The Short Answer
Scholars differ because extracting specific rulings from the Quran and Sunna inherently involves interpretation — and qualified scholars can arrive at different valid conclusions from the same evidence. This is a feature of Islamic law, not a flaw. The Prophet ﷺ himself approved of his Companions arriving at different conclusions through their reasoning, and the earliest Muslim communities naturally had different scholarly opinions.
The Prophetic Approval of Ijtihad
إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
“If a judge makes a ruling, exercises ijtihad, and is correct, he receives two rewards. If he makes a ruling, exercises ijtihad, and errs, he receives one reward.”
This hadith establishes a foundational principle: a qualified scholar who sincerely strives and reaches the wrong conclusion is still rewarded. Scholarly disagreement is not failure — it is a natural outcome of a process that the Prophet ﷺ endorsed and rewarded.
Banu Qurayza: Differing Under Prophetic Approval
“The Prophet ﷺ said on the day of al-Ahzab: 'None of you should pray Asr until he reaches Banu Qurayza.' Some of them were caught by the time of Asr prayer while still on the road. Some said: 'We will not pray until we get there' (taking the command literally). Others said: 'No, we will pray — the Prophet ﷺ did not intend for us to delay prayer beyond its time' (taking the command as encouragement to hurry). When this was mentioned to the Prophet ﷺ, he did not criticize either group.”
This is one of the clearest examples. Two groups of Companions understood the same Prophetic command differently. One took it literally, the other applied context. The Prophet ﷺ did not rebuke either group — establishing that different valid interpretations of the same text are permissible.
The Six Causes of Scholarly Disagreement
Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH), in his masterwork Bidayat al-Mujtahid, catalogues the specific causes of scholarly disagreement. These are not arbitrary — they are structural features of how texts work:
1. Different Hadiths Reached Different Scholars
In the early centuries, hadith collections had not yet been compiled into books. A scholar in Medina had access to narrations from Medinan Companions that a scholar in Kufa may not have heard, and vice versa.
Example: Imam Malik in Medina based many rulings on the continuous practice ('amal) of the people of Medina — which he regarded as a living, transmitted tradition from the Prophet ﷺ. Imam Abu Hanifa, in Kufa, did not have access to this chain and relied more heavily on analogical reasoning (qiyas) to derive rulings where direct textual evidence was limited.
2. Different Assessments of Hadith Authenticity
Scholars sometimes disagreed on whether a particular narrator in a chain of transmission was reliable. A hadith accepted as sahih (authentic) by one scholar might be graded da'if (weak) by another due to different assessments of narrators.
Example: Certain narrations about raising the hands during prayer are accepted by the Shafi'i and Hanbali schools but not relied upon by the Hanafi school, due to differences in how the narrator chains were evaluated.
3. Different Interpretations of the Same Arabic Word
Arabic words can carry multiple valid meanings, and the Quran and hadith use words in ways that legitimately support more than one reading.
Example: The Quran says to wipe "your heads" (bi-ru'usikum) in wudu (5:6). The preposition bi can mean "your heads" (the entire head) or "part of your heads" (a portion). The Shafi'i school says wiping part of the head suffices; the Hanbali school says the entire head must be wiped. Both are linguistically valid readings of the same Quranic text.
4. Different Methodological Principles
The four schools developed different (but all valid) methodological frameworks for deriving rulings:
- Hanafi school: Gives significant weight to analogical reasoning (qiyas) and juristic preference (istihsan)
- Maliki school: Gives weight to the practice of the people of Medina and public interest (maslaha)
- Shafi'i school: Emphasizes systematic principles of evidence (usul) as codified by Imam al-Shafi'i
- Hanbali school: Tends to prefer hadith texts, even weak ones, over analogical reasoning
None of these approaches is wrong. They are different valid methodologies applied by scholars who agreed on all fundamental matters.
5. Abrogation Disputes
Some Quranic verses and hadiths abrogate (nasikh) earlier ones. Scholars sometimes disagreed on whether a particular text had been abrogated, leading to different conclusions from texts that appear to contradict each other.
6. Reconciling Apparently Contradictory Texts
When two hadiths seem to conflict, scholars must reconcile them. Different methods of reconciliation — giving one priority over the other, interpreting one as general and the other as specific, etc. — can lead to different rulings.
A Concrete Example: Folding Arms in Prayer
Where should you place your hands during prayer?
- Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali: Fold the arms (right over left) — based on several hadiths describing the Prophet ﷺ placing his right hand over his left
- Maliki: Arms hang at the sides — based on the continuous transmitted practice of the people of Medina, which Imam Malik regarded as a prophetic tradition transmitted through practice rather than text
Both positions are based on evidence. The disagreement reflects different weight given to textual hadith versus practical transmission. Neither is "making things up."
This Is Not a Problem — It Is a Mercy
“The disagreement of the mujtahids is a mercy for the umma. Each of them strove sincerely to discover the truth. The one who is correct receives two rewards, and the one who errs receives one. None of them should be condemned for their ijtihad.”
The scholars agreed on all fundamental matters: the five pillars, the six articles of faith, the major prohibitions (murder, theft, fornication, usury, etc.). They differed only on details of implementation — and this flexibility has allowed Islamic law to serve diverse communities across vastly different contexts for over a millennium.
Common Claim
If scholars disagree, it means the truth is unclear and we should just follow the Quran and hadith directly.
What Scholars Actually Say
Scholarly disagreement exists precisely because the Quran and hadith require interpretation. The Arabic texts are not self-interpreting computer code — they use language, idiom, and context that require trained expertise to correctly apply. The solution to disagreement is not to bypass scholarship but to follow qualified scholars, as the Quran commands (16:43). An untrained person "following the Quran and hadith directly" will inevitably misunderstand texts that trained scholars spent lifetimes studying.
For more on this topic, see our detailed page on Madhabs.
Why Do Scholars Differ?
SeekersGuidance
An accessible explanation of why qualified scholars reach different conclusions.
Can I Follow a Different Madhab on Some Issues?
SeekersGuidance
The conditions for following more than one school of law on different questions.