The jurisprudence of disagreement and its impact on reality

Abstract

The first legislative period after the transition of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, changed several characteristics, the most important of which were: not challenging the opinion of the dissenter and respecting the point of view of the opposing party. These are the seven prominent ones that characterized the legislative era.

The second is as is known in the history of Islamic legislation. Hence, the scholars had their positions in the field of freedom of opinion and respect for the other’s opinion. Their only concern regarding these jurisprudential differences was to reach a reasonable solution to the issue raised, each according to the approach that they followed, as each of them has principles and controls whose control is based on his own jurisprudence, and for this reason, the expert in jurisprudential studies can To know the knowledge of the particular issue, and what is the document on which this or that jurist relied

They are that this issue presented for research is based on this or that origin, and is it

A vision that is under such and such a rule or that it is outside the controls

These controls, these principles, and other legal rules were the beacon that pointed the way to those eminent jurists, and it is obvious that these matters differ in their interpretations in many of them, but that does not deviate from the unity of the constants in general, so you will not find anyone who does not adhere to the Qur’an, for example, or the Sunnah. Far be it from them - except that you find them disappearing into sub-sections related to these two great principles, and this is beyond doubt, and since the jurists are human, the difference between them is fixed, because sometimes the view of one of them towards an issue is different from the view of the other. You may see them arriving at one result sometimes, but each one is important and depends on a path that is not The other depends on it, meaning that the means are different and the goal is the same. After the above, you can say that the nation’s duty towards its great jurisprudential heritage is to preserve the opinions of those who have distinguished themselves and to view them with reverence and respect without any criticism or disparagement. Rather, looking at them from that perspective is disdainful of those jurisprudents, and this is something that the nation of Islam does not dislike, and it should not be fanatical. For an opinion at the expense of evidence.

The most important thing is to look at these opinions as the jurisprudence of eminent jurists who have made great efforts