Difference amongst the people of truth is both permissible and a reality, and as long as it is within the boundaries of sharia and its regulations it is not blameworthy; rather, it is praiseworthy and a source of intellectual enrichment, and a means to arrive at a proper decision, for what is the principle of consultation (shura) as established by Islam except legislation for this praised difference. As the Quran says: “Consult them in the affair.” After all, how many times did the Prophet – God bless him and give him peace – consult his Companions and listen to their opinions, and differed with their views on the decision to carry on in the campaign of Badr.

When he consulted them in moving forward to battle the enemy after it was discovered the large size of their army in comparison to the Muslims, for example, the Prophet ? listened to them and did not reprove anyone for an opinion expressed or a position adopted. As a result, no one became fanatical or partisan; truth was their aim and mutual interest guided them.

The Prophet ? acknowledged each of the differing parties without expressing any objection or preference, as in the matter reported in Bukhari and Muslim of his telling [a group of the Companions] to pray the afternoon prayer in Banu Qurayza: some of them prayed in the city they before reaching Banu Qurayza [within the proper prayer time] and some of them waited until reaching Banu Qurayza [and as a result prayed the afternoon prayer at the time of the night prayer] yet he ? did not deal with anyone roughly.

The issues and themes of difference are many but they are resolved through dialogue and compromise with recourse to the opinion of some. It is recorded that Umar, may God be pleased with him, often returned to the opinions of his fellow Companions and even confessed before the public saying, “A woman has said the truth and a man made a mistake.” This is the institutionalisation of the golden rule: ‘Ijtihad is not invalidated by ijtihad’, a rule adopted by later scholars who advanced judgements of the rulings that were contrary to their opinions and ijtihad in the interest of ending the controversies and resolving disputes, which is the foremost matter on the ladder of priorities to the dissenting opinion, of which its author might be persuaded.

Translated by: Yusuf Lenfest