Discussion 3: The question about the basis of Ijma’

One of the doubts and ploys of the innovators, both in the past and in the present, is to cite verses and ahadith that are contradictory in the issues of Ijma’, whether in belief or in jurisprudence, then say, “As long as we know that the evidences—i.e. these verses and ahadith, as if consensus has no authority according to them—are contradictory, then it cannot be definitive, as contradictions do not occur in definitive matters. Thus, it is speculative, and speculative matters cannot be a basis for Ijma’, due to the difference of talents and the diversity of views. Therefore, there is no authority in such Ijma’ and it has no value. However, if its basis was definitive, it would have been transmitted to us, but it was not transmitted. Thus, we come to know that it did not exist.” This is a fatal doubt for many students of knowledge in our time, due to the lack of proficiency in understanding the principles.

Imam al Haramayn states in wonderful and unique phrases:

فإن قيل لو كان سند الإجماع خبرا مثلا مقطوعا به للهِج المجمعون بنقله

قلنا لا نبعد أن ينعقد الإجماع عن سبب مقطوع به ثم يقع الاكتفاء بالوفاق يضرب المجمعون عن نقل السبب لقلة الحاجة إليه وكم من شيء يستفيض عند وقوعه ثم يمحق ويدرس حتى ينقل آحادا ثم ينطمس حتى لا ينقل ويقع الاكتفاء بما ينعقد الوفاق عليه

If anyone objects: If the basis of the Ijma’ was a report—for example—that was definite, those who agreed on it would constantly transmit it.

We would say: It is not unlikely that Ijma’ is reached through a definitive cause, and then there was contentment with the agreement. Those who agreed avoided transmitting the reason due to the lack of need for it. How many things are widespread when they occur, then they are erased and forgotten until they are transmitted in an isolated way, then they are obliterated until they are no longer transmitted, and there is contentment on what was agreed upon.^[1]

Al ‘Allamah al ‘Adud al Iji, after mentioning this doubt, states in Sharh al Mukhtasar:

الجواب‏ منع ما ذكر في القاطع والظني أما القاطع فلأنه لا يجب نقله عادة إذ قد يستغنى عن نقله بحصول الإجماع الذي هو أقوى منه وارتفاع الخلاف المحوِج إلى نقل الأدلة وأما الظني فلأنه قد يكون جليا واختلاف القرائح والأنظار إنما يمنع الاتفاق فيما يدق ويخفى مسلكه

The answer is that what was mentioned about the definitive and the speculative is invalid. As for the definitive, it is because, usually, it is not necessary to transmit it; because sometimes, its transmission may be dispensed with by the occurrence of Ijma’, which is stronger than it^[2], and by the removal of the disagreement that necessitated the transmission of evidences. As for the speculative, it is because it may be clear, and the difference of talents and views only prevents agreement in that which is subtle and its path is hidden.^[3]

What is completely proven is that if Ijma’ is reached in an issue, then it removes the referred contradiction between the texts, and the issue becomes one statement with no disagreement about it; just as it transfers it—if it is speculative—from the domain of speculation to the domain of certainty and conviction.^[4]

You often see the author of Ghayat al Tabjil manipulate the weak and the simpletons based on this fallacy. I wonder what would be the need for Ijma’ at all if the verses and ahadith were all free from contradiction and are definitive in meaning, except for emphasis; where all the evidences coincide on one meaning, whereas Ijma’ is an independent authority, like the Qur’an and Sunnah. It must have an entrance in the foundation and establishment. Mere confirmation and support is not sufficient. Glory be to the one who distributes intelligence.

Al ‘Allamah al Sa’d states in al Talwih:

كون‏ الإجماع حجة ليس مبنيا على دليل أي سنده بل هو حجة لذاته كرامة لهذه الأمة واستدامة لأحكام الشرع والدليل على بطلان مذهبهم أي من شرط أن يكون مستنده قطعيا أنه لو شرط كون السند قطعيا لوقع الإجماع لغوا ضرورة ثبوت الحكم قطعا بالدليل القطعي

فإن قيل هذا يقتضي ألا يجوز الإجماع عن قطعي أصلا لوقوعه لغوا قلنا المراد أنه لو اشترط كون السند قطعيا لكان الإجماع الذي هو أحد الأدلة لغوا بمعنى أنه لا يثبت حكما ولا يوجب أمرا مقصودا في شيء من الصور إذ التأكيد ليس بمقصود أصلي بخلاف ما إذا لم يشترط فإن السند إذا كان ظنيا فهو يفيد إثبات الحكم بطريق القطع وإذا كان قطعيا فهو يفيد التأكيد كما في النصوص المتعاضدة على حكم واحد فلا يكون لغوا بين الأدلة

For Ijma’ to be an authority, it is not based on evidence, i.e., its isnad, rather it is an authority itself, as an honour for this Ummah and for the continuity of the rulings of the Shari’ah.^[5] The evidence for the invalidity of their view—i.e. those who preconditioned its basis to be definitive—is that if it were a condition for the isnad to be definitive, then the Ijma’ would be futile, due to the necessity of definite evidence to establish a ruling definitively.

If it is said: This requires that Ijma’ based on definitive evidence is not permissible at all, as it is futile.

We would say: What is meant is that if it was a condition for the isnad to be definitive, then the Ijma’, which is one of the proofs, would be futile in the sense that it would not establish a ruling nor would it obligate an intended matter in any of the cases, since emphasis is not an actual objective. Unlike when it is not a condition, because in that case, if the isnad is speculative, then it would denote establishing the ruling in a definitive way, and if it is definitive, then it would denote emphasis; as is the case in the texts that support each other on one ruling; hence, there is no futility between the proofs.^[6]

Among the ploys of the people of falsehood, both old and new, when they feel completely helpless before the evidence of Ijma’, is to raise a question about the isnad (chain of transmission) of the Ijma’, to achieve their goal. They are ignorant or ignore the fact that Ijma’ is an authority in itself; it is not necessary to ask about its isnad, and citing it as evidence does not depend on knowing its basis. Scholars have embarked on refuting this ploy in the past, as we will see.

Sheikh Ibn Hajar states in al Sawa’iq:

فإن‏ قلت ما مستند إجماعهم على ذلك قلت الإجماع حجة على كل أحد وإن لم يعرف مستنده لأن الله عصم هذه الأمة من أن تجتمع على ضلالة يدل لذلك بل يصرح به قوله وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيْلِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلّٰى وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيْرًا (النساء: ‎١١٥‏) وقد أجمعوا أيضا على استحقاقهم الخلافة على هذا الترتيب لكن هذا قطعي كما مر بأدلته مبسوطا

If you say: What is the basis for their Ijma’ on that?

I would say: Ijma’ is an authority on everyone, even if its basis is not known, because Allah has protected this Ummah from agreeing on misguidance. This is indicated, rather, it is explicitly stated in the verse, “And follows a path other than that of the believers, We will let them pursue what they have chosen, then burn them in Hell—what an evil end.”^[7] They also agreed that they deserved the Caliphate in this order. However, this is definitive, as was mentioned previously in detail with its evidence.^[8]

Al Imam al Ghazali said in al Mustasfa:

أكثر الإجماعات مستندة إلى عمومات وظواهر وأخبار آحاد صحت عند المحدثين والاحتمال يتطرق إليها كيف وقد أجمعوا على التوحيد والنبوة وفيهما من الشبه ما هو أعظم جذبا لأكثر الطباع من الاحتمال الذي في مقابلة الظن الأظهر وقد أجمعت على إبطال النبوة مذاهب باطلة ليس لها دليل قطعي ولا ظني فكيف لا يجوز الاتفاق على دليل ظاهر وظن غالب

Most of the consensuses are based on generalities, apparent meanings, and isolated narrations that are authentic according to the Muhaddithin, and possibilities creep into them. How can it not be, whereas they unanimously agreed on Tawhid (monotheism) and prophethood, and there are doubts in them that are more attractive to most people than the possibilities that are found in contrast to the most apparent conjecture? False doctrines, which have no definitive or conjectural evidence, have agreed on invalidating prophethood, so how can it not be permissible to agree on apparent evidence and prevalent conjecture?^[9]

NEXT⇒ Discussion 4: This Ijma’ is definitive or like definitive

^[1] Imam al Haramayn: Al Ghiyathi, pg. 238.

^[2] Al ‘Allamah al Sa’d said in his Hashiyah ‘ala Sharh al ‘Adud, 2/30:

يجوز أن يكون سند الإجماع قطعيا لكن يكون الإجماع أقوى من حيث لا يحتمل النسخ وحينئذ يستغنى عنه بالإجماع دون العكس

It is permissible for the isnad of the Ijma’ to be definitive, but the Ijma’ is stronger as it does not bear abrogation. Then it is dispensed with by the Ijma’, but not the opposite.

^[3] Sharh al ‘Adud al Iji ‘ala Mukhtasar Ibn al Hajib, 2/30.

^[4] See, for example, in Ibn al Sam’ani: Qawati’ al Adillah, 1/474 (Dar al Kutub al ‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1997 CE, print); Sadr al Shari’ah: Sharh al Tawdih, 2/46.

^[5] May Allah reward al ‘Allamah; how beautiful is this statement! And it does not contradict what Imam al Haramayn said in al Ghiyathi, pg. 238:

الحق المتبع أن الإجماع في نفسه ليس حجة إذ لا يتصور من المجمعين‎ الاستقلال بإنشاء حكم من تلقاء أنفسهم وإنما يعتقد فيهم العثور على أمر جمعهم على‎ الإجماع فهو المعتمد والإجماع مشعر به وليس قول المجمعين بأعلى منصبا من‎ قول المصطفى ولا يستريب محصل أن قول الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يستقل دليلا ولا ينهض‎ بنفسه إلى الحق سبيلا ولكن المعجزة شهدت بعصمته وصدق لهجته فيما ينقله عن إله‎ الخلق

The followed truth is that Ijma’ in itself is not an authority. It is not conceivable that those who agreed on Ijma’ would independently establish a ruling from their own side; rather, it is believed that they found a matter that united them on the Ijma’. That is the basis, and the Ijma’ merely indicates to it. The statement of those who agree on Ijma’ is not of a higher status than the statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. No one doubts that the statement of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not evidence on its own, or it does not rise by itself to the truth, but the miracles testified to his infallibility and the truthfulness of his speech in what he transmits from Allah.

This statement of Imam al Haramayn is in one valley and the statement of al ‘Allamah al Sa’d is in another valley, and each one of them is clarifying an important aspect of the details of the issues of Ijma’. Thus, there is no contradiction.

^[6] Al Taftazani: Hashiyat al Talwih, 2/51.

^[7] Surah al Nisa’: 115.

^[8] Ibn Hajar: Al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, pg. 57 (Maktabat al Qahirah print), pg. 182 (Maktabat Fayyad print), pg. 82 (Maktabat al Haqiqah print).

^[9] ‎ Al Ghazali: Al Mustasfa, 1/196.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents