Is there no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed?

This principle which some people speak of, that “there is no
denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed,”
is not correct, and the correct view is that “there is no denunciation with
regard to matters that are subject to ijtihaad.” To explain that, we have to
know that the matters concerning which the scholars differed are of two
types.  

1 – There are issues for which the ruling has been clearly
stated in the Holy Qur’aan or the saheeh Sunnah with no opposing text, or it
is narrated that there was scholarly consensus, although some later scholars
held odd views and went against that consensus, or the ruling was derived by
means of clear and unambiguous analogy. In these cases, the one who goes
against the evidence is to be denounced. 

There are many examples of this kind of issue, such as: 

1.    
Denying the attributes of
Allaah by which He praised Himself, or His Messenger (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) described Him, under the guise of ta’weel
(“interpretation”), which in fact is a distortion of the texts of the
Qur’aan and Sunnah.

2.    
Denying some of the true events
which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said will
happen on the Day of Resurrection, such as the Balance and the Siraat
(bridge over Hell).

3.    
What some contemporary scholars
say about it being permissible to take interest on money deposited in the
bank even though this is the essence of riba which Allaah and His Messenger
have forbidden.

4.    
Saying that nikaah al-tahleel
(marriage to a divorced woman with the aim of divorcing her in order to make
her permissible for her first husband) is halaal. This is a false view
because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed
the one who enters into such a marriage and the one for whom it is done.

5.    
Saying that it is permissible
to listen to musical instruments. This is a reprehensible view, and there is
a great deal of evidence from the Qur’aan, Sunnah and opinions of the salaf
(early generation) which indicates that it is false. Hence the four imams
were unanimously agreed that it is haraam.

6.    
Saying that the one who enters
the mosque on Friday when the imam is giving the khutbah should sit down and
listen to the khutbah and not pray tahiyyat al-masjid (two rak’ahs to “greet
the mosque”).

7.    
Saying that it is not mustahabb
to raise the hands during prayer when saying takbeer for bowing and when
rising from bowing and when standing up for the second rak’ah.

8.    
Saying that it is not mustahabb
to offer the prayer for rain (istisqa’). It is proven in al-Saheehayn
and elsewhere that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) did that with a group of his companions.

9.    
Saying that it is not mustahabb
to fast six days of Shawwaal after Ramadaan. 

In these and similar cases where there is a text that clearly
explains the ruling, the one who goes against that is to be denounced. The
Sahaabah and those who came after them continued to denounce the one who
went against sound evidence, even if that was based on ijtihaad. 

2 – The second type of issue is that for which there is no
clear evidence on the ruling in the Qur’aan, Sunnah, scholarly consensus or
clear analogy. 

Or there is evidence for the ruling in the Sunnah, but there
is some dispute as to whether it is saheeh, or it does not clearly define
the ruling, rather it is subject to different interpretations. 

Or there are texts concerning it which appear to contradict
one another. 

These issues require a kind of ijtihaad and study in order to
find out the ruling. Examples of this kind of issue include the following: 

1.    
The difference of opinion as to
whether the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw his
Lord in this world.

2.    
The difference of opinion as to
whether the dead can hear the words of the living.

3.    
Whether wudoo’ is invalidated
by touching one’s penis or touching a woman or eating camel meat.

4.    
Reciting Qunoot in Fajr every
day.

5.    
Reciting Qunoot in Witr prayer
– is it done before bowing or after? 

In these and similar cases where there is no clear text to
explain the ruling, the one who does something different is not to be
denounced, so long as he is following one of the imams and thinks that his
view is correct. But it is not permissible for anyone to follow the
scholarly view that coincides with his whims and desires, because by doing
that one may be combining all kinds of evil. 

Not denouncing the one who acts differently in such cases
does not mean that we should not examine or debate the matter and explain
which view is more likely to be correct, based on the evidence. Rather the
scholars, past and present, have held gatherings to debate and discuss such
issues and the one who recognizes the truth must follow it.  

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him)
said: With regard to matters of ijtihaad, they are not to be denounced by
force, and no one has the right to force the people to follow him with
regard to them, but he may speak of them on the basis of evidence. Whoever
thinks that one of the two views is correct should follow it, and whoever
follows those who favour the other view should not be denounced. 

End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (30/80). 

There follow some scholarly views which support what we have
said above about this categorization: 

1 – Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on
him) said:  

The view that there is no denunciation in matters where there
is a difference of scholarly opinion is not correct, as denunciation is
aimed either at the ruling issued by someone or at actions (that go against
the Sunnah).                                   

With regard to the former, if a ruling goes against the
Sunnah or ancient consensus then it must be denounced according to all
scholars. If that is not the case then it must be denounced in the sense
that its weakness must be pointed out. This is the view of those who say
there can only be one correct ruling, and this is the view of most of the
salaf and the fuqaha’.

 With regard to actions, if they go against Sunnah or
consensus then they must also be denounced, according to the degrees of
denunciation.  

But if there is no Sunnah or consensus concerning the matter
and ijtihaad is valid in this case, then the one who acts on the basis of
ijtihaad, whether he is a mujtahid or is following a mujtahid, is not to be
denounced. 

Rather this confusion arose because of the idea that issues
concerning which the scholars differed are issues of ijtihaad, as some
people think. The correct view, which is that held by the imams, is that
issues of ijtihaad are those for which there is no evidence that must
clearly be followed, such as a saheeh hadeeth which is not contradicted by a
hadeeth of similar strength. In the absence of such evidence, ijtihaad is
valid because there is contradictory evidence or the evidence is not clear
at all. End quote  

Bayaan al-Daleel ‘ala Batlaan al-Tahleel
(p. 210-211). 

He also said: 

With regard to matters of ijtihaad, the one who follows one
of the scholars in such matters is not to be denounced or forsaken. The one
who follows one of the two opinions is not to be denounced. End quote from
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (20/207). 

2 – Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

Their view that there is no denunciation with regard to
matters concerning which the scholars differed is not valid … then he quoted
the words of Shaykh al-Islam that we have quoted above, then he said: 

How can a faqeeh say that there is no denunciation with
regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed, when the fuqaha’
of all groups have clearly stated that the ruling of a judge is invalid if
it goes against a verse of the Qur’aan or a Sunnah, even if some of the
scholars agree with it? But if there is no Sunnah or consensus regarding an
issue, then ijtihaad is permissible and the one who acts on the basis of
ijtihaad, whether he is a mujtahid or is following a mujtahid, is not to be
denounced.  

There are many issues concerning which the earlier and later
generations differed but we are certain that one of the two views concerning
them is correct, such as the view that the pregnant woman’s ‘iddah ends when
she gives birth, or that consummation of marriage with the second husband is
a condition of a woman becoming permissible for her first husband (following
divorce from the second), or that ghusl becomes necessary when penetration
takes place even if there is no ejaculation, or that riba al-fadl (a type of
usury) is haraam, or that mut’ah marriage is haraam, or that nabeedh (a
drink made from dates) that causes intoxication is haraam, or that a Muslim
cannot be killed in retaliation for a kaafir, or that wiping over the socks
is permissible whether one is travelling or not, or that the Sunnah when
bowing is to place the hands on the knees, not hold them together between
the thighs, and that raising the hand when bowing and when rising from
bowing is Sunnah, or that pre-emption is permitted with regard to buying
land or property, or that waqf (endowment) is valid and is binding, or that
the diyah for all fingers and toes is the same, or that the hand of the
thief is to be cut off for three dirhams, or that an iron ring is valid as a
dowry, or that doing tayammum up to the wrist with one pat is permissible,
or that the heir’s fasting on behalf of the deceased is acceptable, or that
the pilgrim should recite the talbiyah until he stones Jamarat al-‘Aqabah,
or that the muhrim may continue to wear perfume without applying it anew, or
that the Sunnah is to say salaam in prayer to the right and the left by
saying al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat-Allaah, al-salaamu ‘alaykum
wa rahmat-Allaah, or that the option of cancelling a deal remains until
the two parties separate, or when a camel or sheep is retuned after having
milked it, with a saa’ of dates must be given in return for the milk, or
that there are two bowings in each rak’ah of the eclipse prayer, or that
judgement is permissible with a witness and an oath,  etc. And there are
many more such issues. Hence the imams stated that the rulings of those who
issued different rulings in many of these issues are invalid, without
impugning on a personal level those who held those opinions. 

Whatever the case, there will be no excuse before Allaah on
the Day of Resurrection for those who heard ahaadeeth and reports concerning
the issue in which there were no contradictions, if he ignored them. End
quote. 

I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een
(3/300-301). 

3 – Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi said: No one should denounce
anyone for following his madhhab, for there is no denunciation with regard
to issues that are subject to ijtihaad. End quote from al-Adaab
al-Shar’iyyah by Ibn Muflih (1/186). 

4 – al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim (1/186): 

The scholars said: The mufti and the qaadi have no right to
object to the one who differs from them so long as he is not going against a
text, scholarly consensus or clear analogy. End quote. 

5 – Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said: … If the one
whosaid this was referring to issues of dispute, this is invalid and goes
against the consensus of the ummah. The Sahaabah and those who came after
them continued to denounce those who held views (contrary to the evidence)
and made mistakes, no matter who they were, even if they were the most
knowledgeable and pious of the people. Allaah sent Muhammad with guidance
and true religion, and He commanded us to follow him and to forsake that
which goes against that. Part of following him means that if a scholar goes
against that by mistake, his error must be pointed out and he must be
denounced. If what it meant by matters of ijtihaad is matters concerning
which the scholars differed and for which the correct view is not clear,
then this is a valid point, and it is not permissible for anyone to denounce
something that differs from his madhhab or the people’s customs. As it is
not permissible for anyone to enjoin anything without knowledge, by the same
token it is not permissible for anyone to denounce anything without
knowledge. All of this is included in the verse in which Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning): “And follow not (O man, i.e., say not,
or do not, or witness not) that of which you have no knowledge” [al-Isra’
17:36].   End quote from al-Durar al-Saniyyah (4/8). 

6 – al-Shawkaani said: 

This view – that there is no denunciation with regard to
matters concerning which the scholars differed – has become the greatest
means of preventing the enjoining of what is good and the forbidding of what
is evil, which are of a high status as you know.  It been enjoined and made
obligatory upon this ummah by Allaah and His Messenger (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) to enjoin that which is good according to
sharee’ah and forbid that which is evil according to sharee’ah, and the
measure of that is the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Every Muslim should enjoin that
which he finds is regarded as good in both or either of them, and he should
forbid that which he finds is regarded as evil in both or either of them.  

If any scholar says something that differs from that, then
his words are to be rejected and he is to be denounced, as is the one who
follows his view. 

Secondly: 

This noble sharee’ah, in which we are commanded to enjoin
that which it describes as good and denounce that which it describes as
evil, is that which is found in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. End quote from
al-Sayl al-Jaraar (4/588). 

7 – Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him)
said, refuting those who said that there is no denunciation with regard to
matters concerning which the scholars differed: 

If we were to say that there is no denunciation at all with
regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed, then the entire
religion would be lost because of people seeking easy options, because you
can hardly find any issue in which there is no difference of opinion among
people. 

Matters concerning which the scholars differed fall into two
categories. (The first category is) matters of ijtihaad in which differences
of opinion are valid, in the sense that is a good reason for these
differences of opinion. In this case the mujtahid is not to be denounced,
and the ordinary Muslims are obliged to follow what the scholars of their
country say, so that the masses will not be left in confusion, because if we
were to say to the ordinary Muslim: Follow whichever opinion you like, then
the community would be disunited. Hence our Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Sa’di
(may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The common folk should follow the
madhhab of their scholars. 

The second category is matters concerning which differences
of opinion are not valid and there is no room for ijtihaad. In this case the
one who holds a different view is to be denounced because he has no excuse.
End quote from Liqa’ al-baab il-Maftooh (49/192-193). 

And Allaah knows best. 

See Hukm al-Inkaar fi Masaa’il al-Khilaaf by Dr. Fadl
Ilaahi Zaheer.