Epistemology of disagreement, a branch of social epistemology, examines rational epistemic responses to disagreement. This article, employing a thematic analysis approach, investigates how positions are taken in disagreements from the perspective of Nahj al-Balagha. Imam Ali(peace be upon him) emphasizes epistemic openness towards differing views, encouraging the awareness of opposing perspectives, considering the potential fallibility of one's own viewpoint, and reflecting upon the soundness of alternative opinions. When faced with an epistemic challenge to our beliefs, higher-level evidence may scrutinize the epistemic features of primary evidence (first-order) or the epistemic agent itself. Expert testimony, as superior epistemic evidence, serves as a higher-level source for adopting a valid stance. According to Nahj al-Balagha, in religious disagreements, one must refer to the Quran, the Prophetic tradition, and the infallible Imam. In non-religious disputes, legal matters, and cases involving doubts, the opinions of specialized consultants and experienced individuals are paramount. In political issues, legal frameworks are the key reference. In historical events, reliance on the collective memory of people is crucial. Ethical conflicts are to be resolved through the principle of fairness and the golden rule, while in social decisions, the majority opinion holds weight. Imam Ali (peace be upon him)underscores the fallibility of certain specialists and the importance of innate intuition, asserting that an individual's confidence level determines the rationality of their initial epistemic stance and subsequent action.