Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake,” and the meaning of the hadith: “I have removed from my community error, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do,” and whether the forgetful person is subject to religious obligation.

The questioner: The evidence relied upon by those who said that the default ruling in the Shari'ah is that a person is not held accountable for what they do out of forgetfulness or mistake; this evidence is like the verse[al-Baqarah: 286], and the hadith .
...
These evidences were certainly reviewed by the Hanafis, and they contradict the opposite principle they aim to establish, which is contrary to what these evidences establish. However, they responded to them by saying , meaning accountability for the sin of error. As for the practical aspect and religious obligation, he is obligated. So here, can a person weigh the two opinions? We say that interpretation (ta'wil) is contrary to the original principle, and the original principle is to take the words of Allah and His Messenger at their apparent meaning without interpretation, unless there is evidence necessitating interpretation. Here, , the revelation came from the sky from the Lord of the Worlds saying yes. So where do we get the detail from? , absolutely, neither sin nor obligation. So this interpretation is contrary to the apparent text. Likewise, , also absolutely, accountability has been removed from them absolutely, neither by obligation nor by sin, no obligation in that and no sin for that. This is the apparent meaning of the texts. If the Hanafis interpret these texts, we say to them: what is the Shari'ah evidence necessitating this interpretation? They have no evidence except the principle they established based on the branches of commands and obligations. This does not establish a principle. For example, , this does not establish a principle that if one prays without ablution, that if one prays without ablution forgetfully, of course he is held accountable and obligated to repeat the prayer. This establishes the principle that one must perform ablution. Do you see? If one prays without ablution forgetfully, what is its ruling? We do not want to ask; we want a principle from which we take the answer. The principle comes from , and the previous hadith, unless a text comes, as we said, meaning according to the school of al-Shafi'i and Ibn Hazm, the original ruling is that one is not held accountable except by a text, like the one who kills by mistake, for example. Then he is obligated by the Shari'ah to pay the blood money or... So their interpretation of these texts, in defense of this principle which they took by way of derivation and not by way of text, does not stand based on their principle in these texts. So the principle of al-Shafi'i and the principle of Ibn Hazm outweigh the opposite Hanafi principle, because this principle was built on an explicit text, and the Hanafi principle has no explicit text to establish this principle, but they returned to the commands on the basis that they are absolute. But these absolute texts must be restricted by this Shari'ah principle: .