Is the principle "no denunciation in matters of dispute" a sound jurisprudential principle? And what are the issues to which this principle applies?

Al-Suyuti mentioned a principle: "What is differed upon is not denounced, but rather what is agreed upon is denounced." However, he made exceptions for cases where what is differed upon can be denounced, such as a school of thought that is far-fetched in its derivation, a judge's ruling that contradicts his own conviction, and when the denouncer has a right to denounce. He clarified that this principle applies to matters of permissible disagreement.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explained that the statement "matters of disagreement are not subject to denunciation" is incorrect. Denunciation is directed at a statement or action that contradicts the Sunnah or scholarly consensus (Ijma'), and a judge's ruling is invalidated if it contradicts the Sunnah. He emphasized that matters of ijtihad (independent reasoning) are those for which there is no clear and apparent obligation to act upon a specific proof.

Al-Qarafi stated that it is not permissible for a follower (muqallid) to transmit or issue a fatwa based on the opinion of a mujtahid (independent jurist) that contradicts Ijma', or fundamental principles, or a clear text, or a clear analogy. Such a ruling, if issued by a judge, would be overturned.

Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Al-Zuhaili pointed out that the denied denunciation in the principle refers only to obligatory denunciation, and it applies to that which is unanimously agreed upon as forbidden, not to that which is differed upon regarding its prohibition.