The Islamic resurgence of the past 40-50 years, it seems to me, has largely been a resurgence in Islamic feeling, a revival of our love for Islam and our commitment to it; but it has not been as much a resurgence in Islamic knowledge; at least not in matters beyond issues of worship.
The history of Islamic fiqh is often bypassed. Issues about which scholars have debated for centuries are treated as if they can be instantly understood through a quick search on Google; and whatever conclusion you reach, you decide that it is Shari’ah, absolute, permanent, and unquestionable, and whoever does not reach the same conclusion, well, they are misguided at best, and at worst, they have left the religion. That’s not how it works.
You reach your conclusion based on evaluation of evidence, and others do the same, and the differences that have existed among scholars since the earliest days until today, are not going to be resolved.
They are not going to be resolved because they don’t have to be resolved.
The matters of fundamental importance have not been left ambiguous in the Qur’an and Sunnah; they are not subject to ijtihad. The matters that have not been explicitly delineated in the Qur’an and Sunnah, are subject to ijtihad, and that means there will be differences, and those differences are permissible.
You do not get to raise your hand against someone whose ijtihad is different from yours, you do not get to make takfir on them; you can argue, you can debate, you can exchange daleel with them, but if they do not ultimately agree with you, you have to agree to disagree.
Shari’ah has supremacy over fiqh.
Brotherhood is a matter of Shari’ah, differences of ijtihad are matters of fiqh; so do not divide the Ummah over permissible differences.