The difference between ikhtilaf tanawwuʿ (differences of variety) and ikhtilaf taḍādd (mutually contradictory differences) is that in ikhtilaf taḍādd the two opinions cannot be reconciled, for opposites cannot coexist.

By contrast, in ikhtilaf tanawwuʿ the seemingly divergent statements can in fact be harmonised, because each speaker is referring to a particular variety, and every variety falls under the same broader genus. Once they agree on the genus, no real conflict remains.

Accordingly, ikhtilaf taḍādd means that the two views cannot be united at the level of genus, species, or—let alone—individual instance. Ikhtilaf tanawwuʿ, on the other hand, brings the two statements together at the level of genus while they differ only in species: both speakers concur on the overarching category, yet each cites a different variety, almost by way of illustration. In that case, there is no true disagreement, for each of them has merely mentioned one variety.

The author will soon give examples of this, but first we must understand the distinction between ikhtilaf tanawwuʿ and ikhtilaf taḍādd.

One form of ikhtilaf tanawwuʿ is where each scholar conveys the intended meaning in wording different from the other’s, highlighting an aspect of the referent distinct from the aspect stressed by his colleague, even though the referent itself is the same—much like synonymous terms that lie between full equivalence and complete divergence.

Commentary

The author divides ikhtilaf tanawwuʿ into two categories:

First: each of them articulates the intended meaning in wording different from that of the other