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?

The questioner : The questioner says: What is the meaning of the phrase that says: "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 made that statement. So when a discussion arises between him and -- welcome -- when a discussion arises between him and some people, these people point out to that speaker that this implies for you such and such. He says: No, I did not intend this, but I intended this. So the necessary implication of the school of thought is not itself a school of thought.
This is a statement that contains a degree of precision, and it is known among the scholars of knowledge. I will give you an example of what Muslims have been afflicted with, 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 attributes 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 with interpretations from which a prohibited matter emerges. What is this prohibited matter? For example, they say in interpreting the statement of Allah the Exalted: meaning He took control. Then the objection comes from those who believe in the divine attributes in the Salafi manner: "This implies for you a very serious matter; and that is that your saying 'He rose above' means 'He took control.' The necessary implication of this interpretation is 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 are saying: meaning: then He took control. So before that, who was in control?! This is the necessary implication of the school of thought. So he returns, because he is mistaken in his interpretation, and says to you: 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 imposed on me. This is common in their usage, and we clarify that prohibited matter for him. If he adheres to the previous statement from which the subsequent prohibited matter necessarily follows, then he is judged by 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?