What are the types of disagreement?

The Shaykh : So, when we want to answer a question like this, we must remember that disagreement is of two types: blameworthy disagreement and non-blameworthy disagreement. I do not say "praiseworthy." We must also be precise in our understanding and expression. If the disagreement is a difference in understanding, it is non-blameworthy, whether it is in creed or in the principles according to the mentioned terminology, or in the branches. This type of disagreement is not harmful at all, as long as the reason for it is the difference in people's understanding of the texts. However, if the disagreement is driven by partisanship, grouping, and fanaticism, it is detestable and blameworthy, whether it is in the branches or in the principles. So, the intended disagreement, which its proponents do not try to escape from, is entirely blameworthy, in both branches and principles, and the reverse is the reverse. Disagreement in what they call principles and branches, without fanaticism and without partisanship, arising only due to differences in understanding, is permissible in Islam based on the great established rule in it: If we return to the example raised in the context of the question, that the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) differed on whether the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saw his Lord on the night of the Ascension or did not see Him, indeed they differed. Some people assume, and here comes the point we mentioned earlier: there is no harm in people agreeing on some terms, but on the condition that they do not build rulings on these terms that are rulings contrary to the Shari'ah. Here, some people say we cannot say that the vision of Allah, in which the Companions of the Messenger differed, let alone those after them, is a branch issue or a ruling issue, but rather it is a creedal principle issue. So why does the question arise here, from which this question was directed? Why do you reject the Maturidiyyah and the Asha'irah? Because they adopted creeds or principles that contradict what the righteous Salaf did, and the righteous Salaf themselves differed on some of these principles and some of these creeds. The disagreement, in the claim of those who divided the Shari'ah into principles and branches, is that they say disagreement is only permissible in the branches, not in the principles. But in reality, they collide with reality and see that the Companions differed not only in the branches but also in the principles. They used this as an opportunity to build on it the rejection of those who reject those who contradict the Salaf in their understanding of some verses related generally to matters of the unseen, including the issue of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) seeing his Lord on the night of the Ascension, and including: So we say, just as we reject disagreement in these matters they call principles and creeds, there is no difference for us; we reject this disagreement, just as we reject their disagreement in their fanaticism to their saying "this prayer is valid," while those say "it is invalid," "this wudu' is valid," and others say "it is not valid," and so on. Everything that contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, we reject it and return to the Book and the Sunnah, along with returning to what the righteous Salaf were upon. This is because they were the purest and cleanest of people in hearts and the most pure in understanding, among other known qualities in them, such as being the closest in time to the Qur'an and the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So, the summary of the answer is that it is wrong to distinguish between one issue and another, claiming this is from the principles and this is from the branches. As long as the Companions differed in the principles, it is permissible for us to differ in the principles. Our answer is: if the disagreement in the principles arises from a specific understanding, and not from fanaticism to a specific creed or a specific school, then it is permissible. From this category, the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) differed on that issue mentionedThe questioner : as an example, which is: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) see his Lord? Some said he saw Him, and some said he did not see Him. But what do these people intend when they say, "As long as the Companions differed in the principles, in their expression, so why do you reject disagreement with us, the later generations, on the pretext that this is only a disagreement in the principles?" We say: We reject it not because it is a disagreement in the principles alone, but we reject all disagreement as long as it has become a followed school, whether it is in the principles or in the branches. We approve of disagreement that comes from sincerity and from the effort to understand the text from the Book and the Sunnah, with a correct understanding, and yet the concepts differed. We approve of this and do not reject it. The meaning of our approval is that we do not take those who differ from our opinion in this issue, which they call from the creeds, as enemies and opponents to us, because they contradicted us through their ijtihad. But we reject sectarian fanaticism in general, whether this fanaticism is related to the principles or the branches. I think this is the answer to your question.