Anyone who asks two scholars the same question, or reads the books of the scholars side by side, soon meets this: on some issues the rulings differ. One scholar permits what another forbids. One counts an act as obligatory and another counts it as recommended. The question follows at once: if the religion is one, why are the rulings not one?
The books held for this site answer that question directly, and their answer holds two things together. Difference among the scholars is real, and it has known causes, most of them in how the evidences themselves stand. And difference is never a licence for a person to pick whichever ruling suits him. This page gathers what the scholars say on both sides of that, in their own words.
Two honesty notes. The scholars state these principles where they arise, in their explanations of hadith and in their answers to questions, and this page gathers the statements from those places. And no book held here gives a history of the four schools of law, so no such history is written here; this page keeps to what the held books actually say.
Some Matters Are Not Plain in Their Evidences
Shaykh al-Fawzan explains the sixth hadith of an-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith, in which the Prophet ﷺ said that the lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between them are matters that are not clear to many people. On those in-between matters, the Shaykh names the cause of the difference plainly: the evidences themselves can point in more than one direction, and each scholar gives weight to what he sees as the stronger side:
He said: “…but between these are ambiguous matters…” that is, there are ambiguous matters between the lawful and the unlawful which are not easily figured out to be from the lawful or the prohibited. This is because the evidences regarding them could be pulled in different directions; some show that they are lawful and others show that they are unlawful. The scholars differ about it; some ruled for its permissibility and others ruled its being prohibited because each of them gave preponderance to certain aspects of the evidences.
So the first cause is not stubbornness and not desire. It is that on some questions the texts bearing on the matter do not all speak with one voice at first sight, and weighing them is work that qualified scholars can do honestly and still land on different sides. What each of them then does is the same: he follows what has become clear to him:
“Therefore, if it becomes clear to anyone of them that a thing is lawful, he acts upon it and to whomever it becomes clear that it is prohibited, he refrains from it; and to whomever the matter appears ambiguous, he abstains from it. This is the correct position regarding ambiguous matters.”
And this weighing is not work everyone can do. The Prophet ﷺ said these matters are “not known by many of the people”, and the Shaykh explains why: knowing which side of an ambiguous matter is stronger belongs to those well-grounded in knowledge, because it rests on knowing how evidences are used and weighed:
He said: “…not known by many of the people”; because the majority of the people are ignorant, they do not know the methods of legal deductions, giving preponderance to evidence and the forms of evidences and evidencing. So his saying: “…not known by many of the people…” is evidence that only few of the people know them, and they are those well-grounded in knowledge. They know whether these ambiguous matters are from the permissible or prohibited matters? And that is through what Allah has bestowed on them of knowledge and understanding; the knowledge of the foundations of evidencing and giving preponderance to evidences.
Other Matters Are Open to Ijtihad
The second cause is ijtihad [a qualified scholar’s striving to reach the ruling from the evidences]. Some matters are left, in the texts themselves, to that striving, and difference through it reaches back to the very first generation. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, explaining the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah, speaks of the disputes that broke out among the Companions themselves after the Prophet ﷺ died:
“These events are well-known; they occurred — without doubt — based on interpretation and Ijtihad, each of them thought that he was in the right.”
Nor did such matters close after them. Answering a question about the number of rak’ahs [units of the prayer] in Tarawih, the night prayer of Ramadan, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen states the principle in general words, and notes that the Salaf [the first generations of the Muslims] differed in that very matter:
“You should know that the difference of opinion regarding the number of Rak’ahs in Tarawih and the like is in a matter in which it is permissible to exercise Ijtihad. It is undesirable that it should be a cause of differing and schism between the people, especially since the Salaf differed in the matter. There is nothing in the matter to prevent the exercise of Ijtihad. How fine is the saying of one of the scholars, when a person differed with him in his Ijtihad in a matter in which it was permissible: By contradicting me, you have agreed with me, for both of us consider that it is obligatory to follow what one sees to be the truth, since it is permissible to exercise Ijtihad.”
Hold onto the shape of that saying. Two scholars contradict each other, and the one calls it agreement, because both are doing the same duty: following what each sees to be the truth. The difference sits in the conclusions. The duty underneath them is one.
The Scholar Who Strives and Errs Is Excused
What, then, is owed to the scholar who strove and landed on the wrong side? Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen states the rule in his explanation of Riyad as-Salihin, in words he applies to every difference of opinion in the Ummah:
“You should understand, however, regarding every difference of opinion in the Ummah that if the basis is good intention along with efforts to attain the correct view; the holder of the view should not be blamed or counted as astray because he is a Mujtahid (i.e., a well grounded scholar) and the Prophet ﷺ had said, “If the judge rules, makes efforts and then attains correctness; he has two rewards. But if he rules and makes efforts and then errs he has a single reward.””
The hadith he quotes is reported by al-Bukhari (no. 7352) and Muslim (no. 1716), as the book’s own note records. And in his explanation of the Wasitiyyah creed, the Shaykh gives the ruling on the one who erred in a single line: “when there is a mistake in Ijtihad, the one who engages in it is excused and pardoned.” The blame, in these books, is never for striving and missing. It falls on the one who keeps to his position after the evidence has been made clear to him.
Difference Is Not a Licence to Pick What You Like
None of this makes difference a market in which a person shops for the easiest ruling. Shaykh al-Fawzan, in the same explanation of the sixth hadith, turns to the people who use difference that way, and his words are not gentle:
“This is from the inadequacies of the people nowadays, some of them would say: “as long as there is difference of opinion on it, there is no blame on me if I act upon any of the positions I choose”. We say: No, you should rather find out what is permissible because this action of yours could make you fall into something prohibited, and you would not have protected your religion and honor while the difference of opinion does not justify your falling into the prohibited.”
So the two sides of the teaching stand together. The striving scholar is excused, even rewarded, when he errs. And the ordinary person is not excused for treating the scholars’ difference as permission to follow his own wishes; his duty is to find out what is correct, and to ask the people of knowledge, which is why this site has a page on returning matters to the scholars, linked below.
So, Why Do Muslims Have Different Rulings on Some Issues?
Gathered from the passages above, in the books’ own terms:
- Some matters are not plain in their evidences. The texts bearing on them can be pulled in different directions, and each scholar gives preponderance to certain aspects of the evidences.
- Each scholar then acts on what becomes clear to him: what is clear to him as lawful, he does; what is clear to him as prohibited, he leaves; and what stays unclear to him, he holds back from.
- Some matters are open to ijtihad, and difference through interpretation and striving reaches back to the Companions themselves; the Salaf differed in such matters too.
- The scholar who strives with good intention is rewarded when he is right and rewarded once, and excused and pardoned, when he errs. He is not to be blamed or accused by the one who holds differently.
- Blame falls elsewhere: on the one who insists on his position after the evidence has been made clear to him, and on the one who uses difference as a licence to follow whatever he wishes.
I have gathered these passages because the question is often answered in one of two wrong ways: as if difference among the scholars were a fault in the religion, or as if it freed everyone to choose as he pleased. The books say neither. What is set out above is what the books say, in their words; anyone who wants to go further should return to the books themselves, and the references below show where each passage stands.
References
Commentary on the Forty Hadith of An-Nawawi: Shaykh Salih ibn Fawzan al-Fawzan (on Hadith 6, printed pp. 138-140).
Explanation of Riyad as-Salihin, Vol. 1: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen; Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, 2016 (printed p. 401).
Explanation of al-Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah, Vol. 2: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen; Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, 2008 (printed pp. 412-413).
Fatawa Arkanul-Islam (Islamic Verdicts on the Pillars of Islam), Vol. 2: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen; Darussalam, First Edition, October 2003 (Q. 279, printed pp. 511-512).
Further Reading
- Returning Matters to the Scholars: why questions of religion are taken back to the people of knowledge.
- What Is Sharia?: the sources to which every disputed matter is referred back.
- Methodology (Manhaj): the foundation of following the Qur’an and Sunnah on the understanding of the first generations.
- What Is Salafiyyah?: the way of the Salaf, from whom these scholars take their method.
- The Saved Sect (Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah): who Ahlus Sunnah are and what marks them.
Verified on 2026-10-24 against the books listed above.