Differing is of different types and not every type of differing is permissible, even in Fiqh

Answered by our Shaykh, the ‘Allaamah, the Sincere Advisor, Abu ‘Abdirrahman Yahya bin ‘Ali Al-Hajoori – may Allaah preserve him


What is the correctness of the statement of some of the people: “Differences of opinion do not upset good relations”?


This is not upon its absolute, from the types of iktilaaf (differing) is in that which is Iktilaaf-fahm (differing in understanding), this one understands something and that one understands from the proof something else, both do not contradict the truth, upon this and it’s like is what this [statement] is applicable to, this resembles the statement: “should we not remain brothers while we have differed?”
Both of these statements are from this angle.

I -for example- see the tahiyatul-masjid obligatory, and you don’t see it to be obligatory, or I see the lack of counting the unit of prayer where the one in the congregation has reached the prayer past the faatihah and hasn’t read the fatihah, and you see it to count upon the position of the Majority…. the likes of this.

Similar to you seeing that a person returns his hands back on his chest after returning to standing from the rukuu’ and your brother does not see this.

And what resembles this, that which has room for ijtihaad, the Imaams differed in these affairs and there was not any disharmony from one to the other, at all, rather Imaam Shaafi’ee and Imaam Ahmed would honour each other greatly, while they had this type of differing in their positions, if they would’ve agreed with each other (in all places), they wouldn’t have had their own separate respective madhab, and the reality is, if you found with your brother that which is correct, you take it, this is the genuine brotherhood.

As for what relates to, iktilaaf (differing) not necessitating or not needing to lead to splitting, upon its absolute, then this statement is falsehood, from the types of differing is that which necessitates boycotting and distancing and warning of his perpetrator, like those that differ with us in regards to the attributes of Allah, and see that the attributes of Allah are to be negated, and that Allah is not attributed with that attribution, while the proofs are affirmed for this, similarly those that oppose in Masaail Al-Fiqhiyyah (fiqhi subjects) and oppose that which is correct, the opposer to that which is correct, it is said to him: Mukhti (wrong-mistaken) and he is warned from, regardless if it was in ‘Aqeedah or in other than it, those that limit the ikhtilaafut-tudaad (differing of opposition/contradiction) only to what relates to ‘Aqeedah are considered wrongful, rather ikhtilaafut-tudaad (differing of opposition/contradiction) is in ‘Aqeedah and in Prayer, and in Fasting, and in Hajj, in all of the religion, if an individual opposes that which is correct in any of these affairs it is considered the ikhtilaafut-tudaad (differing of opposition/contradiction), the meaning of “tudaad” is opposition/contradiction to the truth.

So he who performs the Adhaan before its time, this is opposing/contradicting the truth, the examples of this are many.

Upon this, generalizing this statement is not correct, if something was to occur of differing between a person and his brother in an affair and both have a salaf, then there is no harm in this.

Some sisters had some observations on me, in the affair of the obligation of being dutiful to ones husband, and they brought some statements of some Imaams as evidence, in these likes of affairs each have their position, if they were to write a treatise in this, I would have given her an introduction, and I don’t constrict upon any of our brothers, men and women in the likes of these affairs, from speaking with a statement where there is a salaf, and there are proofs for it, that which is important is, that the truth is not opposed, I don’t mean that a woman is not dutiful to her husband and that it contains belittlement or debasement in regards to women, no by Allah, but I said what I saw (to be correct), rather this raises her in status regardless if she believed it to be obligatory or not, it still leads to it (her being dutiful).

I don’t know of any woman that says: “I don’t agree to being dutiful to you, only what relates the marital relations is obligated upon me”, the rest of the affairs like what relates to bread, food, washing, she does not see it obligatory upon her.

I have not come to the knowledge of a woman upon this opinion ever, regardless if she saw being dutiful to be obligatory or not, this is what completes the basis of marital life, if the husband was to come and she didn’t prepare him some food, it could probably result in arguments, and what leads to impermissible is likewise impermissible.

(4) الكنز الثمين في الإجابة على أسئلة طلبة العلم والزائرين
Under the chapter:
قضايا دعوية

Translated by:
Abu ‘Abdirrahman ‘Abdullaah bin Ahmed Ash-Shingaani

Click on the link to subscribe:

Click on the link for Arabic: