The Ruling on Responding to the Statements of Those Who Disagree in Matters
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
What is your opinion regarding a student of knowledge when he encounters scholarly disagreement on a specific issue, especially if it is a practical matter he performs daily? For example, if he follows one of the opinions, what is your opinion regarding his discussion of the other opinions, particularly since major scholars have held those other opinions? He does not address those scholars themselves, but rather addresses the opinion and the action itself, without speaking about the scholars.And he says: He says, for instance, that a certain scholar holds such-and-such a view, but he only addresses the specific action, saying: Is there such-and-such in this specific action?
In any case, the weaker position must be clarified. Then, he clarifies the stronger position according to him and presents its evidence. Then, he clarifies the weaker position, mentions its evidence, and refutes it. This is because if you wish to prefer one opinion, you are required to present evidence. Then, regarding the weaker position, you mention its evidence and refute it. This applies to the scholar who derives rulings and exercises independent legal reasoning. As for the layperson or the junior student of knowledge, it is obligatory for him to follow what he considers to be the correct opinion and to follow that.
The questioner: But, O Shaykh, this person is speaking about the statement of the other opinion. He followed the Shaykh: he does not contradict.For example: Regarding prohibition and permissibility, if he follows the opinion of prohibition, for example, he does not contradict. If he is a scholar qualified to derive rulings and has researched the evidence and found that it indicates permissibility, then let him hold the opinion of permissibility.Then he says: And whoever holds the opinion of prohibition has cited such-and-such as evidence, and his response is such-and-such, in order to complete the discussion of the issue.
In any case, the weaker position must be clarified. Then, he clarifies the stronger position according to him and presents its evidence. Then, he clarifies the weaker position, mentions its evidence, and refutes it. This is because if you wish to prefer one opinion, you are required to present evidence. Then, regarding the weaker position, you mention its evidence and refute it. This applies to the scholar who derives rulings and exercises independent legal reasoning. As for the layperson or the junior student of knowledge, it is obligatory for him to follow what he considers to be the correct opinion and to follow that.
The questioner: But, O Shaykh, this person is speaking about the statement of the other opinion. He followed the Shaykh: he does not contradict.For example: Regarding prohibition and permissibility, if he follows the opinion of prohibition, for example, he does not contradict. If he is a scholar qualified to derive rulings and has researched the evidence and found that it indicates permissibility, then let him hold the opinion of permissibility.Then he says: And whoever holds the opinion of prohibition has cited such-and-such as evidence, and his response is such-and-such, in order to complete the discussion of the issue.