Denial in Matters of Scholarly Disagreement
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
His Eminence the Shaykh: Is it permissible to rebuke a woman who uncovers her face, or is this a matter of scholarly disagreement, and in matters of disagreement there is no rebuke?
If we said: In matters of scholarly disagreement, there is absolutely no rebuke, otherwise the entire religion would be lost; because you hardly find a matter in which there is no disagreement among the scholars.We give an example: A man touched a woman with desire, and ate camel meat, then stood up to pray.And he said: I follow Imam Ahmad in that touching a woman does not invalidate the ablution, and I follow al-Shafi'i in that camel meat does not invalidate the ablution, and I will pray in this state. Is his prayer now valid according to both schools? It is not valid; because if it is not invalid according to the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, it is invalid according to the school of al-Shafi'i, and if it is not invalid according to the school of Imam al-Shafi'i, it is invalid according to the school of Imam Ahmad; so the person's religion is lost.
And matters of disagreement are divided into two categories: The first category: those that are matters of independent legal reasoning where disagreement is permissible;Meaning: That the disagreement is truly established and has a basis for consideration, so there is no rebuke for the scholar qualified to derive rulings in these. As for the general public, they are bound by what the scholars of their country hold; so that the general public do not become unruly;Because if we said to the layperson: Any opinion that passes you by, you may adopt it. The Ummah was not one Ummah. For this reason, our Shaykh, Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), said: The general public follow the school of their scholars.
For example: Here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is obligatory for a woman to cover her face, so we bind our women to this.Even if a woman said to us: I will follow such-and-such a school, and uncovering the face is permissible in it.We said: You do not have the right to do that; because you are a layperson who has not reached the level of independent legal reasoning, and you only want to follow this school because it is a dispensation, and following dispensations is forbidden.
However, if a scholar among the scholars whose independent legal reasoning led him to conclude that there is no blame on a woman for uncovering her face,And he says: If my wife, I will let her uncover her face.
We said: There is nothing wrong with that, but he should not let her uncover her face in a country where faces are covered. This is prohibited; because it corrupts others, and because there is agreement in this matter that covering the face is preferable. So if covering the face is preferable, then when we bind him to it, we are not binding him to what is forbidden in his school, but rather to what is preferable in his school. And for another reason, which is that others from the people of this conservative country do not imitate him, so that division and fragmentation of the word does not result from it.
However, if he goes to his own country, we do not bind him to our opinion, as long as the matter is one of independent legal reasoning and subject to some consideration of the evidence and preference among them.
The second category of the two categories of disagreement: There is no room for it and no place for independent legal reasoning in it, so the one who disagrees with it is rebuked; because he has no excuse.
If we said: In matters of scholarly disagreement, there is absolutely no rebuke, otherwise the entire religion would be lost; because you hardly find a matter in which there is no disagreement among the scholars.We give an example: A man touched a woman with desire, and ate camel meat, then stood up to pray.And he said: I follow Imam Ahmad in that touching a woman does not invalidate the ablution, and I follow al-Shafi'i in that camel meat does not invalidate the ablution, and I will pray in this state. Is his prayer now valid according to both schools? It is not valid; because if it is not invalid according to the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, it is invalid according to the school of al-Shafi'i, and if it is not invalid according to the school of Imam al-Shafi'i, it is invalid according to the school of Imam Ahmad; so the person's religion is lost.
And matters of disagreement are divided into two categories: The first category: those that are matters of independent legal reasoning where disagreement is permissible;Meaning: That the disagreement is truly established and has a basis for consideration, so there is no rebuke for the scholar qualified to derive rulings in these. As for the general public, they are bound by what the scholars of their country hold; so that the general public do not become unruly;Because if we said to the layperson: Any opinion that passes you by, you may adopt it. The Ummah was not one Ummah. For this reason, our Shaykh, Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), said: The general public follow the school of their scholars.
For example: Here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is obligatory for a woman to cover her face, so we bind our women to this.Even if a woman said to us: I will follow such-and-such a school, and uncovering the face is permissible in it.We said: You do not have the right to do that; because you are a layperson who has not reached the level of independent legal reasoning, and you only want to follow this school because it is a dispensation, and following dispensations is forbidden.
However, if a scholar among the scholars whose independent legal reasoning led him to conclude that there is no blame on a woman for uncovering her face,And he says: If my wife, I will let her uncover her face.
We said: There is nothing wrong with that, but he should not let her uncover her face in a country where faces are covered. This is prohibited; because it corrupts others, and because there is agreement in this matter that covering the face is preferable. So if covering the face is preferable, then when we bind him to it, we are not binding him to what is forbidden in his school, but rather to what is preferable in his school. And for another reason, which is that others from the people of this conservative country do not imitate him, so that division and fragmentation of the word does not result from it.
However, if he goes to his own country, we do not bind him to our opinion, as long as the matter is one of independent legal reasoning and subject to some consideration of the evidence and preference among them.
The second category of the two categories of disagreement: There is no room for it and no place for independent legal reasoning in it, so the one who disagrees with it is rebuked; because he has no excuse.