He also said:

«فما كان من اللوازم يرضاه القائل بعد وضوحه له؛ فهو قَوْلُهُ، و ما لا يرضاه؛ فليس قَوْلَهُ، وإن كان متناقضاً...فأما إذا نفى هُوَ - اللُّزوم؛ لم يَجُز أَنْ يُضاف إليه اللازم بحال» "What a speaker accepts as an implication, once it becomes clear to him, is considered their position, while what they do not accept is not considered their position, even if it results in contradiction... If someone denies the implication, it cannot be attributed to them in any case." [Majmu' al-Fatawa (29/42)]. And he further stated: «وأما قول السائل: هل لازم المذهب مذهب؟ أم ليس بمذهب؟ فالصواب: أن [لازم] مذهب الإنسان؛ ليس بمذهب له؛ إذا لم يلتزمه، فإنه إذا كان قد أَنْكَرَهُ ونَفَاهُ؛ كانت إضافته إليه كذباً عليه» "As for the questioner’s statement: Is the necessary implication of a doctrine considered part of the doctrine? Or is it not? The correct view is that the necessary implication of a person’s doctrine is not considered their doctrine unless they accept it. If they have rejected and denied it, attributing it to them would be a false accusation." [Majmū’ Al-Fatāwa (20/217)]. If one were to say, how can you assert that the necessary implication of a belief cannot be counted as a belief itself, while you still refute your opponents by pointing out these necessary implications? Response: The person asking this has conflated two separate issues: 1. Attributing the necessary implication of a belief to an opponent before they are aware of it and commit to it, which I do not endorse. 2. Refuting the opponent by highlighting the necessary implications of their belief, which is indeed necessary. This is why even Ibn Taymiyyah frequently used necessary implications in his refutations of opponents. Exposing the flaws in a belief has its benefits, such as revealing the opponent's contradictions, weakening their argument, and potentially leading them to abandon their belief once they understand its implications.