What is the cause of the scholars' disagreement? And what is the position of the general public regarding this disagreement?

The questioner : Some scholars have differed in their opinions.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I mean, they clash with one another; one says, "This is the opinion," and the other says, "No, that is wrong; this is correct." And let us suppose that we are not people of knowledge or understanding, but ordinary, common people. Well, we want to know what is right and what is wrong in this. If we follow this one, he tells you, "But the other one said this is wrong," and you do not know what to do. So, what is your opinion regarding the disagreement among scholars on a specific issue, one that may concern the general Muslim public?

The Shaykh : Like this issue.

The questioner : Like this issue.

The Shaykh : The reason for the problem arising is that the general Muslim public does not have the impact of this word we hear often in the present age, especially in these lands. What is this word? "Awareness." The public does not have awareness or general knowledge about the cause of the disagreement in the first place, nor do they have awareness of what their stance should be regarding this disagreement. Many of them say—as it comes in the weak hadith—"The disagreement of my Ummah is a mercy." They accept the disagreement no matter how severe or extensive it is. A few of them want to eliminate the disagreement radically, so that the scholars become, from one evening to the next, in agreement on one opinion in all the issues in which the jurists differed in the past. This is an impossible matter, for Allah (Mighty and Majestic), by His perfect wisdom, has decreed, and there is no turning back from His decree. He said (Mighty and Majestic): .
And disagreement is of two types: the first is disagreement of mutual compassion and understanding. The other is disagreement of conflict, contradiction, and hostility.
The first is unavoidable, and it was the state of our righteous predecessors. They differed, but they were not hostile or divided because of the disagreement. As you heard from the previous verse: . If our righteous predecessors, led by the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), differed, then there is no room for a group, an era, or a century not to differ. However, what sufficed the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when they differed should suffice them: not to be hostile and not to hate one another. This disagreement is necessary. It is obligatory for the general Muslim public to know this and not to be surprised by any disagreement they hear between one scholar and another, because this is part of the nature of humans upon which Allah has stamped them, as was previously indicated in the previous verse. Since that is the case, what should the general Muslim public do when they see such disagreement? Here is the crux of my speech when I said that there is no awareness or general culture. The general Muslim public, until about a quarter of a century ago, lived in narrow sectarianism. Every individual among the millions of Muslims was content with his own school of jurisprudence; this one is a Hanafi, that one is a Shafi'i, and so on. But now, praise be to Allah, the principles of the awakening have appeared. I do not say the awakening has appeared; I say the principles of the awakening have appeared. So be aware of things that those before you were not aware of. But this awareness needs completion. This completion is what I am about to explain a part of, and it is that you, O Muslim, no matter how strong or weak your knowledge of the Islamic Shari'ah is, if you hear a disagreement between two scholars, pause for a moment. Look to see if each of the two who are said to be scholars is actually a person of knowledge. There may be a student of knowledge who is thought to be among the scholars, and he says something that contradicts the scholars, so the issue becomes one of disagreement among scholars. No. If it is established, for example, after this observation that there is a disagreement between two eminent scholars, then the following caution applies: If you are able to distinguish between one piece of evidence and another, then you must know the evidence of each of the two scholars and be reassured by the stronger evidence. I mean that even the general public must strive to understand, but this striving differs from person to person. How does one strive, for example, if he is an ordinary person?
I say: His striving is as follows: He hears a fatwa from one scholar that contradicts the fatwa of the other. So he must not stop at the fatwa. Here, many and very many scenarios appear. You asked one of them for evidence, and he said to you, "This is my opinion, this is my independent reasoning, or this is my school of jurisprudence." And you asked the other for evidence, and he said to you, for example, "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said, the Salaf said," and so on. As Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said, *** The Companions said, not by deception
"What knowledge has elevated you to the foolishness of disagreement? Between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist."
If you follow this methodology in trying to identify the evidence, the difference between the two opinions will become clear to you. I told you: One says, "This is my opinion, this is my independent reasoning, this is my school of jurisprudence." This happens sometimes. The other provides you with evidence from either the Book, or the Sunnah, or the practice of the righteous Salaf. At that time, you will find yourself inclined toward the opinion and independent reasoning of this scholar, and you will not pay attention to the opinion of the first scholar. And then the difficulty will be removed from you. This is one scenario, and it is very clear. And if we assume that each of the two scholars provided evidence, as happened recently atThe Shaykh : al-Banna. I think some of you were present when we discussed with one of the distinguished professors the recitation of al-Fatihah behind the imam in the loud prayers. The listeners hear, and one should take what the soul is reassured by, whether the truth is with Zayd or with 'Amr. The important thing is not to be one who follows desires and one who has an ulterior motive, and not to be as it came in a report attributed to the Prophet and stopped at a Companion—and the stronger position is that it stops at a Companion—and it is from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "Do not be imitators, saying: If the people do good, we do good, and if they do evil, we do evil. But rather, resolve in your hearts: If they do good, do good, and if they do evil, do not do evil." So it is obligatory for the general Muslim public to resolve in their hearts to know with whom the truth is, and then to follow it, each within the limits of his culture, intellect, and understanding. And Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear.
In summary: Disagreement cannot be eliminated. It existed in the time of the Messenger, and it has continued to this day. So do not seek the impossible. And since that is the case, what is the position of the general public? Their position, as I explained earlier, is to seek the truth. In that case, their status is like that of the mujtahids: If they hit the mark, they have two rewards, and if they miss, they have one reward. The important thing is that they not be people of desire and ulterior motive. And Allah is sufficient.
Please. And peace be upon you.