What is the validity of the statement: "The necessary implication of a school of thought is not part of the school of thought"?

The questioner : What is the validity of the statement that says "The necessary implication of a school of thought is not part of the school of thought"? Is it correct or not?

The Shaykh : It is correct in itself. 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 this implies such and such for you. He then says, "No, I did not intend this; I only intended this." So the necessary implication of the school of thought is not part of the 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 suffered from, both in the past and in the present. 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, without figurative interpretation, and without denial of the divine attributes, the opponent comes and interprets some of those attributes with a prohibited interpretation. What is this prohibited interpretation? For example, they say in interpreting the statement of Allah the Exalted, , that "istawa" means "istawla" (to dominate). Then an objection comes from those who believe in the divine attributes in the Salafi manner: "This implies a very serious matter for you, which is that your saying 'istawa' means 'istawla' necessitates that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, passed through a period of time in which He was not dominating the universe. Because you say 'then He istawa over the Throne,' meaning 'then He istawla' (dominated). So before that, who was dominating? This is the necessary implication of the school of thought. So he returns, because he is mistaken in the interpretation, and says, 'No, I did not intend this, but I intend a meaning that does not contain the meaning you have attributed to me.' This is common in its usage. So this prohibited matter is made clear to him. If he adheres to the established statement from which the apparent prohibited implication follows, he is then judged by it. But initially, we do not accuse him of saying that the necessary implication of his school of thought is something other than his statement.