Denial in Matters of Scholarly Disagreement
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
If you see a person doing something on which scholars have differing opinions, is it permissible to deny him?For example: If I see a person praying behind the rows, and I, for example, hold that praying behind the rows alone is invalid, should I deny him, or should I leave alone these matters in which there is disagreement?
There is a difference between denial and discussion. One does not deny anyone in matters of scholarly disagreement where independent legal reasoning is permissible, especially if it becomes clear to you, or if you are strongly inclined to believe, that he is a student of knowledge. As for the layperson, he does this act neither through independent legal reasoning nor by following a specific scholar, especially if he is in a country where they do not know anything but one opinion.The layperson is denied, and it is said: Why are you praying behind the rows when the row is not complete? As for the student of knowledge, he asks and discusses. Then, if the truth is found to be with him, he must be affirmed in his action. If the truth is found to be contrary to his opinion, the truth is explained to him, and the one to whom the truth becomes clear must follow it, whether he was previously adhering to it or not; because the truth is the believer’s lost property, and whenever he finds it, he takes it.
And if the layperson followed the opinion of a scholar, we say: For example, our school of jurisprudence is currently the school of Imam Ahmad. However, the school has actually become unreliable in every respect, because we have found prominent scholars issuing rulings contrary to the school. If their opinion becomes well-known in the lands, the layperson acts according to their opinion; because the layperson cannot perform independent legal reasoning himself.And we cannot open the door for him and say: Follow whichever scholar you wish from the East or the West.
This is not correct. However, if a scholar becomes prominent in his country, he becomes his role model.
There is a difference between denial and discussion. One does not deny anyone in matters of scholarly disagreement where independent legal reasoning is permissible, especially if it becomes clear to you, or if you are strongly inclined to believe, that he is a student of knowledge. As for the layperson, he does this act neither through independent legal reasoning nor by following a specific scholar, especially if he is in a country where they do not know anything but one opinion.The layperson is denied, and it is said: Why are you praying behind the rows when the row is not complete? As for the student of knowledge, he asks and discusses. Then, if the truth is found to be with him, he must be affirmed in his action. If the truth is found to be contrary to his opinion, the truth is explained to him, and the one to whom the truth becomes clear must follow it, whether he was previously adhering to it or not; because the truth is the believer’s lost property, and whenever he finds it, he takes it.
And if the layperson followed the opinion of a scholar, we say: For example, our school of jurisprudence is currently the school of Imam Ahmad. However, the school has actually become unreliable in every respect, because we have found prominent scholars issuing rulings contrary to the school. If their opinion becomes well-known in the lands, the layperson acts according to their opinion; because the layperson cannot perform independent legal reasoning himself.And we cannot open the door for him and say: Follow whichever scholar you wish from the East or the West.
This is not correct. However, if a scholar becomes prominent in his country, he becomes his role model.