[gactanync]

Not all arguments are negative . There will always be ' Ikhtilaf ' . It is natural for humans .
If I remember correctly as scholars say there are Ikhtilaf e Majmum ( disagreement that are complete fitnah )

and what is called Ikhtilaf e Mahmud ... Arguments which are described as something that is not by nature dividing the Ummah but some groups have made them source of Fitnah by their own misunderstanding / lack of knowledge.
Example senseless arguments between Madhabs or more apparent in our time the opposition to Madhab by Ahle Hadis / Ghair Muqalleds / La madhabi

Got me interested to go back and see the reference source for more Info ...

Something peculiar in the Muslim world when it comes to arguments .

We argue on things that really do not have much significance , example there are people who argue on the smallest things like how long your beard should be ...

Where as when is comes to arguing against someone who is in effect changing the very nature of Islamic shariah as we exist and live our lives in this century... Example Ahle hadis or even going against Tawhid , example Qadiyani and shia people go all touchy and call for Unity of Ummah .

The latter case to my knowledge demands that you argue from fear of Allah.
You think we will not be asked what you said in defense of what you know as true ?
Being silent for sake of Unity will be a valid excuse?