibited matter? For example, they say in interpreting the statement of Allah the Exalted: , meaning He took control. Then an objection comes from those who believe in the divine attributes in the Salafi manner: You are necessitating a very serious matter for yourself; and that is that your saying "He took control" means that it is necessary, according to this interpretation, that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) passed through a period of time, even if brief, in which He was not in control of the universe; because you say: "Then He took control of the Throne," meaning: Then He took control. So who was in control before that? This is the necessary implication of the school of thought. So he returns, because he is mistaken in his interpretation, and says: No, I seek refuge in Allah, I did not intend this, but I intend a meaning that does not contain this meaning that you have necessitated. This is common in its usage. That prohibited matter is explained to him. If he adheres to the previous statement from which the subsequent prohibited matter is necessitated, then at that time I will hold him accountable for it. But we do not accuse him from the outset of saying that necessary implication of his school of thought and his statement.
Other than that?