The Etiquette of Disagreement and the Chaos of Reality
In the midst of the chaos currently engulfing the Muslim Ummah, we have every right to inquire about the Etiquette of Disagreement (Adab al-Ikhtilāf) and its civilizational jurisprudence within our Islamic Shariah. We observe this profound etiquette dissolving into a chaotic reality that has swept away many minds and seized the hearts of even those who are considered thinkers and scholars in the fields of Shariah and its civilizational heritage.
The Etiquette of Disagreement is an ancient and established principle in our Islamic Shariah; it is not itself a matter of dispute. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) affirmed the Companions on the day of Banu Qurayzah and did not rebuke any of them for their respective Ijtihād (Independent reasoning by an expert in Islamic Law).
Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: "The Prophet (PBUH) said to us when he returned from the Battle of the Trench: 'None of you should pray ‘Asr except at Banu Qurayzah.' The time for ‘Asr arrived while some of them were still on the road. Some said: 'We will not pray until we reach it.' Others said: 'Rather, we will pray; that was not what was intended of us [i.e., the command was for speed, not delaying the prayer time].' When this was mentioned to the Prophet (PBUH), he did not rebuke a single one of them." (Reported by Bukhari & Muslim).
The Companions and the Righteous Predecessors (al-Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ) drank deeply from the well of this etiquette, internalizing the words of the Prophet (PBUH): "If a judge performs Ijtihad and reaches a correct decision, he has two rewards. If he strives and errs, he has one reward." (Reported by Bukhari & Muslim).They realized that the scholar who possesses the tools of Ijtihād is rewarded for his effort, whether he is correct or mistaken, so long as the intention is sincere and the goal is noble.
This demonstrates that disagreement is an inevitable reality due to various factors in matters where perceptions and understandings differ. Our Righteous Predecessors (Salaf) did not seek disagreement for its own sake; rather, the objective for all was to align with the intent of the Lawgiver (Allah). Therefore, while they may have differed on a specific ruling, they were united in their aim to reach the truth and fulfill the Divine Will.
Consequently, disagreement among the Salaf was never a cause for enmity or hatred. Their hearts were vast enough to accept and embrace these differences. Each viewed their own opinion as "correct but potentially mistaken," and the opinion of others as "mistaken but potentially correct." This diversity was not a source of weakness or division, but rather a cause for their glory and the flourishing of their intellectual thought, providing us with the immense legislative wealth that enriches the Islamic library today.
The Imams of the various schools of thought (Madhāhib) differed in far more subsidiary jurisprudential rulings than we do today, yet we never heard of "Fatwa chaos" in their time. Respect for the dissenter and a civilizational, academic approach were the prevailing norms.
• Imam al-Shāfi‘ī, upon visiting the grave of Imam Abu Ḥanīfah and praying in his mosque, did not perform the Qunūt in the Fajr prayer, even though he considered it a Sunnah. When asked why, he replied: "Out of respect for the occupant of this grave."
• Imam Aḥmad said of Imam al-Shāfi‘ī—despite differing with him on many issues: "I have not performed a prayer for forty years except that I have supplicated for al-Shāfi‘ī." When his son, Abdullah, asked what kind of man al-Shāfi‘ī was to deserve such devotion, he replied: "O my son, al-Shāfi‘ī was like the sun to the world and like health to the body; look and see, is there a replacement for these two?"
• Imam Aḥmad held that bleeding nullifies Wuḍū’ (ablution). However, when asked, "Would you pray behind a man who had undergone cupping (Ḥijāmah) and did not re-perform his ablution?" He replied: "Subḥān Allāh! How could I not pray behind [the likes of] Mālik ibn Anas and Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib?!"
These fragments of history provide us with a blueprint for how to interact with scholars: maintaining respect, thinking well of them (Ḥusn al-Ẓann), and seeking excuses for them even when we believe they have erred.
Reflecting on this, we must ask again: Why has this etiquette vanished from contemporary Islamic discourse? The answer, we believe, lies in the chaos of the current reality and the bias toward conflicting currents and clashing ideologies. This has overwhelmed the traditional etiquette, erasing it from the minds of many, including those counted among the ranks of scholars. Disagreement has become "blameworthy" (Madhmūm), characterized by:
1. Self-admiration and vanity.
2. Thinking ill of others and rushing to accuse them.
3. Fanaticism toward specific groups, parties, or individuals, even when it contradicts Shariah evidence.
4. Failure to verify reports and basing positions on mere conjecture.
The response to a dissenting view has shifted toward insult, slander, and questioning the intentions of scholars—intentions which only Allah knows. A cursory glance at our current reality reveals terms that have no place in the literature of academic disagreement: "rabble," "scum," "dwarfs," "scholars of the Sultan," and "people of desire."
We even see those we once considered beacons of knowledge saying: "There are Muftis appointed by regimes... their job is generally to permit what the rulers want, even if it is a prohibited matter subject to consensus (Ḥarām Mujma’ ‘alayh)."
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Shariah knows that declaring a consensus-based prohibition to be permissible is an act of disbelief (Kufr). This language of accusation and implicit Takfīr is entirely alien to the etiquette of Islamic discourse. Furthermore, we see an astonishing degree of self-praise (Tazkiyat al-nafs) coupled with the belittling of others, despite Allah’s command: "So do not claim purity for yourselves; He is most knowing of who fears Him." (An-Najm/32).
In conclusion, we do not believe there is a "Fatwa chaos" today as much as there is an intellectual and moral chaos. This turmoil has blinded minds to the etiquette of disagreement.
Knowledge is a "bond of kinship" among its people. We hoped to see robust academic refutations based on Shariah evidence, objectivity, and wisdom, far removed from the language of insults that is unbefitting of laypeople, let alone scholars and thinkers.
The Muslim is shrewd and intelligent (Kayyis Faṭin); he is not a blind follower (Imma‘ah) swayed by every passing whim or ideology. Our religious duty necessitates that we advise one another with sincerity. The authentic Islamic discourse, rooted in the language of dialogue and the etiquette of difference, is the optimal path to reach the truth. As long as the goal is one—the truth—it does not harm us if our paths differ.
As the saying goes: "Disagreement does not spoil the bond of affection." We must not let this etiquette be lost in the chaos of our time. We must rebuild the Islamic edifice and heal the rift in our society by treating the roots of this intellectual chaos, for Allah says {what means}: "And do not dispute and [thus] lose courage and [then] your strength would depart; and be patient. Indeed, Allah is with the patient." (Al-Anfāl/46).
We ask Allah to guide us all to the Straight Path and to inspire us with correctness in both word and deed.
