The Third Case: That the Necessary Consequence Is Not Mentioned, So It Is Not Cited as an Obligation or a Denial; Its Ruling in This Case Is That It Is Not Attributed to the Speaker

The Shaykh :"The third case is that the necessary consequence is not mentioned, so it is not cited as an obligation or a denial. Its ruling in this case is that it is not attributed to the speaker" Yes, if the necessary consequence was not presented to the speaker and remained unmentioned. And this is the most common case: the most common thing is that the necessary consequences used to hold someone accountable are not... what are they? They are not mentioned to the speaker; rather, they are unmentioned. That means no one confronted the speaker to hold him accountable with the necessary consequence, or we do not know that he was held accountable. So, yes. "Its ruling in this case is that it is not attributed to the speaker, because it is possible that if it were mentioned to him, he would either commit to it or deny the connection. It is also possible that if it were mentioned to him and its necessity and invalidity became clear to him, he would retract his statement, because the invalidity of the necessary consequence indicates the invalidity of the thing necessitating it. For this reason, and due to the occurrence of these two possibilities" What are the two possibilities? That he would commit to it or deny it. Due to the occurrence of these two possibilities: denial and commitment. "It is not possible to rule that the necessary consequence of a statement is a statement" And this is, in fact, justice. This is justice. Many people make a statement in matters of creed or matters of rulings, and when it is said to them, "Your statement necessitates such and such invalid matters," they retract. Even a person, if he thinks about something and it becomes clear to him that the ruling is such and such, and then he reconsiders, he may retract if his statement necessitates invalid consequences.