Do We Have to Respect Every Opinion Held by Scholars More Knowledgeable than Us as ”Valid”?

In a nutshell, no.

Consider these points:

Firstly, can you cite any scholars who said that an opinion is valid merely because scholars adopt it? No, you cannot because there will always be this idea of “invalid khilaf vs. valid khilaf.” There would have never been such a distinction if opinions became valid merely because scholars adopted them.

Secondly, it will always be the case that you, as a non-scholar, would have to acknowledge a non-valid opinion out there held by a scholar more knowledgeable than you. However, the million-dollar question here is this: how do you, as a non-scholar, determine that this opinion is invalid? You do so because you highly trust several other scholars more knowledgeable than you (and more knowledgeable than the laymen who disagree with your stance that the opinion is invalid) who looked into the matter and concluded that the khilaf is invalid. In other words, you have the full right to believe those scholars who are stressing that the khilaf is invalid, especially if that is what you sincerely believe by your limited (and unqualified) assessment of the evidence.

But there is another issue now: how we speak and think about people who adopt this invalid opinion, be they the scholars or laity. Unfortunately, many people assume that your rendering of an opinion as invalid necessitates that you become harsh towards and have bad opinions of those who adopt that opinion. They falsely assume that just because you have a hard intolerant stance against a view, this must reflect negatively in the form of antagonistic behavior toward the holders of that view. This binary way of thinking is highly problematic at two levels.

On one extreme, it makes people blindly view the holders of that opinion negatively, which causes disunity amongst the ranks of Muslims. But not all opinions, even if invalid, are that serious to warrant such a reaction. Even if you deem an opinion invalid, it may still not be so significant enough to warrant division. Consider those who deem the stance of Muslims who permit the eating of McDonald’s in the West and other non-dhabeeha meat to be a completely invalid stance. Okay, they view it to be invalid; that is fine, and that is their full right. However, is the issue so serious that Muslims boycott and blast each other over it?

On the other extreme, people feel compelled to validate what should actually be an invalid opinion (according to their own typical standards), but to avoid conflict and disunity, they do so anyway. This again is problematic, as it opens the door to validating baseless opinions and promoting their spread.

All this is borne out of a false understanding that just because you deem someone’s opinion to be invalid and baseless, this somehow entails that you treat him and view him badly. It does not have to be either or. Censuring (doing inkar of) invalid opinions comes in degrees depending on the nature of the disputed opinion and the kinds of people adopting that opinion. It could range from merely sharing your point of view that it is invalid and stopping at that to warning against the people holding and spreading the opinion themselves.

I understand that many details need to be hashed out when dealing with this sensitive and complex topic, but I just wanted this essential point that many are oblivious to to stand out.

Wallahu’ Alam