Tolerated Differing and Impermissible Differing in

Islam: The Great Imāms of Sunnah did not declare

those who differed with them in the affairs of
permissible ijtihād to be astray and they did not make
binding upon others their own opinions.
abukhadeejah.com/tolerated-differing-and-impermissible-differing-in-islaam

Abu Khadeejah Abdul-Wahid 27 November 2013

Tolerated Differing and Impermissible Differing in Islaam

IMPORTANT Principles of Ahlus-Sunnah
ARTICLE CONTENTS
1. The Great Imaams of Sunnah did not declare those who differed with them in the
affairs of permissible ijtihaad to be astray and they did not make binding upon others
their own juristic opinions.

2. Why would one person differ with another over a position of genuine ijtihaad?

3. Holding on to a position in ijtihaad firmly is allowable but vilification of one who holds
the opposing opinion is not correct!

4. The Scholars have differed from the earliest of times, even the Sahaabah but they
were united in the fundamanetals: The usool and the ‘aqeedah.

5. The student of knowledge, the one who has ability must seek out the truth when the
scholars differ!

6. The student of knowledge does not precede the scholars and he prefers the opinions
of the scholars over his own. And precedence is given to the elder scholars.

7. The difference between the refutation of Ahlul-Sunnah upon Ahlus-Sunnah and the
refutation of Ahlus-Sunnah upon Ahlul-Bid’ah.

1/13
 -1-
The Great Imaams of Sunnah did not Declare those who Differed with them in the
Affairs of Permissible Ijtihaad to be Astray and they did not make Binding upon them
their own Juristic Opinions

Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) stated:

“And there is no one from the Imaams except that he has sayings and actions that are not
to be followed alongside the fact that he not to be vilified or debased due to them..”

The great Imaams of this era, the likes of Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Baaz and Imaam al-
Albaanee and al-Faqeehul-Allaamah Ibn Uthaimeen (rahimahumullaah) did not regard
the affairs of ijtihaad to be ones which should be utilized to declare other Muslims to be
sinners (faasiqoon) or innovators (mubtadi’oon) or hizbiyyoon if one differed with another
in it. They did not regard the issues of admissible ijtihaad to be ones that cause hatred
and enmity between them.

Shaikhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh, d. 728H) stated: “And there is no one from
the scholars except that he has sayings and actions that are not to be
followed―alongside the fact that he is not to be censured or rebuked due to them.
Statements and actions that are not known to be in clearcut contradiction to the Book and
Sunnah, rather they are affairs open to ijtihād regarding which there is differing among the
people of knowledge and imān, then it is possible that these affairs may be clearcut to
some to whom Allāh has made the truth clear―however it is not allowed for him to
make binding upon the people that which is clear to him but not clear to them.”
(Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, 10/ 383-384)
And this is of course related to the scholars – that in one issue from the affairs of ijtihaad
that two scholars (or more) may hold two opposing positions whilst each one holds his
evidence to be clear-cut in support of his position – yet all of them are united in the
fundamentals and principles of Islaam, that which the Salaf of this Ummah were united
upon.

Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) stated:

“So have knowledge that the distinguishing sign of ahlul-Bid’ah is to abandon the
following of the Salaf – and for this reason Imaam Ahmad stated in his treatise [narrated
by] ‘Abdoos bin Maalik: The foundations of the Sunnah with us is to hold fast to that which
the Companions of Allaah’s Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) were upon.”
[Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 4/155]

Unfortunately some who are new to Salafiyyah in our times and have not understood the
usool and qawaa’id of this blessed da’wah, or they feign knowledge of it and in reality are
ignorant of it – they are satisfied with little knowledge and are driven by blind following
and zealousness, so they miss these beautiful gems of benefit. You find them making
binding upon the people the simplest of affairs of differing in ijtihaad (in the affairs of fiqh)
– calling the people to either take their position or the position of their Shaikh or else they

2/13
will publicly and openly warn against them and call for their abandonment! One may even
agree with them in the opinion they hold, yet they will still declare him to be misguided
until he makes walaa’ and baraa’ (allegiance and enmity) based upon it as they do.

Until the one who has differed with them agrees with them in making enmity and
allegiance around their opinions, they will claim that he has abandoned the Islamic
fundamental of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

These young ‘vanguards’ of the da’wah, as they see themselves, have understood next to
nothing of these important principles. The reason is because they have not truly studied,
they have not studied with a body of Scholars nor read their opinions, they restrict
themselves to one set of opinions and declare those who oppose them to have opposed
the Deen and the Salafi Manhaj, declaring others to be upon the path of misguidance.
And you find them only utilizing the opinions of other scholars when it agrees with their
own desires, and at the same time leaving out the fact that those scholars did not regard
these issues to be ones that necessitate separation and division between ahlus-Sunnah.

-2-
Why would one Person Differ with another over a Position of Genuine Ijtihaad?

i) It is possible that a differing position is held by a person who seeks the truth – he
understands and accepts the position of the scholars who took that particular position, so
he is not blindly following, rather he is upon knowledge that he has gained – so even if he
is mistaken, he is nevertheless excused because he has striven to reach the truth. This
person is a seeker of truth, so if later he sees a stronger opinion from another scholar
which convinces him otherwise, then he turns to that position. And this is from his
excellence. And this was the way and the Minhaaj of the Salaf.

If he opposes one scholar in an affair of ijtihaad but agrees with another due to what he
sees of evidence, then he is not considered to be misguided in his Manhaj or ‘aqeedah.
Ash-Shaikhul-‘Allaamah Muqbil al-Waad’iee (rahimahullaah) stated in agreement to the
great Imaams before him:

“As for when does a person exit the Manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih – it is when he falls
into innovations then he exits the Manhaj of the Salaf – either to Soofism or to Shi’ism
or to establishing the birthdays or welcoming the secular laws or having restricted
allegiance such al-Hizbiyyah (i.e. partisanship), so a person displays allegiance in
accordance to his hizb (group or party) and enmity due to his hizb.”
[Tuhfatul-Mujeeb, p. 111].

So as the scholars have mentioned, such as Shaikh al-Albaanee, that when a person falls
into innovation, calls to it and makes walaa and baraa (allegiance and enmity) around his
innovation, then he exits the Salafi Manhaj.

ii) It is also possible that a person is upon the position of a particular scholar, not due any
evidence or seeking of the truth, but due to that fatwa agreeing with his desires and the
other fatwas opposing his desires, in which case he is sinful and should be advised with

3/13
the fear of Allaah, the Most High. He is obligated to adhere to the truth regardless of
whether it agrees with one’s desires or not. He cannot utilize the argument that many
people use to support their desires claiming, “the scholars differ”. Rather difference of
opinion is not a proof for any person to persist in following his own desires, al-Haafidh Ibn
Abdil-Barr (rahimahullaah) stated:

“[Utilizing] difference of opinion is not a proof with any of the people of knowledge from
the jurists of the Ummah, except for the one who has no insight, has no knowledge with
him and has no proof for his saying.”
[Jaami’ Bayaan al-‘Ilm wa Fadhlihi, 2/229].

Also al-Khattaabee (rahimahullaah) stated:

“And differing is not a proof – rather the explanation of the Sunnah is a proof upon those
who differ with each other, from the earlier people and the later people.” [A’laamul-
Hadeeth 3/2092]

iii) It may be possible that a person is ignorant and thus he asks the people of knowledge
as Allaah has commanded in His Book, or he reads or hears of a ruling and then adheres
to it and he does not know how to utilize the evidences and proofs or how to derive
rulings. This one is also excused if he is mistaken, but once the truth reaches him and it
opposes the original fatwa upon which he based his action, he turns to the opinion that is
supported by stronger evidences. So this one has fulfilled that which Allaah has
commanded him with, i.e. “Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.”

-3-
Holding on to a Position in Ijtihaad Firmly is Allowable but Vilification of one who Holds
the Opposing Opinion is Not Correct!

Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) stated:

“And as for the one from whom it is known that the ijtihaad is admissible, then it is not
permissible to mention him from the viewpoint of vilification of him and ascribing
sinfulness to him, rather it is obligatory due to what he possesses of Imaan and taqwa to
have allegiance for him and to love him.”

Some scholars hold very firm positions in the rulings that they derive. Others may hold
opposite opinions. However holding onto a strong and firm ijtihaadee position of an ‘aalim
based upon his understanding of the texts does not necessitate that those who hold
another opinion based upon their ijtihaad are therefore deviants, hizbees or sinners,
unless that position is something that the Salaf did not allow differing regarding.

Yes, one can hold with evidence that the ijtihaad of another ‘aalim is erroneous and
incorrect, but he he may not say that he has left the ranks of Salafiyyah! For example, the
scholars differ upon the issue of i’tikaaf, which is to seclude oneself in the mosque for a
number of days in the worship of Allaah; and it is usually performed in Ramadhaan. Some
have said (such as Shaikh al-Albaanee) that it is not be performed except in the three
mosques: Masjid al-Haraam in Makkah, Masjid an-Nabawee in Madinah and the Masjid

4/13
al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, and they brought forth their evidences. Yet others (such as Shaikh
Ibn Baaz, Ibn Uthaimeen and al-Fawzaan) held that it can be performed in any
congregational mosque, and they brought forth their evidences. Yet neither body of
scholars declared the others to be innovators or sinners due to them not agreeing with
the views of the other – nor did one accuse the other of abandoning the Islamic principle
of “enjoining the good and forbidding the evil” or to be “corrupted in the understanding al-
walaa wal-baraa”!

Another example is the mighty issue of the prayer: The one who abandons the prayer out
of laziness or lack of desire to pray, is he considered to be an unbeliever? The scholars
again take differing positions, some (such as Shaikh al-Albaanee) held such a one is not
an unbeliever, so long as he does not deny its obligation – rather he is considered to be a
major sinner, weak in Imaan. Those who differed with him (such as Shaikh Ibn Baaz, Ibn
Uthaimeen, etc.) held such as person who abandons the prayer out of laziness even if he
affirms its obligation, to be an unbeliever – yet neither side declared the other to be from
the khawaarij or murji’ah or innovators. This shows a great understanding of the
principles of the Deen – that the Salafus-Saalih and the Scholars who followed their path
knew that which was admissible differing and that which is not admissible.

Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) made this clear in his saying:

Shaikhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh) said: “For this reason it obligatory to make
clear the condition of the one who errs in hadeeth and narrating, or the one who errs in
opinion and fatwa, or the one who errs in Zuhd and worship. That is the case even if the
mistaken is a Mujtahid who is forgiven for his error and is rewarded for his ijtihād.
Clarifying speech and action that is proven by the Book and Sunnah is obligatory even if
that means opposing [the mujitahid scholar] in hi speech and action. And as for the one
from whom it is known that the ijtihād is admissible, then it is not permissible to
mention him from the viewpoint of vilification and sin because Allah has forgiven
him his mistake. Rather it is obligatory, due to what he possesses of imān and
taqwā to have allegiance for him and to love him and to establish that which Allāh has
obligated from his rights such as mentioning him with good, supplicating for him and so
on.” (Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, 28/233-234)

The point here to note is his saying: “It is not permissible to mention him from the
viewpoint of vilification of him and ascribing sinfulness to him” – So if the scholar makes
an admissible ijtihaad, even if it is opposed by others with “stronger” proofs, it is not
permissible to malign him or to curse him and dishonor him, or to declare him to a hizbee
or an innovator.

Indeed we hold that a scholar is rewarded even for his error in accordance to the hadeeth
of the Prophet (salallaahu alaihi wassallam) which affirms that the mujtahid who is correct
in his ijtihaad receives two rewards whilst the erroneous receives one reward. [al-
Bukhaaree in al-I’tisaam, no. 7352]

5/13
 -4-
The Scholars have Differed from the Earliest of Times, even the Sahaabah but they
were United in the Fundamanetals: The Usool and the ‘Aqeedah

The scholars differ and they have differed from the earliest of times of Islaam, even the
Sahaabah and those who followed in their path differed, but this differing was not in the
usool or the foundations of the Deen. The Sahaabah differed in minor affairs of the
branches (furoo’) and they were united in their ‘aqeedah as has been pointed out by the
scholars of guidance such as Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah):

“And the intended purpose is that the Sahaabah – may Allaah be pleased with them – did
not fight ever, over a principle (qaa’idah) from the principles of Islaam originally. And they
did not differ in anything from the fundamentals of Islaam, not about the Attributes, not
about the Qadr, not about the issues of al-Asmaa and al-Ahkaam (passing of rulings), nor
in the issues of the rulership.”
[Minhaajus-Sunnah, 6/336]

Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad (hafidhahullaah), was asked (dated

20/8/1423H), “Is it permissible to say that the Sahaabah differed in ‘aqeedah?” So the
Noble Shaykh replied:

“There is differing found amongst the Sahaabah in the furoo’ (subsidiary affairs). And
there is absolutely no differing found in the usool (foundations). And if there was, then
what would the difference be between Ahlus-Sunnah and the innovators then?!”

The point is that there is a form of differing that is tolerated amongst ahlus-Sunnah
whereby they do not declare each other to be disbelievers, innovators or sinners just
because someone holds an opposing position. Rather the ‘ulamaa may rebut each other
and an ‘aalim may refute a position that his brother from ahlus-Sunnah holds, but at the
same time maintaining his honour; not warning from him or commanding others to stop
taking from him; and not calling people to boycott him.

Regarding Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (died 204H, rahimahullaah), al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ al-

Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah) mentions that he refuted the opinions of his Shaikh, Imaam
Maalik (died 179H, rahimahullaah); and he refuted the opinions of Abu Haneefah (died
150H, rahimahullaah) and that of his two companions. Also al-Layth bin Sa’d refuted the
opinions of Imaam Maalik in a well-known treatise. And the two companions of Abu
Haneefah (rahimahullaah), Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad bin Hasan ash-Shaibaanee
opposed him in a third of his madhhab. Shaikh Rabee’ continued to say:

“The mistakes of the Ulamaa in this aspect of the (Religion) have been refuted much and
often; and not a single one of the critics made takfeer (as a means) of lowering the rank
of the one whom he refuted and manifested his mistakes. And no one spoke in this
manner because these affairs are not reckoned to be sins and innovations by which one
is declared a sinner, or a kaafir, or by which the precision and reliability of a narrator is
disparaged. This is the methodology of the ‘ulamaa of ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah from
the early period of their history up to this era of ours; but ahlul-Ahwaa wal-Bidah wal-

6/13
Fitan (The People of desires, innovation, trials and tribulations) come out with new
methodologies, such as the likes of the manhaj of Muwaazanaat in order to protect
the people of major innovations.”
[See Bayaan Fasaadul-Miyaar; Hiwaar Ma’a Hizbee Mutasattir; page:7-8]

Ash-Shaikhul-Faqeeh al-‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Uthaimeen (rahimahullaah) stated:

“Firstly, know that differing of the ‘ulamah of the Ummah of Islaam, if it occurs
regarding ijtihaad then it does not harm the one who is not granted correctness [in
his conclusion] because the Prophet (salallaahu alaihi wassallam) said: “When a judge
makes a judgment, he makes ijtihaad, and he is correct, he receives two rewards. And if
he makes a judgment, he makes ijtihaad, and he in incorrect, he receives one reward.”
[al-Bukhaaree in al-I’tisaam, no. 7352]. However for whomsoever the truth has been
make clear, then following the truth becomes mandatory for him in every condition.
The differing that occurs between the ‘ulamah of the Islamic Ummah is not a
reason for differing between the hearts, because the differing of the hearts leads to
great and immense corruption, just as Allaah, the Most High, stated: “And do not
dispute with one another lest you lose your courage and your strength departs, and be
patient. Surely Allaah is with the patient.” [al-Anfaal: 46]. The differing between the
‘ulamah that is considered as allowable which is mentioned and cited, then it is that
differing which has a possibility through investigation.

As for differing of general folk, those who do not understand and do not posses
fiqh, then no recognition is given to it. For this reason it is an obligation upon the
general person to return back to the People of Knowledge, just as Allaah, the Most High,
has stated: “Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know.” [an-Nahl: 43]. As for the
saying of the questioner: Is that [allowance] in every affair of [differing]? Then it is not like
that. Differing occurs in some issues, and in other affairs there is agreement upon, and
there is no differing concerning them. However there are some issues in which there is
differing of ijtihaad (juristic opinion), or that some of the people are more knowledgeable
than others in their knowledge and understanding of the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah
– and this is where the differing occurs. As for the affairs of the principle tenets, then there
is seldom any differing in them.”
[al-Fatawa ash-Shar’iyyah fil-Masaa’ilil-‘Asriyyah min Fatawa ‘Ulamah al-Bilaad al-
Haraam, p. 792]

Here Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaimeen (rahimahullaah) affirms that there are differences in ijtihaad
of the Scholars that do not necessitate separation of the hearts, let alone boycotting, hajr
and warning against! Knowing the affairs where differing is tolerated and those affairs
where it is not is very importance for those embarking upon rectification and
disseminating knowledge. If one cannot distinguish between the two, he will be quick and
hasty in ruling the people of Sunnah to be misguided as has become apparent amongst
some of the youth! Or one may regard people of bid’ah to be upon the Sunnah as is the
case with others!

7/13
 -5-
The Student of Knowledge, the one who has Ability must seek out the Truth when the
Scholars Differ in Ijtihaad!

The scholars’ differing in affairs of ijtihaad in which differing is tolerated is not an

allowance to pick and choose as one wishes, rather the student of knowledge should look
into the opinions of various scholars and seek that which seems to him to be closest to
the truth.

Al-‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Uthaimeen (rahimahullaah) was asked by a student concerning the

difference of opinion amongst the scholars due to their varying ijtihaadaat (juristic
opinions) and that he is not able to reach a conclusion and this was causing him
confusion. So the Shaikh (rahimahullaah) answered:

“This issue that has been put forward in this question by the questioner is not merely an
issue for the student of the sharee’ah but indeed general for everyone – that if he sees
differing of the ‘ulamah he falls into confusion – however the reality is that there is no
confusion in that. This is due to the fact that if a person has differing fatwas in front of him,
then he follows the one that is closest to the truth, in accordance to the abundance of his
knowledge and the strength of his Imaan just as a person if he is ill, and two doctors differ
[regarding the treatment], then the patient will take the saying of the one whom he sees to
be stronger in proof in his description of the cure.

So if the two affairs to him seem the same in strength of evidence, i.e. that he is not able
to decipher which of two scholars has the stronger position; then here some of the
scholars have stated that the person should take the more difficult of the two opinions, as
that is the safer approach. Some of the scholars have stated that one should take the
easier position because this agrees with the ease of the Islamic Religion in accordance to
the saying of Allaah, the Blessed and Most High: “Allaah wishes for you ease and He
does not wish for you hardship.” [al-Baqarah: 185]. And His saying: “And He has not
made for you in the Religion any difficulty.” [al-Hajj: 78]. And likewise the saying of the
Prophet (salallaahu alaihi wassallam): “Make things easy and do not make them difficult.”
[al-Bukhaaree in al-‘Ilm, 69].

This is because the origin is to discharge the affair until there is something firmly
established to lift this origin. And this principle is for the one who is not able to arrive at
the truth by himself – and if, however, he is able to reach the truth such as the student of
knowledge who is able to read what has been said about this particular issue, then he
draws a conclusion with what he sees based upon the sharee’ah evidences with him. And
in this condition, he (the student of knowledge) is necessitated to research and read so
that he come to know that which is more authentic from these sayings in which the
scholars have differed.”
[Kitaab ad-Da’wah, 5; Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, pp. 45-47].

This is the detail and tafseel that the scholars provide that lay down for the Muslim –
principles that keep him guided aright and prevent him from going beyond bounds with
regard to his brothers from ahlus-Sunnah who differ with him in the affairs of ijtihaad

8/13
related to the furoo’ (branches) of the Deen.

-6-
The Student of Knowledge does not Precede the Scholars and he Prefers the Opinions
of the Scholars Over his own.
And Precedence is Given to the Elder Scholars

A student of knowledge should not formulate his own opinions without having a
precedence of an ‘aalim, as this will cause him to fall into error and deviation, if not
immediately, then over a period of time – making oneself independent from the scholars
and their fatawa is a cause of destruction of a youth in the early days of his pursuit of
knowledge.

The Salaf of this Ummah used to give precedence to the elders and more knowledgeable
Scholars over the younger mashayikh, even though in both there is virtue. Shaikh al-
Fawzaan mentions in his article entitled, “Fi fadhil-‘Ulamaa al-‘Aamileen wal-Haththi ‘alat-
Ta’allum minhum” (The Excellence of the Scholars who Act, and Encouragement to Learn
From Them) the statement of Abdullaah bin Mas’ood (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu) who stated:

“The people will not cease to be upon goodness so long as they take knowledge from
their Scholars, their greater ones and their elders. So when they take knowledge from
their young ones and their foolish ones, they are destroyed.” [Reported by Ibn Mandah in
the Musnad of Ibraaheem bin Adham, pg. 34]

Al-‘Allaamah al-Fawzaan also mentioned the statement of Allaah’s Messenger (salallaahu

alaihi wassallam) in which he said:

“Indeed from the signs of the Hour is that knowledge will be taken from the
younger/lesser ones.” [Reported by at-Tabaraanee in al-Kabeer (22/362), and declared
authentic by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (695) and Saheeh al-Jaami’ (2207)]

The noble Scholar, Abdus-Salaam bin Barjis Al Abdul-Kareem (rahimahullaah) stated in

his excellent treatise entitled, “Awaa’iqut-Talab”, that the people of knowledge differed
regarding the explanation of the term ‘sighaar’* (younger ones) in these narrations. And
the sayings have been mentioned by Ibn Abdil-Barr in “al-Jaami'” (1/157) and Imaam ash-
Shaatibee in “al-I’tisaam” (2/93). Then he mentions that Ibn Qutaibah (rahimahullaah)
proceeded upon the position that the term “sighaar” refers to those young in years, so Ibn
Qutaibah (rahimahullaah) said regarding the saying of Ibn Mas’ood (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu):

“He intends that the people will not cease to be upon goodness so long as their ‘ulamah
are the elders (in age), and their ‘ulamah are not young ones. This is because the
delights and treats of youth have left the elderly one; and likewise have left him his
hotness or anger, his hastiness, his foolishness; and he is now (in old age) accompanied
by experience, practice and expertise. Doubts do not enter his knowledge, and he is not
overcome by desire. He does not incline towards greed or covetousness, and he is not
fooled by the Shaitaan as he fools the young one. And with years comes dignity, sobriety,
reverence, awe and prestige.

9/13
It is possible that these (blameworthy) affairs can come upon a younger person that the
elder one is secure from, so if they enter upon him and he delivers fatwa, then he ruins
others and destroys himself.”

* The term can also be readily used to describe ahlul-Bid’ah as has been reported from
Ibn al-Mubaarak.

The early Salaf were cultivated upon giving precedence to the fatawa and understanding
of those who came before them from the early generations, al-Imaam al-‘Allaamah Ibnul-
Qayyim stated:

“Chapter: The permissibility of giving fatawa based upon the narrations of the Salaf and
the fatawa of the Sahaabah; and that they are more worthy of taking from rather than the
opinions of the late-comers and their fatawa – and that they will be closer to the truth in
accordance to them being closer to the time of the Messenger (salallaahu alaihi
wassallam). And the fatawa of the Sahaabah are more befitting to be taken than the
fatawa of the Taabi’een and the fatawa of the Taabi’een are more worthy to be taken than
the fatawa of the following generation (Taabi’ee at-Taabi’een) and so on and so forth. So
the closer one is to the era of the Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassalam), then being
correct is more likely. And this is a ruling in a general generic sense and not necessarily in
everything from the affairs.” [I’laam al-Muwaqi’een, 4/148]

-7-
The Difference between the Refutation of Ahlul-Sunnah upon Ahlus-Sunnah and the
Refutation of Ahlus-Sunnah upon Ahlul-Bid’ah

Ahlus-Sunnah hold that one is permitted to refute the opposing opinion with evidences
and proofs, noting that this refutation is between ahlus-Sunnah and ahlus-Sunnah.

All of the People of Knowledge make mistakes, but the mistakes of Ahlus-Sunnah and
Ahlul-‘Ilm differ from the mistakes of Ahlul-Bid’ah, both fundamentally and generally – just
as the way in dealing with these differences, differs also.

So the mistake of the Scholar or student is refuted in the knowledge based issues, but he
is not attacked or warned against or treated severely in the way the people of innovation
and desires are treated. And upon this the people of knowledge have proceeded.

And there are a number of differences between this type of naseehah or response and
the refutation which is carried out against ahlul-Bid’ah, the hizbiyyeen and the people of
desires and separation. Several of those differences are mentioned below:

a) To refute and expose the callers to bid’ah and hizbiyyah is waajib by way of
obligation upon a group of the Ummah (fard kifaayah). Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah)
stated:

“And like the Imaams of bid’ah from the people who speak with opposition and
contradiction to the Book and Sunnah, or they have methods of worship in opposition to
the Book and Sunnah; to make clear their condition and to warn the Ummah from them is

10/13
an obligation by the agreement of the Muslims – the purification of the Path of Allaah, His
Deen, His Minhaaj, and His Sharee’ah and to repel their transgressions and their enmity
due to it, is an obligation by kifaayah (upon a portion of the Ummah) by the agreement of
the Muslims. And if Allaah had not raised those who would repel their harm, then the
Deen would have become corrupted – and their corruption is greater than the
corruption caused by the enemy through warfare because when they conquer they
do not corrupt the hearts and what is contained within them of Religion except over
periods of time. As for these (callers to innovation), then they corrupt the hearts from the
outset.”
[Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 28/231-232]

And of course the Scholar of Sunnah who has erred who is known for his adherence to
the usool and the qawaa’id (fundamentals and principles) who makes an error in ijtihaad
is not to be treated in this manner. He is advised, corrected but he is not worse “than the
corruption caused by the enemy through warfare”.

However if his opposition is in the usool, in that which the Salaf never allowed differing in,
then he is advised by the Scholars who write to him, speak to him and rectify his affair. If
he persists in opposing the usool of the Salaf, in those affairs agreed upon, then the
scholars first and foremost refute such an individual, and the people follow them.
Opposition to the ‘aqeedah and manhaj could be in one issue or many issues. It is not
that the case that one opposition to the aqeedah is tolerated but many are refuted. Rather
every single opposition to the aqeedah and manhaj is rebutted and is not tolerated. We
are living in times where some ignorant people refuse to censure those who oppose the
usool of ahlus-Sunnah; and they treat these contradictions to be like differing that occurs
between ahlus-Sunnah in the issues of admissible ijtihaad. Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn
Taymiyyah strongly criticized this group in his saying:

“And another group, [then] they do not know the ‘aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah
as is obligated, or they know a part of it and are ignorant regarding a part of it, and that
which they know, they conceal and do not explain it to the people, and they do not
forbid the bid’ah and they do not censure Ahlul-Bid’ah nor punish or subdue
them. Rather they may even have disparaging remarks with respect to the Sunnah and
the foundations of the Deen, not distinguishing between the speech of Ahlus-Sunnah and
that of Ahlul-Bid’ah wal-Furqah. Or they accept the different madhhabs of bid’ah just
as the ‘ulemah excuse each other in the issues of ijtihaad in which there is
[genuine] difference. And this is the condition of many of the murji’ah, and some of
the Thinkers, the Soofees and the Philosophers.”
[Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, Vol 12, slightly abridged].

Al-‘Allaamah al-Mujaahid Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhaalee (hafidhahullaah) said:

“We have been afflicted in these days with those who falsely accuse true Salafis of being
extreme and harsh in al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel (praising and criticising) and in other areas. He
wages war against them in the most severe fashion whilst he makes peace with the
people of innovation and desires, heaping praise and commendations upon them.

11/13
So (you find that) he falls into tamyee’ (softness and easy going) when dealing with the
people of innovation and at the same time he shows a destructive form of extremism
towards the people of Sunnah and the truth. His anger and his pleasure are in
accordance to that which he desires and in agreement with those whom he aspires to
embrace from the wealthy and rich.” [Recording from 23/Muharram/1430]

Then on the other extreme there are those who will warn against and call for the
abandonment of ahlus-Sunnah on the basis that they have differed with them in an issue
of ijtihaad or because others do not agree with the ijtihaad of their own Shaikh!

b) The refutation upon ahlul-bid’ah and the hizbiyyoon requires and necessitates
that we do not mention their good deeds. To mention their good when the intent is to
warn is to oppose the manhaj of the Salaf and bid’ah. And this is innovation is known as
the bid’ah of al-Muwaazanah. This is because the wisdom behind this refutation is to
clarify the truth and to nullify falsehood; and to warn people from them and cause the
Muslims to flee from them. An ‘aalim of Salafiyyah, however, is not treated like this – his
error is warned against without warning against him and his station is respected. This you
find occurring in our times that the likes of Shaikh al-Albaanee would hold a position
(such as in the issue of the niqaab being recommended and not waajib) and being
opposed in that by the likes of Shaikh Ibn Baaz and Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen, but at the
same time respecting and honouring each other and mentioning the good in each other,
and certainly not declaring each other to be innovators and hizbees!

c) The callers to bid’ah and hizbiyyah are warned against; and the people are
warned from taking knowledge from them and from attending their sermons,
lectures and classes. This is very different to how ahlus-Sunnah are dealt with from
those who differ with your Shaikh in an issue of ijtihaad or those who have fallen into error
in their ijtihaad. So it is permissible to say in one’s rebuttal that “this person is not to be
followed in his error” – however the person of knowledge still remains trustworthy and
knowledge is taken from him and his gatherings are attended and he is not abandoned.
However if he opposes the usool and persists in that opposition then the scholars who
are specialized in that affair advise him and hope for his correction; if he persists, then he
is warned against to the level the scholars have mentioned.

d) The callers to bid’ah and hizbiyyah are boycotted in accordance to the sharee’ah
legislation and its principles.And those upon the manhaj of ahlus-Sunnah and
Salafiyyah are not to be abandoned and boycotted to due to an error or a perceived error
in their ijtihaad.

e) Vilifying, debasing and exposing the callers to falsehood and innovation is a

shar’ee requirement in accordance to ability and attainable benefits; and in accordance
to the severity of their bidýah. And this differs from the treatment of the person of Sunnah
who has erred, for he is still deserving of gentleness, leniency and mildness and is dealt
with mercifully. And if there is some reason to exit this origin, then it is allowed in
accordance to need. And the intent of vilifying and debasing the people of bid’ah is not to

12/13
say that ahlus-Sunnah ever invent or fabricate falsehood against them, rather it is to
make clear to the people their harm and their audacious conduct and their putting the
people to trial by way of their misguidance.

So these are some guidelines with regard to understanding differences and how Ahlus-
Sunnah deal with differing between themselves and how Ahlus-Sunnah deal with the
oppositions of Ahlul-Baatil.

And all praise is due to Allaah, and may the peace and salautations of Allaah be upon His
Messenger.

Abu Khadeejah Abdul-Waahid

13/13