Is it permissible to rebuke others in matters of scholarly disagreement where independent legal reasoning is allowed, such as a person praying alone behind the row?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. If you see a person doing something in which scholars have differing opinions, is it permissible for me to rebuke him?
For example, if I see a person praying behind the row, and I believe that praying behind the row!
The Shaykh : Alone?
The questioner : Alone, behind the row alone. Do I rebuke him, or do I leave alone these matters in which there is disagreement?
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a difference between rebuking and discussing. You do not rebuke anyone in matters of scholarly disagreement where independent legal reasoning is allowed, especially if it becomes clear to you, or if you are convinced, that he is a student of knowledge. As for the layperson, he does this not out of independent legal reasoning nor out of following a specific scholar, especially if he is in a country where they do not know anything but one opinion. So the layperson is rebuked, and it is said to him: Why are you praying behind the row when the row is not complete? As for the student of knowledge, he is asked and discussed with. Then, if it becomes clear that the truth is with him, he must be left to continue his action. And if it becomes clear that the truth is contrary to his opinion, the truth is explained to him.
And upon the one to whom the truth becomes clear, it is obligatory to follow it, whether he initially adopted it or did not, because the truth is the believer’s lost property; whenever he finds it, he takes it.
The questioner : What if the layperson is following the opinion of one of the scholars?
The Shaykh : The layperson, may Allah bless you. Especially in our case, for example, our current school of jurisprudence is the school of Imam Ahmad. However, the school has actually ceased to be practiced in every respect, because prominent scholars have been found issuing rulings contrary to the school. So 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 it is not possible to open the door for him and say, “Follow whichever scholar you wish from the East and the West.” That is not correct. But if a scholar becomes prominent in his country, he becomes their role model. Yes, that is right.
For example, if I see a person praying behind the row, and I believe that praying behind the row!
The Shaykh : Alone?
The questioner : Alone, behind the row alone. Do I rebuke him, or do I leave alone these matters in which there is disagreement?
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a difference between rebuking and discussing. You do not rebuke anyone in matters of scholarly disagreement where independent legal reasoning is allowed, especially if it becomes clear to you, or if you are convinced, that he is a student of knowledge. As for the layperson, he does this not out of independent legal reasoning nor out of following a specific scholar, especially if he is in a country where they do not know anything but one opinion. So the layperson is rebuked, and it is said to him: Why are you praying behind the row when the row is not complete? As for the student of knowledge, he is asked and discussed with. Then, if it becomes clear that the truth is with him, he must be left to continue his action. And if it becomes clear that the truth is contrary to his opinion, the truth is explained to him.
And upon the one to whom the truth becomes clear, it is obligatory to follow it, whether he initially adopted it or did not, because the truth is the believer’s lost property; whenever he finds it, he takes it.
The questioner : What if the layperson is following the opinion of one of the scholars?
The Shaykh : The layperson, may Allah bless you. Especially in our case, for example, our current school of jurisprudence is the school of Imam Ahmad. However, the school has actually ceased to be practiced in every respect, because prominent scholars have been found issuing rulings contrary to the school. So 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 it is not possible to open the door for him and say, “Follow whichever scholar you wish from the East and the West.” That is not correct. But if a scholar becomes prominent in his country, he becomes their role model. Yes, that is right.