عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

The Etiquette of Disagreement and the Chaos of Reality
Author : Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh
Date Added : 30-12-2025

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.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on eating and drinking at night after making the intention? Is it necessary to renew the intention?

Eating and drinking at night, even after making the intention (for the next day), does not affect the fast, and it is not necessary to renew the intention after eating and drinking.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on participating in the prize draws (raffles) that commercial stores hold for their customers?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no objection to participating in the prize draws (raffles) that commercial stores hold for their customers, provided that the buyer's intention in purchasing is not merely to enter the competition without any need for what is bought — rather, the purchase must be genuinely intended for the item itself, and one must not pay more than the item's fair market price. This is because paying an amount above the market price would effectively be paying a fee to enter the prize draw, which would render it a form of gambling (qimār).
These prizes are, in essence, gifts that businesses offer through a random drawing (qur'ah) to those who purchase from them, as a means of encouraging sales, without the customer bearing any additional monetary cost for participation. So long as the aforementioned conditions are met, there is no objection to benefiting from the prize offered by the store, as it is considered a lawful prize from the viewpoint of Islamic Law.
It is stated in the resolutions of the "Jordanian Iftaa' Board" (Resolution No. 47), in the context of outlining the conditions for permissible prizes: "The price of the ticket [or item purchased] for the sake of the prize must not exceed its original price, so that there is no payment of money in exchange for participation in the draw." And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

See More