BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Ijma’ is the third principle of the Ahlus Sunnah, after the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is relied upon in religious matters. Hence Ibn Taymiyyah says, “Whoever accepts the Book of Allah, the Sunnah, and Ijma’ is from the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah.” The Ahlus Sunnah weigh all sayings and actions related to religion on the basis of these three sources. They are referred to as al Jama’ah (the group) as al Jama’ah denotes unanimity, the opposite of which is alienation. However, the ijma’ that is being referred to here is the ijma’ of the pious predecessors, as after them the ummah split into many different factions. The Shia, on the other hand, do not accept the ijma’ of the Sahabah, pious predecessors, or the rest of the ummah as a valid ijma’. Their beliefs regarding this are totally different. We will discuss them below.
The books of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding principles have it that the Shia accept Ijma’ as a proof, not because of it being the consensus of the Ummah, but rather on account of it including the view of the Imam. According to them, his statement independently serves as proof. Below, we will study the viewpoint of the Shia from their sources. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli says:
الإجماع إنما هو حجة عندنا لاشتماله على قول المعصوم، فكل جماعة كثرت أو قلت كان قول الإمام في جملة أقوالها، فإجماعها حجة لأجله لا لأجل الإجماع
Ijma’ is only a proof according to us due to the fact that it includes the view of the infallible one. The ijma’ (consensus) of any group, small or large, which includes the Imam, is proof, not on account of the ijma’ that took place, but rather on account of him (being amongst them).
The same was stated by many of their scholars. Thus, in essence, ijma’ cannot serve as a proof without the presence of the ‘infallible’ Imam. In other words, in ijma’ his view is taken as proof, instead of the actual consensus. Therefore, the reality is that they do not accept ijma’ as a proof. They only accept the view of the Imam as proof. This means that their claim of acceptance of ijma’ as a proof is nothing more than a meaningless claim.
There is no meaning to the statement of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli who said, “Ijma’ is a proof according to us.” If he wished to say something meaningful, he should have rather said, “Ijma’ does not count as proof according to us, as proof lies in the statement of the Imam.” This is the actual position of their mazhab. The Imam, according to them, is equal to or greater than the Nabi. They believe that he receives whisperings in his ear, the angel comes to him, he sees figures who are greater than Jibril and Mika’il and a number of other beliefs which we have already discussed under the section of the Sunnah.
When this is what they believe, they will have no need for ijma’ as long as the Imam is amongst them, just as the Sahabah did not need ijma’ whilst Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was present amongst them. They have a ‘Nabi’ in every era, who is referred to as the Imam. His statements are regarded as proof, instead of ijma’. This is why they say:
ونحن لما ثبت عندنا بالأدلة العقلية والنقلية كما هو مستقصى في كتب أصحابنا الإمامية أن زمان التكليف لا يخلو من إمام معصوم حافظ للشرع يجب الرجوع إلى قوله فيه، فمتى اجتمعت الأمة على قول كان داخلاً في جملتها لأنه سيدها، والخطأ مأمون على قوله، فيكون ذلك الإجماع حجة. فحجية الإجماع عندنا إنما هو باعتبار كشفه عن الحجة التي هي قول المعصوم
Since it is proven, according to us, on the basis of intellectual as well as textual proof (as the books of our Imami scholars cover this in a comprehensive manner) that an era in which people are responsible for their actions cannot be void of an infallible Imam, who carries the shari’ah in his bosom, it is thus incumbent to refer to his statements regarding it. Thus, whenever the ummah unites upon a view, and his view is included in there (as he is the master of the ummah and he is infallible), this ijma’ will be counted as proof. Therefore, ijma’ serves a proof according to us, only because it reveals to us the actual proof, which is the view of the infallible one.
The earth can never be void of an Imam, as they claim:
لو خلت الأرض من إمام لساخت
If the earth is empty of an Imam, it will sink.
This means that the value of ijma’ will never be realised. If a person ponders over their definition of the sunnah and their definition of ijma’, he will realise that there is no difference between the two, except their names. The sunnah, according to them, is the sayings of the infallible one, and valid ijma’, according to them, is that which reveals the view of the infallible one. Their inclusion of ijma’ among the sources of shari’ah (in their books on the principles of Islam), whereas it does not really have any meaning, is indeed illogical. They have stated that the views of their jurists, even if they are one hundred in number, hold no weight. One of their scholars writes:
أما الإجماع فعندنا هو حجة بانضمام المعصوم، فلو خلا المائة من فقهائنا عن قوله لما كان حجة، ولو كان في اثنين لكان قولهما حجة، لا باعتبار اتفاقهما بل باعتبار قوله
Ijma’, according to us is a proof when it includes the infallible one. Thus, if a hundred of our jurists do not hold his view, it will not be proof. However, if (his view is found among) two of them, it will be proof, not on account of their agreement, but rather on account of his view.
This means that ijma’ serves no purpose according to them. They have merely given another name to that which they refer to as the Sunnah. It seems as if this objection was raised against the Shia in the early eras. Their scholars quote al Sharif al Murtada, who stated:
إننا لسنا بادئين بالحكم بحجية الإجماع حتى يرد كونه لغواً، وإنما بدأ بذلك المخالفون، وعرضوه علينا، فلم نجد بداً من موافقتهم عليه.. فوافقناهم في أصل الحكم لكونه حقاً في نفسه، وإن خالفناهم في علته ودليله
We were not the first ones to take ijma’ as a proof, due to which the objection of it being meaningless could be raised against us. It was the opposition who started this and presented it to us. We had no option but to agree with them… Thus, we agreed with them regarding the actual law, as it, in itself, is the truth. However, we disagree with them as far as its reason and proof is concerned.
In other words, they are merely imitating the Ahlus Sunnah. The author of Qawami’ al Fudul goes on to state:
تنعدم فائدة الإجماع لو علم حال شخص الإمام خروجاً أو دخولاً أو حال قوله تقية أو نحوها، لكن الذي يسهل الخطب هو أن عقد باب الإجماع منهم دوننا كي يتجه علينا ذلك
The object of ijma’ will be lost if the position of the Imam is known; whether he is in or out of it, or whether he agreed on account of Taqiyyah or not. However, the matter is made easy by the fact that they are the ones who introduced the concept of ijma’, not us. Thus the objection cannot be raised against us.
The Ahlus Sunnah have kept up to their principles. Ijma’ is given its due importance. The question is, if your belief of Imamah demands that a concept like ijma’ cannot exist, why did you accept it in the first place? Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar offers another bizarre explanation:
إن الإجماع لا قيمة علمية له عند الإمامية ما لم يكشف عن قول المعصوم.. فإذا كشف على نحو القطع عن قوله فالحجة في الحقيقة هو المنكشف لا الكاشف، فيدخل حينئذ في السنة، ولا يكون دليلاً مستقلاً في مقابلها
Ijma’ has no academic value according to the Imamiyyah, as long as it does not reveal the view of the infallible one. If it reveals his view in a definite manner, then the proof is actually in his view and not in ijma’. Thus, it will then fall under the category of the Sunnah, and it will not be an independent proof like the Sunnah.
Rida al Sadr says:
وأما الإجماع عندنا – معاشر الإمامية – فليس بحجة مستقلة تجاه السنة، بل يعد حاكياً لها، إذ منه يستكشف رأي المعصومين عليهم السلام
Ijma’, according to us (the Imamiyyah), is not an independent proof like the Sunnah. Rather, it informs about it. The view of the infallible one is revealed by it.
A contemporary scholar of theirs, Muhammad Jawad al Mughniyah writes:
أن ثمة تبايناً بين موقف متقدمي الشيعة وبين موقف متأخريهم في مسألة الإجماع، حيث اتفق المتقدمون (من الشيعة) على أن مصادر التشريع أربعة: الكتاب، والسنة، والإجماع، والعقل، وغالوا في الاعتماد على الإجماع حتى كادوا يجعلونه دليلاً على كل أصل وكل فرع، وعد المتأخرون لفظ الإجماع مع هذه المصادر ولكنهم أهملوه، بل لم يعتمدوا عليه إلا منضماً مع دليل آخر في أصل معتبر
There is a difference between the stance of the former and the latter scholars of the Shia on the matter of ijma’. The former scholars (of the Shia) were unanimous that there are four sources of Islamic law; the Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma’, and the intellect. They exceeded the bounds in their reliance upon ijma’, so much so that they almost used it as proof in every matter; fundamental or subsidiary. The latter day scholars counted the word ijma’ amongst these sources as well. However, they did not pay attention to it. In fact, they would not rely upon it except if it was paired with another proof on an acceptable matter.
The above should not be taken to be a general statement, as there are some latter day scholars who also accept ijma’ as an independent proof. Nevertheless, their Imam has not been around since the third century. Thus, how should his opinion, which will reveal the status of ijma’, be known? Their scholar, al Hurr al ‘Amili, as well as others from the Akhbaris who followed his footsteps were of the opinion that it is impossible to learn of his opinion in his absence. Therefore, ijma’ can never be established, as one will never know whether he is amongst them. He cannot be traced since he went into hiding, so it is unknown whether he is in the sea or the land, the east or the west. The Usulis are adamant that ijma’ is established and his view may be learnt.
Al Hamdani (one of their scholars) states in Misbah al Faqih:
إن المدار على حجية الإجماع على ما استقر عليه رأي المتأخرين ليس على اتفاق الكل، بل ولا على اتفاقهم في عصر واحد، بل على استكشاف رأي المعصوم بطريق الحدس من فتوى علماء الشيعة الحافظين للشريعة، وهذا مما يختلف باختلاف الموارد، فرب مسألة لا يحصل فيها الجزم بموافقة الإمام، وإن اتفقت فيها آراء جميع الأعلام.. ورب مسألة يحصل فيها الجزم بالموافقة ولو من الشهرة
The basis of taking ijma’ as a proof, as far as the view which is accepted by the latter day scholars, is that it neither has to be the agreement of everyone nor the agreement of all of them in one era. Rather it is based upon unveiling the view of the infallible. This is done by guessing his view from the verdicts of the scholars of the Shia who have encompassed the shari’ah. However, this could change on different occasions. In some matters, the agreement of the Imam cannot be ascertained, even if all of the luminaries agree, whilst there can be certainty of his agreement in other matters, merely by them being popular.
We learn from the above text that they figure out the view of their Imam through conjecture. Thus, guessing the view of the Imam, according to them, takes precedence over the unanimity of the pious predecessors. These are the most illogical contradictions. They cannot be sure that a certain view is held by the Imam, even if all the scholars are unanimous upon it, yet they are sure that another view is upheld by the Imam simply because it is the popular view! These are principles which, on the one hand do not make any sense, but at the same time they are confessions that all of their scholars can unanimously opt for misguidance.
Although they have rejected the true meaning of ijma’, they establish that the view of an unknown group is to be accepted and the view of those who are known should be rejected. This is the result of their love for adopting that which is abnormal. Their explanation of this is that the Imam is among the unknown. The author of Ma’alim al Din says:
إذا اختلفت الإمامية على قولين، فإن كانت إحدى الطائفتين معلومة النسب ولم يكن الإمام أحدهم كان الحق مع الطائفة الأخرى، وإن لم تكن معلومة النسب..
When the Imamiyyah have two different opinions; if the lineage of one of the two groups are known and the Imam is not one of them, the truth will be with the other group, even if their lineage is not known.
They go to the extent that they stipulate the presence of an unknown group as a condition for ijma’ to take place in the absence of the Imam. They state:
الحق امتناع الاطلاع عادة على حصول الإجماع في زماننا هذا وما ضاهاه من غير جهة النقل، إذ لا سبيل إلى العلم بقول الإمام، كيف وهو موقوف على وجود المجتهدين المجهولين ليدخل في جملتهم ويكون قوله رضي الله عنه مستوراً بين أقوالهم، وهذا مقطوع بانتفائه، فكل إجماع يدعى في كلام الأصحاب مما يقرب من عصر الشيخ إلى زماننا، وليس مستنداً إلى نقل متواتر وآحاد حيث يعتبر أو مع القرائن المفيدة للعلم، فلابد أن يراد به ما ذكره الشهيد من الشهرة
The truth is that it is generally impossible for ijma’ or its likes to take place in this era of ours, without divine texts; as there is no way that the view of the Imam can be known. How can it take place when it is dependent upon the existence of unknown mujtahids (so that he could be amongst them and his view hidden between theirs). This has definitely come to an end. Thus, wherever in the speech of our scholars, from the eras close to the Sheikh until our era, ijma’ — which is not accompanied by reliable narrations (mutawatir or acceptable ahad) or indications which carry weight — is claimed, it is undoubtedly a reference to the popularity mentioned by al Shahid.
The most reliable view, according to them, is the view of the unknown group, who are almost non-existent. Since the era of Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi, they could not be found. The only ijma’ that presently exists is al Ijma’ al Manqul. Perhaps this ijma’ did exist (according to them) prior to the era of al Tusi. How paradoxical it is, that the same group who disregards the ijma’ of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum searches for the view of unknown people and then practices upon it! The choice of disregarding the view of their scholars, despite their unanimity upon something is indeed commendable. However, their rejection of the ijma’ of the Sahabah and the pious predecessors is nothing less than disastrous.
Then, in their application of what they refer to as ijma’, they once again committed very serious blunders. Hence, the contradictions here turned out to be no less than the contradictions in their narrations. You will realise this by reading their books like al Istibsar, al Bihar and others. Even the view of one specific scholar regarding ijma’ is not without contradiction. For example, they state regarding Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, the author of Man La Yahdurhi al Faqih – one of the four foundational books of their religion:
إنه ليدعي الإجماع في مسألة ويدعي إجماعاً آخر على خلافها وهو كثير
He claims that ijma’ took place regarding a certain matter and thereafter claims that another ijma’ (contrary to this one) took place. He does this often.
The author of Jami’ al Maqal says:
ومن هذه طريقته في دعوى الإجماع كيف يتم الاعتماد عليه والوثوق بنقله
How can one who chooses this manner in claiming ijma’ be relied upon, and how can his quotations be accepted?
They sometimes go to the extent of claiming ijma’ upon a certain view, which is in fact not upheld by anyone. Al Nuri al Tabarsi says:
ربما يدعي الشيخ والسيد إجماع الإمامية على أمر وإن لم يظهر له قائل
At times al Sheikh and al Sayed claim ijma’ of the Imamiyyah on a certain matter, whereas apparently, no person holds that view.
Al Tabarsi admitted that there are contradictions in their ijma’. He emphasises this in the following statement:
الإجماعات المتعارضة من شخص واحد ومن معاصرين أو متقاربي العصر، ورجوع المدعي عن الفتوى التي ادعى الإجماع فيها في ودعوى الإجماع في مسائل غير معنونة فى كلام من تقدم على المدعي، وفي مسائل قد اشتهر خلافها بعد المدعي، بل في زمانه، بل ما قبله
(There exists) contrary ijma’at (plural of ijma’) from one person, two contemporaries and those whose eras were close to one-another. Sometimes a claimant retracts a verdict regarding which he previously claimed ijma’. At times ijma’ is claimed regarding matters which are not specific in the speech of the one who preceded the claimant, and in matters in which the opposite became popular after his era, in his era or even before his era.
This is the statement of al Tabarsi, who is a well-versed researcher of their books. He was forced to expose them on this issue, in order to prove his stance, on account of which he authored Fasl al Khitab. He rejected the existence of ijma’ (amongst them) on account of its contradictions. Whilst his motive behind explaining this was completely incorrect, we have nonetheless benefited as he exposed to us their contradictions as far as defining and applying the concept of ijma’ is concerned.
Additionally, despite their claim that ijma’ is that which reveals the view of the infallible one, they do not apply this. Rather, they search for the unanimity of their scholars instead of the view of the infallible one. Thus, one of their scholars (whilst explaining that the view of the infallible one is the truth and not the independent unanimity of the scholars) laments:
والعجب من غفلة الأصحاب عن هذا الأصل وتساهلهم في دعوى الإجماع عند احتجاجهم به للمسائل الفقهية، حتى جعلوه عبارة عن مجرد اتفاق الجماعة من الأصحاب فعدلوا به عن معناه الذي جرى عليه الاصطلاح من غير قرينة جلية، ولا دليل على الحجية معتداً به
It is surprising that the scholars are negligent towards this principle and they unscrupulously claim ijma’ when trying to prove matters of jurisprudence by means of it. This is to the extent that they use it to refer to the mere unanimity of a group of scholars. Thus, they have turned it away from the meaning which was stipulated for it without any strong indication and without any reliable proof that it is fit to be used as evidence.
On the one hand, they do not accept ijma’ in its true sense. On the other hand, they accept that it is one of the sources of shari’ah (law). Thereafter, they go on to contradict themselves time after time as far as its existence and application is concerned. These contradictions reveal to us the false nature of their claims. To give you a clearer understanding of the difference between the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah on ijma’, and their stance, understand the following; if Muhammad al Jawwad, who they believe assumed Imamah at the age of five, held a view at this age of his, or if some Rawafid attributed a view to him regarding the shari’ah, and the rest of the ummah holds the opposite view, his view will be accepted as the truth!
Also, if anything is attributed to their awaited one, whose existence is rejected by history – which will be discussed, even through the medium of pieces of paper, and the rest of the ummah opposes him, his view will be taken. Preference is given to the one who does not exist, and the view of the entire ummah is totally disregarded. Al Mufid explains this:
فلو قال قولاً لم يوافقه عليه أحد من الأنام لكان كافيًا في الحجة والبرهان
If he says anything, but none else from the human race agrees with him, it is sufficient a proof and evidence.
Does this need any scrutiny? Al Mufid boasts that this is a view held only by his sect. He says:
وهذا مذهب أهل الإمامة خاصة، ويخالفهم فيه المعتزلة والمرجئة والخوارج وأصحاب الحديث..
This is the view of the Imamiyyah only. They are opposed in it by the Mu’tazilah, Murji’ah, Khawarij, scholars of hadith…
Ijma’, according to all Muslims is the view which is agreed upon by the ummah, as the ummah cannot unite upon falsehood. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
وَمَن يُّشَاقِقِ الرَّسُوْلَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدٰى وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيْلِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلّٰى وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيْرًا
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.
Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
لا تزال طائفة من أمتي قائمة بأمر الله لا يضرهم من خذلهم أو خالفهم حتى يأتي أمر الله وهو ظاهرون على الناس
A group from my ummah will always be steadfast upon the command of Allah. Those who desert them or oppose them will not harm them, until the matter of Allah comes, whilst they are dominant over the people.
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said (which is reported in many narrations):
لا تجتمع أمتي على ضلالة
My Ummah will never unite upon misguidance.
This refers to the unanimity of the Muslims. As for the Shia, they search for the ijma’ of the Imam instead of the entire ummah. The deciding factor, according to them, is whether or not the view is from people who accept the Twelve Imams. The Imam either has to be amongst them or their view should reveal the view of the Imam, as explained previously. There is no consideration given to the scholars of the ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
It does not end there. They go a step further by stating that guidance lies in opposing the ijma’ of the Muslims. Opposition of the Muslims is one of their principles as far as deciding between two opinions is concerned. It has become one of the foundations of their mazhab. They have many texts which emphasise this ‘principle’ and encourage it. Usul al Kafi records the following conversation with one of the Imams:
إذا وجدنا أحد الخبرين موافقاً للعامة والآخر مخالفاً لهم بأي الخبرين يؤخذ؟ فقال: ما خالف العامة ففيه الرشاد، فقلت (القائل هو الراوي): جعلت فداك، فإن وافقها الخبران جميعاً؟ قال: ينظر إلى ما هم إليه أميل حكامهم وقضاتها فيترك ويؤخذ بالآخر، قلت: فإن وافق حكامهم الخبرين جميعاً؟ قال: إذا كان ذلك فارجئه حتى تلقى إمامك، فإن الوقوف عند الشبهات خير من الاقتحام في الهلكات
“If we find one narration corresponding to the masses and the other opposing them, which of the two should we take.”
He replied, “Guidance lies in that which opposes the masses.”
I (the narrator) asked, “May I be sacrificed for you, what if both conforms to them?”
He replied, “Find the one towards which their judges and rulers are more inclined towards. This one will be left and the other one will be taken.”
I asked, “If their judges are inclined towards both?”
He said, ‘If that is the case, then delay the matter until you meet your Imam. It is better to stay away from the doubtful matters than to plummet into something destructive.”
Their ‘reliable scholar’, al Kulayni mentions that one of the manners in which a decision can be reached when the narrations are contradictory is as stated by the Imam:
دعوا ما وافق القوم فإن الرشد في خلافهم
Leave that which corresponds to (the view of) the nation, as guidance lies in opposing them.
Abu ‘Abdullah says (according to their fabrications):
إذا ورد عليكم حديثان مختلفان فخذوا بما يخالف القوم
If there are two contradictory narrations before you, then take the one that opposes the people.
Hassan ibn Jahm reports:
قلت للعبد الصالح – رضي الله عنه -: “هل يسعنا فيما ورد علينا منكم إلا التسليم لكم؟ فقال: لا والله لا يسعكم إلا التسليم لنا، فقلت: فيروى عن أبي عبد الله شيء، ويروى عنه خلافه فأيهما نأخذ؟ فقال: خذ بما خالف القوم وما وافق القوم فاجتنبه
I asked the pious slave (i.e. the Imam), “Do we have any choice regarding those matters which have reached us from you besides submitting to your decisions?”
He replied, “No, by the oath of Allah you have no choice but to submit to our decisions.”
I asked, “How about the case when something is reported from Abu ‘Abdullah and the opposite is also reported from him, which one do we take?”
He answered, “Take that which opposes the people, and stay away from whatever conforms to their (view).”
They explain that the rationale behind this principle is that which Abu Basir attributes to Abu ‘Abdullah:
ما أنتم والله على شيء مما هم فيه، ولا هم على شيء مما أنتم فيه، فخالفوهم فما هم من الحنيفية على شيء
By the oath of Allah, you and they have absolutely nothing in common. Oppose them, as they have no portion of the true religion.
The heretics, who thrive upon creating division in the ummah, have duped the ignorant ones (who divorced their intellectual abilities after filling their souls with that which they refer to as ‘sacrifices for the Ahlul Bayt’, and intoxicating themselves with the unrealistic rewards promised to them for nothing other than ‘love for the Ahlul Bayt’). They said to them:
إن الأصل في هذا المبدأ أن علياً – رضي الله عنه – لم يكن يدين الله بدين إلا خالف عليه الأمة إلى غيره إرادة لإبطال أمره، وكانوا يسألون أمير المؤمنين عن الشيء الذي لا يعلمونه، فإذا أفتاهم جعلوا له من عندهم ليلتبسوا على الناس
The basis of this principle is that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not worship Allah in any manner, except that the ummah would oppose him and do something else. They did this in order to destroy his matter. They would ask Amir al Mu’minin regarding that which they did not know. When he would give them a verdict, they would attribute something else to him from their own side to confuse the people.
They contradict themselves yet again. They claim that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu would seek his counsel in every matter, minor or major. He would then accept it and practise upon it. They further claim that the Sahabah would consult him regarding all their difficult matters. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is reported to have said (according to their narrations), “May I not live in ummah for whom you are not there for, o Abu al Hassan. May I not live to encounter a difficulty if Abu al Hassan is not there to solve it.”
Now, which of the two claims should we believe? These fabricators have no limit to contradicting themselves, as is usual with liars. Hereunder is another guideline to ensure that their followers can never bridge the gap between themselves and the Muslims. ‘Ali ibn Asbat reports:
قلت للرضا – رضي الله عنه -: يحدث الأمر لا أجد بدّاً من معرفته، وليس في البلد الذي أنا فيه أحد أستفتيه من مواليك، قال: ائت فقيه البلد، فاستفته عن أمرك، فإذا أفتاك بشيء فخذ بخلافه، فإن الحق فيه
I said to al Rida radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “A matter surfaces, which I am forced to learn about. However, in the place in which I am, there are none of your supporters, from whom I may find out.”
He replied, “Approach the jurist of the area and ask him regarding your matter. When he passes a verdict for you, do the opposite of that, as the truth lies therein.”
One of their scholars comments on this narration saying:
من جملة نعماء الله على هذه الطائفة المحقة أنه خلى بين الشيطان وبين علماء العامة، فأضلهم في جميع المسائل النظرية حتى يكون الأخذ بخلافهم ضابطة لنا، ونظيره ما ورد في حق النساء شاوروهن وخالفوهن
Among the greatest bounties of Allah upon this true sect is that he cleared the path between the devil and the scholars of the masses. Thus, he misguided them in all academic matters, to the extent that opposing them has become one of our principles. Similar to this is the narration regarding women, “Consult them and oppose them.”
These texts are capable of causing colossal damage, and there is no doubt that they are from the fabrications of a heretic who wished to destroy Islam as well as the Muslim ummah. He attempted to open a huge door from which people can exit the fold of Islam, as they will rush towards opposing the Muslim ummah in every religious matter. When this is the case, then how can it make any sense that the same sect calls towards unity? Can there ever be unity if guidance always lies in opposing the Ahlus Sunnah?
Added to the indications made by us whilst presenting their view, we wish to elucidate further on the matter. Accepting ijma’ as a proof has been discussed at length in the books of principles. There it has been proven to be a correct and accurate view in a convincing and a satisfying manner. Thus, we will not delve into it here. As far as the Shia are concerned, they accept it by name, but reject its reality.
Their contemporary scholar, al Mughniyah states that the former scholars of his sect all agreed upon accepting ijma’, and the latter day scholars have counted it as one of their proofs, but they have not relied upon it. This means that they have either opposed ijma’, which they counted as one of their fundamental proofs, opposed the truth upon which their former scholars agreed upon or the former Shia united upon misguidance. The reality is that the sum total of all the opinions is rejection of ijma’, even though some of them make extensive claims regarding this, especially in their books on principles. This is because the claim of ijma’, after scrutiny, is proven to be a meaningless one, with the purpose being defeated.
Added to that, the confusion amongst them as far as deciding whether or not ijma’ took place in certain issues is further proof that they are clueless on the issue. The greatest sign, however, is their stipulation (as a condition) that a scholar whose lineage is unknown should be amongst the group so that he could be imagined to be the Imam. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote this off as the severest form of ignorance. He says, “I have seen in the books of their scholars that if they have two different opinions regarding a matter; and it is known who held one of the views, but unknown who held the opposing view, they choose the latter as the correct view as they say, “If the man behind the view is unknown, then it must be the view of the Imam.” Is this not the worst type of ignorance?
Take a moment to get over this. They believe that their lack of knowledge regarding the person and the authenticity of his view is actually proof that the view is authentic! Ibn Taymiyyah poses a few pertinent questions; on what basis do they decide that the second view is definitely that of the Imam? Why have they ruled out the possibility that he could have agreed with the other view? What convinces them that the unknown person had any idea on the matter, and was not just a scamp from the humans or jinn? Thus, they have established ignorance on the basis of ignorance, as their only proof of a view being held by the Imam is that they do not know who stated it! This is the end-result of the one who turns away from the light of the sunnah, which Allah revealed upon His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He ends up in the centre of heaps of darkness.
Their scholar, al Hurr al ‘Amili (the author of al Wasa’il) refuted their stance saying:
وقولهم باشتراط دخول مجهول النسب فيهم أعجب وأغرب، وأي دليل دل عليه؟ وكيف يحصل مع ذلك العلم بكونه هو المعصوم أو الظن به
Their condition that a person of unknown lineage should be amongst them is most weird and bizarre. Which proof establishes this? How does that lead them to know, or even think that he is the infallible one?
There is yet another question that begs to be asked. How is it that they have taken the view of a five year old, who is unable to take care of himself to be equivalent to the consensus of the ummah? In fact, they actually believe that the view upon which the ummah have consensus should be discarded and the view of this child (who does not really exist) should be accepted. This is the peak of misguidance.
Further, if one does some research regarding their ijma’ (which only exists by name), which supposedly reveals the view of the Imam, he will find but contradictions. One merely has to browse through the narrations of al Tahdhib and al Istibsar to see this. This was even admitted by al Tusi in the introduction of al Tahdhib. According to him, this is one of the reasons why many people are leaving Shi’ism.
The most important matter, according to the Shia is the acceptance of the Imam. However, the different sects among them have disagreed on his appointment. There are strong differences amongst them on this matter, as explained in the books regarding sects written by both the Ahlus Sunnah as well as the Shia. Thus, how is it possible to have ijma’ when the foundation of the religion is being eaten away by differences?
Then, as explained, their claims of ijma’ are contradictory. However, their views regarding the matters in which they claim ijma’ and oppose the majority are totally ludicrous, whether they are related to the foundation matters or the subsidiary ones. Among these views are; their acceptance of the awaited one, who did not ever exist, their extremism regarding the Imam and his miracles and so on. We will discuss some of these in detail at a later stage. Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Shia do not have a single view upon which they agree.”
This is the absolute truth. The Shia themselves admit it. Usul al Kafi contains the following narration:
عن زرارة بن أعين عن أبي جعفر – رضي الله عنه – قال: سألته عن مسألة فأجابني، ثم جاءه رجل فسأله عنها، فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني، ثم جاءه رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي، فلما خرج الرجلان قلت: يا ابن رسول الله، رجلان من أهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال: يا زرارة، إن هذا خير لنا ولكم، ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا، ولكان أقلّ لبقائنا وبقائكم
Zurarah ibn A’yan reports regarding Abu Jafar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “I asked him regarding a certain matter so he answered me. Thereafter, another man came to him and asked him regarding it. He gave him an answer contrary to the one that he gave me. Then, a third man came and he gave him an answer that was neither like the one he gave me, nor like the one he gave the man after me. When the two men walked out, I asked, “O son of Rasulullah, two men from Iraq—from your Shia—came to you and asked you (regarding the same matter), but you gave each one of them a different reply?”
He responded, “O Zurarah, this is better for me and you. If you all hold one opinion, the people will believe that it is your opinion, which will be shorten my and your existence.”
This establishes that it is among the core principles of their religion that (on the basis of Taqiyyah) their views should always be contradictory, to ensure (as they claim) that their enemies do not ever realise their actual stance. The truth is, this has resulted in their religion becoming a total mess, as they cannot pinpoint the ‘views of the Imams’. When this is the case, how will they ascertain the view of the Imam in any matter?
Imam Abu Jafar was undoubtedly free from all of their claims. This narration is another fabrication of the heretics, aimed at keeping the Shia in the dark as far as the views of Imam Abu Jafar and the other scholars of the Ahlul Bayt are concerned. They do this to create space for themselves, so that they can spread their kufr and extremism. Whenever the Imams exposed them by rejecting these heretical beliefs, they bluffed their public by claiming that the Imam was practising Taqiyyah.
The great scholar of India, who authored al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah states, “As for ijma’, their claim that it is one of their proofs is baseless. They do not accept it as an independent proof, but rather take it as proof due to their belief that it contains the view of the Imam. Thus, the basis of it is the Imam, not ijma’.” They also have differences regarding the infallibility of the Imam, just as they disagree regarding the appointment of some.
The ijma’ of the people of the first era (before the great fitnah took place) holds no weight according to them. The people of the first era were unanimous upon the caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, the fact that the possessions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam could not be inherited by anyone, and the impermissibility of Mut’ah. However, each of these views is baseless according to them. When the ijma’ of this era is not accepted by them, then how can they accept any ijma’ that takes place thereafter (when differences and sectarianism plagued the ummah), especially regarding controversial issues which require sound proofs?
The author of al Tuhfah then points out some of their contradictions, wherein some claim ijma’ regarding a matter but their claims are rejected and belied by others. Their scholar al Shahid al Thani (who is greatly revered by them) dedicated a special chapter to point out the places in which al Tusi claimed ijma’, but passed opposing verdicts on other occasions. The author of al Tuhfah then quotes him verbatim.
In essence, they ‘accept’ ijma’ because it reveals the view of the Imam, and not because they believe that the ummah cannot unite upon deviation, as believed by the Ahlus Sunnah. The truth about them is that they reject ijma’, as well as the narration which is established in their books:
لا تجتمع أمتي على ضلالة
My ummah will not unite upon misguidance.
We have already explained that this hadith is established in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah as well. We wish to ask them: Why do they ignore this hadith, which is accepted by both sects? Added to this narration, al Ihtijaj (one of their authentic books according to al Majlisi and others) has a lengthy narration from Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al ‘Askari. Part of it reads:
واجتمعت الأمة قاطبة لا اختلاف بينهم في ذلك على أن القرآن حق لا ريب فيه عند جميع فرقها، فهم في حالة الاجتماع عليه مصيبون وعلى تصديق ما أنزل الله مهتدون لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: “لا تجتمع أمتي على الضلالة” فأخبر أن ما أجمعت عليه الأمة، ولم يخالف بعضها بعضاً هو الحق، فهذا معنى الحديث، لا ما تأوله الجاهلون، ولا ما قاله المعاندون من إبطال حكم الكتاب، واتباع حكم الأحاديث المزورة، والروايات المزخرفة، واتباع الأهواء المردية المهلكة التي تخالف نص الكتاب، وتحقيق الآيات الواضحات النيرات..
The entire ummah has agreed, without any difference between them that the Qur’an is undoubtedly the truth. There is no doubt regarding this, according to all of its sects. Thus, in their agreement upon this, they are on the right path and by believing in that which Allah revealed, they are guided, as Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “My ummah will not unite upon misguidance.” Thus, he explained that whatever the ummah unites upon and do not oppose one-another regarding it, is the truth. This is the meaning of the hadith. It is not as interpreted by the ignorant and stubborn ones, who wish to do away with the commands of the Book of Allah, preferring fabricated and false narrations and destructive lowly desires which contradict the text of the Qur’an and the reality of the illuminated and clear verses…
As you have seen in this narration, their Imam did not say, “Search for that which was agreed upon by the group with whom the Imam was and leave the view of the other group. Search for the group who has a person whose lineage is unknown, as the Imam could be amongst them, or he could be the one whose lineage is unknown. ” Instead, he said to them that the truth is in those matters in which they agree and do not oppose one another. He further explained that the basis of finding the truth is the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that ijma’ is definitely a sign of the truth as Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “My ummah will not unite upon misguidance.” He even warned them of following false narrations.
So why is it that this sect persists upon being different and taking these false narrations? Why do they discard the view of their Imam and distance themselves from the rest of the ummah, belittling their ijma’? Why do they prefer the view of a child, or a non-existent one over the ijma’ of the ummah of Islam? Do they do all of this to uphold the fabrication of a heretic, who told them that guidance lies in opposing the majority?
Thus, they took opposition of the Ahlus Sunnah (who followed the footsteps of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum) to be the basis of salvation. If the Ahlus Sunnah abstains from something, they grab on to it and if the Ahlus Sunnah upholds something they discard it. In so doing, they have left the fold of Islam. They are clearly upon misguidance and surely they will gain everything but salvation.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُوْلَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدٰى وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيْلِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَٰى وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيْرًا
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.
If this principle — guidance lies in opposing the Ahlus Sunnah — was from the Imams (as claimed by this sect), they would have been the first ones to practice upon it. The truth, which the Shia scholars accept, is that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not oppose the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Al Sharif al Murtada explains:
دخل في آرائهم، وصلى مقتدياً بهم، وأخذ عطيتهم، ونكح سبيهم، وأنكحهم، ودخل في الشورى
He accepted their opinions, performed salah behind them, accepted their gifts, married their captives, got them married, and took part in the meetings.
He did not ever oppose them in a matter in which they all agreed. He would dislike differences, as reported by al Bukhari:
اقضوا كما كنتم تقضون، فإني أكره الاختلاف حتى يكون الناس جماعة
Pass judgments as you were passing them, so that the people can remain together. I dislike differences.
Ibn Hajar says, “His statement, ‘I dislike differences,’ refers to those differences which create fights. Ibn al Tin says, he meant he did not want to oppose Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Others say that he meant such differences which lead to disputes and strife. This is supported by the other portion of his statement, ‘so that the people can remain together’.” The views of the Shia, in which they oppose the rest of the people, are not in conformity to the guidelines of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He was with the ummah in their ijma’, as this was guidance. There is no guidance in opposing them, as claimed by this bigoted group, whose only wish is to disunite the ummah.
This is why we find no answer to ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu conformity to the ummah besides Taqiyyah. In other words, they claim that he was behaving like a hypocrite towards the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Indeed Allah has exonerated him from their lies. This claim, added to it being rejected by the din, is a mockery of the intelligence of the masses and it is denied by history. The scholars of the Shia were unable to find an example of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu application of this ‘principle’. Instead, as stated by al Sharif al Murtada (one of their senior scholars), they admit that he would agree with the stances of the ummah.
They cannot even prove his opposition of the ummah from the era in which he was the Khalifah, in which Taqiyyah is discarded. They cannot deny that at this juncture too, he agreed with the views of the ummah. Their scholar, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri says:
ولما جلس أمير المؤمنين – عليه السلام – على سرير الخلافة لم يتمكن من إظهار ذلك القرآن وإخفاء هذا؛ لما فيه من إظهار الشنعة على من سبقه، كما لم يقدر على النهي عن صلاة الضحى، وكما لم يقدر على إجراء المتعتين متعة الحج ومتعة النساء.. وكما لم يقدر على عزل شريح عن القضاء، ومعاوية عن الإمارة
When Amir al Mu’minin sat upon the pedestal of caliphate, he was unable to present that Qur’an and hide this one, as it would entail showing a dislike for those who preceded him. Similarly, he was unable to prevent (people) from the salah of the mid-morning, just as he was unable to implement the two Mut’ahs; the Mut’ah of Hajj and the Mut’ah of women. He also could not remove Shurayh from the post of being a judge or Muawiyah from the post of leadership.
As you have seen, the Ahlus Sunnah as well as the Shia, both agree that Amir al Mu’minin did not go against the ijma’ of the ummah. The Imamiyyah have thus opposed him when they laid for themselves the principle of opposing the ummah. Thus, neither are they his Shia (supporters or followers), nor is he their Imam.
NEXT⇒ Section Two – Chapter One – Interpreting the Verses of Tawhid to be a Reference to the Imams
 Refer to al Ghazali: al Mustasfa 1/173, al Amidi: al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam 1/200, Majmu’ Fatawa 3/157 al Shafi’i: al Risalah pg. 403, 471, Ibn ‘Abd al Barr: al Tamhid 4/267
 Majmu’ Fatawa 3/346
 Majmu’ Fatawa 3/157
 However the word Jama’ah is used (literally) for any group who gets together. ibid
 Al Isnawi: Nihayat al Sul 3/247
 Ibn al Mutahhar: Tahdhib al Wusul ila ‘Ilm al Usul pg. 70 (printed in Tehran in the year 1308 A.H.)
 Refer to al Mufid: Awa’il al Maqalat pg. 99-100, Qawami’ al Fudul pg. 305, Hussain Ma’tuq: Al Marji’iyyah al Diniyyah al ‘Ulya pg. 16, as well as their other books on the subject.
 Al Nahariri: Ma’alim al Din pg. 406
 Usul al Kafi 1/179
 Ma’alim al Din pg. 405
 Qawami’ al Fudul pg. 305
 Qawami’ al Fudul pg. 305
 Al Muzaffar: Usul al Fiqh 3/92
 Rida al Sadr: al Ijtihad wa al Taqlid pg. 17
 Mughniyah: Usul al Fiqh li al Shia al Imamiyyah Bayn al Qadim wa al Hadith (this appeared as an article in the magazine Risalat al Islam (year two, edition 3) page 284-286).
 Their scholar, al Sha’rani (who was given the title ‘the well-versed scholar’ by them) believes that ijma’ does serve as an independent proof. Al Sha’rani: Ta’aliq ‘Ilmiyyah ‘ala Sharh Jami’ li al Mazindarani 2/414. Hence, the statement of Mughniyah cannot be accepted. However, I understand this to be another difference of opinion between the Usulis and Akhbaris. We find al Hurr al ‘Amili, who belongs to the Akhbaris, stating:
كل ما هو مذكور في هذا البحث في كتب الأصول فهو من العامة لا دليل عليه، ولا وجه له أصلاً
Whatever is stated under this discussion in the books of principles is taken from the masses (Ahlus Sunnah). There is no proof for it, and there is absolutely no explanation to it. Al Fusul al Muhimmah pg. 214.
On the other hand, the Usulis have researched this ‘principle’ and have established it in their books regarding the principles of jurisprudence, even though their belief in Imamah does not allow them to do so. Al Sha’rani, one of their contemporary scholars writes in support of ijma’:
روى الطبرسي في الاحتجاج عن أبي الحسن علي بن محمد العسكري في حديث طويل قال:اجتمعت الأمة قاطبة لا اختلاف بينهم في ذلك على أن القرآن حق لا ريب فيه عند جميع فرقها، فهم في حالة الاجتماع عليه مصيبون، وعلى تصديق ما أنزل الله مهتدون؛ لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا تجتمع أمتي على الضلالة..”. قال الشعراني: وهو يدل على حجية الإجماع، وكونه دليلاً مستقلاً، وإمكان العلم به، وتصديق لصحة الحديث المشهور “لا تجتمع أمتي على ضلالة
Al Tabarsi reports in al Ihtijaj from Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al ‘Askari, in a lengthy narration, “The ummah is unanimous, with no difference between them that the Qur’an is the truth. There is nothing doubtful in it according to all its sects. Thus by uniting upon this, they are correct and by believing in that which Allah revealed, they are guided, as Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “My ummah will not unite upon deviation.” This proves that ijma’ is an independent proof. It is thus possible to have knowledge of it. It is a verification of the famous hadith, “My ummah will not unite upon deviation.” Al Sha’rani: Ta’aliq ‘Ilmiyyah 2/414
 Al Ha’iri: Muqtabas al Athar pg. 63
 The Arabic word Hadas literally means the act of guessing. However, here they could be using the philosophical term which means refers to the very first thought that comes up in the mind when thinking about a particular subject. It is similar to the first glance or inspiration. Refer to Mukhtar al Sihah and al Mujam al Falsafi for further details.
 Misbah al Faqih pg. 436, al Ijtihad wa al Taqlid pg. 17
 Ma’alim al Din pg. 406
 Ma’alim al Din pg. 406
 According to the Imamiyyah, ijma’ is of two types:
Al A’lami says in Maqtabas al Athar that word ijma’ is used in a few different ways, according to the terminology of the fuqaha (of the Jafariyyah). One of them is the normal ijma’, which means that certainty is reached regarding the view of the Imam. A second usage is al Ijma’ al Muhassal. Regarding this, he comments, ‘It is non-existent.’ A third usage is al Ijma’ al Manqul which is reported on the level of ahad narrations. He comments regarding this type saying, “This is accepted”. Maqtabas al Athar 3/62
 Al Tarihi: Jami’ al Maqal fi ma Yat’allaq bi Ahwal al Hadith wa al Rijal pg. 15
 Fasl al Khitab pg. 34
 Ma’alim al Din pg. 405-406
 Usul al Kafi states that the Imamah of an Imam can be established even if he is three years old.
Refer to Usul al Kafi (Bab al Isharah wa al Nass ‘ala Abi Jafar al Thani) 1/321. Al Irshad (by al Mufid-pg. 298) and A’lam al Wara (by al Tabarsi pg. 331) state that he may even be less than three years of age. Refer to Bihar al Anwar 25/102-103 as well.
 Awa’il al Maqalat pg. 100
 Surah al Nisa: 115. Thus, whoever opposes the ijma’ of the ummah has chosen a path other than that of the Muslims. Refer to Majmu’ Fatawa 19/194. It is on account of this verse that al Imam al Shafi’i declared it forbidden to oppose the ijma’ of the ummah. He arrived at this conclusion after a great deal of thinking and contemplation. It is undoubtedly one of the best and most accurate deductions. Some have objected to it and thus opined that it (the verse) should not be used as proof. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/590. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote an excellent piece regarding this verse and ijma’. Refer to Majmu’ Fatawa 19/178, 179, 192. Also refer to Tafsir al Qasimi 5/459. Ibn Kathir says, “The phrase ‘…and follows other than the way of the believers” is attached to the first part. Sometimes opposition is of the texts of shari’ah and sometimes it is of the consensus of the ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which is known without doubt. Their consensus is a guarantee against error. This is an honour that they have been blessed with and glorification of their Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. There are many authentic ahadith regarding this. Some scholars have stated that the meaning is mutawatir. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/590
 Muslim Kitab al Jihad 2/1524. Al Bukhari narrates a hadith of the same meaning in Kitab al I’tisam bi al Kitab wa al Sunnah 8/149
 Al Sakhawi says, “(This is a) famous text, reported with many isnads and corroborations both from the ahadith of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as well as the sayings of those after him.” Al Maqasid al Hassanah pg. 460
 Al Kulayni: Usul al Kafi 1/67-68, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: Man La Yahdurhu al Faqih 3/5, al Tusi: al Tahdhib 6/301, al Tabarsi: al Ihtijaj pg. 194, al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 18/75-76
 Usul al Kafi pg. 8 (introduction), Wasa’il al Shia 18/80
 Wasa’il al Shia 18/85
 Wasa’il al Shia 18/85
 Ibn Babawayh: ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ pg. 531, Wasa’il al Shia 18/83
 Refer to Minhaj al Sunnah, where he quotes the speech of Ibn al Mutahhar regarding this. 4/160
 Manaqib Al Abi Talib 1/492-493, al Sadiqi: ‘Ali wa al Hakimun pg. 120
 Ibn Babawayh: ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ pg. 531, al Tusi: al Tahdhib 6/295, Wasa’il al Shia 18/82-83, Bihar al Anwar 2/233
 Al Hurr al ‘Amili: al Iqaz min al Haj’ah pg. 70-71
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/265-266
 He belongs to the Akhbaris, who do not accept ijma’ as a proof.
 Maqtabas al Athar 3/63
 Minhaj al Sunnah 2/129
 Usul al Kafi 1/65
 Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (al Shahid al Thani) gathered forty rulings regarding which al Tusi claimed ijma’ but opposed most of them on other occasions. Some of their scholars go as far as claiming ijma’ regarding their personal views. Al Majlisi explains the cause of this to be that they forgot the principles laid by them after getting involved in the subsidiary matters. Thus, they claimed ijma’ in most matters, whether there existed a difference of opinion or not. They did not even take into consideration whether or not there were different narrations. Refer to al Shia fi al Mizan pg. 323
Another reason why these contradictions take place is that they copy their verdicts from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Thus, no consideration was given to the false ideas upheld by them when these verdicts were passed.
 Refer to al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah page 118, Mukhtasar aal Tuhfah pg. 51
 Al Sha’rani: Ta’aliq ‘Ilmiyyah 2/414
 Bihar al Anwar 2/225
 Al Alusi: Kashf Ghayahib al Jahalat pg. 6
 Surah al Nisa: 115
 Al Murtada: Tanzih al Ambiya’ pg. 132
 Sahih al Bukhari (with Fath al Bari) 7/71
 Fath al Bari 7/73
 Al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 2/362