Does the fatwa vary according to time, place, and the condition of the questioner?

Question:
This questioner states a principle, which is that the fatwa varies according to time and place. Perhaps a questioner asks about one matter, but the fatwa differs due to the differing conditions of the questioners.

Answer:
As mentioned earlier, it varies according to the conditions, circumstances, conventions, and customs of the country. Allah’s ruling is one; Allah’s ruling is one. The ruling does not change. A thing does not become forbidden in one time and permissible in another. No, the ruling is one. The forbidden is forbidden, the permissible is permissible, the obligatory is obligatory, the sunnah is sunnah, and the disliked is disliked. But the circumstances of the fatwa and what should be applied to them change.
The convention of one group may differ from the convention of another. One might assume their convention is like the convention of those in Egypt or in Sham, while in another country, their customs and conventions in their speech are not like those of the former. So the custom of the people of Riyadh, for example, or the people of Bisha, or the people of Abha, is not like the custom of the people of Egypt and the people of Sham in many matters. One might err in understanding the speech, assuming that what these people intend is what those people intend, when that is not the case. Thus, one errs due to not understanding the intended meaning and not knowing the intent of these people and those people. Consequently, the ruling is not applied in the proper Shari'ah manner. Insight into the conditions of people, their customs, their conventions, and what they intend by their speech is a necessity for the mufti, as mentioned earlier. Yes. And wait.
Forbidding evil, forbidding evil is obligatory, and enjoining good is obligatory. But the circumstances differ regarding forbidding evil in terms of what results from it. In some countries, or at some times, or with some people, if you forbid an evil upon them, a greater evil and a worse harm may result. In that case, you leave off forbidding it, not because it is not an evil, for it is an evil, but you leave off forbidding it because of what may result from it, which is more evil and more severe. And forbidding an evil may result in an evil of the same kind, causing the one who enjoins and forbids to be perplexed as to whether to forbid it or not, because something similar results from it. So he looks and reflects on how to forbid this evil. The outcome is that things may result in matters, not because forbidding evil is not obligatory, for it is obligatory, but one may refrain from forbidding it because of what may result from it, whether a greater harm or a similar harm.
And what brings this close is what happened to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), even though it was not an evil, but it brings this meaning close. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) So he left demolishing it and implementing what he said (peace and blessings be upon him) of that. So he left this good and this benefit out of fear of a greater evil that would outweigh this benefit. And this occurs often in many matters. Yes.