NO EXTREMISM
In the Quran, God addresses the Prophet with these words: “It is hoped that your Lord will raise you to a praised station” (17:79).
In Baghdad in the year 317 AH, this verse became the subject of dispute between two Muslim groups. On the one side were followers of Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi of the Hanbali school, and on the other, a section of the general public. The Hanbalis interpreted the verse to mean that on the Day of Judgment, God would seat the Prophet above the Throne. The other group argued that it referred to the “great intercession”. The disagreement escalated so severely that it led to open fighting between the groups, resulting in many deaths. (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol. 11, p. 162)
Such incidents have occurred repeatedly in the past and continue to happen even today. Observing these events, some have concluded that disagreement and debate are inherently wrong, and that people should simply follow blindly, avoiding all forms of controversy. But this advice adds one mistake on top of another. Instead of demanding the end of disagreement, people should be taught how to engage in it properly.
The unfortunate incident mentioned above happened because the distinction between scholarly disagreement and violent confrontation was not understood. In a military conflict, weapons like swords and guns become unavoidable because war is resolved through force. But intellectual disagreement is entirely different. Resorting to weapons in such a case is a form of irrationality because intellectual disputes should be handled solely through reasoning, not violence.
If someone does not accept your argument, present another. If they are not convinced by that either, offer a third, or a fourth. In academic debate, all that is required is the presentation of arguments—regardless of whether they are accepted or rejected.
What should be rejected in such incidents is not critique or disagreement itself, but excess and extremism. Excess, in any matter, is harmful.
The idea that “we must eliminate criticism and disagreement to achieve unity” may sound good in theory, but it is completely unrealistic in practice. That’s because criticism and disagreement are natural aspects of human life—they can never be fully eliminated. The more accurate and achievable approach is this: tolerate criticism and accept differences of opinion—only then can genuine unity be achieved. Unity in any community is always based on this second principle, and so it must be in the Muslim community as well. There is no other viable path to unity.
There were disagreements among the companions and their followers. Similarly, hadith scholars, jurists, theologians, and mystics often differed with one another. The Quran itself shows that even two prophets present in the same era may sometimes differ. To expect absolute consensus before achieving unity is not only unnatural, it is also contrary to the spirit of religious tradition.
Criticism and disagreement are not inherently negative. In fact, they often lead to intellectual progress. For example, during the Battle of Badr, a Companion disagreed with the Prophet’s choice of setting camp. As a result, a better strategic position was chosen.
The real distinction lies in the type of person:
• One type is the self-seeker (talib-i-khwesh)—someone whose focus is on promoting themselves, seeking admiration, and wanting to be regarded as important. Such a person is easily angered by criticism because they perceive it as an attack on their personal status.
• The other is the truth-seeker (talib-i-haqq), who is concerned only with what is right. They do not take criticism as a personal offense. For them, the only question is: is it true or not? If the criticism is unfounded, they ignore it. But if it is valid, they accept it immediately—because in that criticism, they find exactly what they were seeking all along.
