The Sources of the Religion of Islam and its Shari’ah
Is Ijmaa (Arabic: إجماع) one of Them?
ABSTRACT
“As for him who sets himself against the Messenger and follows a path other than that of the believers even after true guidance had become clear to him, We will let him go to the way he has turned to, and We will cast him into Hell - an evil destination”.
The initial sources of Islam taught to us by our Holy Prophet are the Quran and the Sunnah. These are fundamental and have remained undisputed. A third source, Ijtihaad was later added by the Holy Prophet. He himself indulged in it and the sahaabaa and tabe’een followed suit. This generated a speciality known to us as Fiqh. Later, during the period of the jurists—fuqahaa and imams— another source was added, Ijmaa (Arabic: إجماع). Since then it has been taken for granted as the third source of Islamic law. It happens to be very cloudy and controversial. A great deal of controversy exists about how to apply ijmaa to the shari’ah. I have chosen the index ayah for discussion because of its reportedly quranic basis for Ijmaa.
Literally Ijmaa means resolution and agreement upon something. Technically the term refers to the consensus or agreement of Islamic scholars on a point of Islamic law.
The index ayah indicates that both the Messenger and the “way of the believers” are authoritative sources of guidance.
The eminent scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed narrates in his very popular video series of tafseer of Quran that Imam Shaf’ai went through the Quran three hundred times to find the Quranic source of Ijmaa. He did not find any but did not give up. In his three hundred and first trial he landed on the index ayah as the Quranic proof of the authority of communal consensus (ijmaa). While this story does show the diligence of the great Imam, it also betrays the oblique and ambiguous reference to Ijmaa, if any as it took three hundred and one readings for the scholastic Imam to appreciate it.
The research scholar and mentor Javed Ahmed Ghamdi declares “It (this ayah) has no relation to the interpretation or understanding of Deen”. Thus according to majority of commentators there is no Quranic basis for Ijmaa in this ayah.
Of about ten ahadith quoted in support of Ijmaa, the common one says: “My community will not agree on mistake.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (4:2167), ibn Majah (2:1303), Abu Dawood). Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, the research scholar and mentor maintains that all the ahaadith quoted here are weak and therefore have not found their place in the “mother of books” Bukhaari, Muslim or Mo’atta. Nonetheless, taken all ahaadith together, claim some scholars “This makes adherence to ijma’ obligatory on the Muslims”.
As a conclusion of the long, confusing and contradictory article about ijmaa, I feel one has to decide where one stands to come to a decision about this practice:
- If you are a follower of the Madrasaa curriculum ( 15% Quran, 20% hadith, 25% fiqh and 40% Arabic language, poetry etc.) and have faith in Taqleed, blind and uncritical conformity with the great books of Fiqh and hadith compiled in the second and third century AH (eight and ninth century CE) by our great fuqahaa and muhaddesin then you have no problem, as always. Ijmaa is the definitive third source of the shari’ah, period.
On the other hand
- If you regard Al Quran as the Foundational Source of our Deem and follow the repeated advice and demand of the Holy Quran to use the Divine gift of logic, reason and knowledge to comprehend your Deen, then it is clear and obvious that Islamic Law is flexible and allows for old opinions to be revisited in the light of new knowledge. Additionally, only the sources should be regarded as infallible, not those who interpret them, however pious, honest and gifted. I feel compelled, here to quote from the PhD dissertation of a student: “Intellect is the great blessing bestowed upon human being by Allah Almighty. Allah created human beings and endowed them with intellectual abilities. It has been the salient feature of Islamic shari’ah as compared to other sharias, that it has created a balance between Aql (Intellect) and Wahi(DivineLaw).
It is a dynamic Sharia to meet the requirements of the contemporary challenges and the demands of modern age; it also has the mechanism of "IJTHAD" that is an intellectual process on the basis of the principles laid down in Quraan and Sunnah. Thus, IJTEHAD is not a process of reconstruction of Islam but it is the process to correlate the society passing through the evolutionary ways and establish the authority of Islamic Sharia”
With this background, ijmaa has no basis in the Quran or Shari’ah. At best, it may be used locally to decide some special issues of the community at a particular time.
September 26, 2019
Read ONLY, IF AND WHEN you have time and mood for:
“An Ayah of the Quran for 30 Days” -- September 2019
Choose the section you have time in the next 30 days to read this ayah:-
Prelude: Recurrent Primary Message 1st. Page
Starting Dua, a note & The Ayah 2nd. Page
A Short Version: For the Busy Bee Two Plus Pages
The Main Story: Recommended Four Plus Pages
Footnotes: For the Perfectionist One Page
PRELUDE
From the Pen and Perspective of a self-styled PPK Muslim (Proud, Practicing, Knowledgeable) with a humble submission that Islam totally rejects Blind Following BUT vigorously focusses on the Limitations of Pure Human Reasoning..............and clearly and comprehensively AlLAH knows best.
In the beginning of the seventh century C.E., the folks of Mecca and Medina had a fascinatingly unique window: they had direct access to the Heavens through one of their own; as if Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo was with them on the grounds. They were blessed with a regular stream of Divine counseling and guidelines. Question and answer sessions were part of the program. Even individual questioner was graced by an answer. In the short Introduction to this scheme they were assured that at the end of this twenty-two year project, Divine Directions and Admonitions will continue through the agency of the PEN. The whole discourse has been preserved and archived till eternity under the guarantee of our Lord and Creator. This record in known as the Quran.
It should sound unbelievable but factually appears to be true: Many of our prevalent, widespread and important concepts and opinions about religious matters do not have a basis in the Quran and sometimes even appear to be in obvious conflict with the teachings of the Quran. It would be very educative and helpful to discuss an Ayah of the Quran once a month to see if it supports or rejects our views and actions in our daily life. I wish and hope this generates some soul searching and fruitful interactive discussion.
DUAA’
بِسمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحمٰنِ الرَّحيمِ
In the name of Allah, we praise HIM, seek HIS help and ask for HIS forgiveness. Whosoever Allah guideth none can misguide; whosoever HE allows to fall astray, none can guide him right. We bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah alone and we bear witness that Mohammed, SAW is HIS slave-servant and the Seal of HIS Messengers.
Further, we recall that Allah Ta’aala has declared in HIS Book1
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the Message (or remember or receive admonition) but men of understanding (or intellect)”
and we also recollect that he has warned us about the day of judgement2
“Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons (joy, pleasure).”
As there cannot be a greater boon or blessing or benefit than wisdom, we wonder if this should be a timely reminder to very many of us sincere and practicing Muslims who use our critical thinking to enhance the mundane for ourselves and our families but in matters religion we choose to resort to blind following -- taqleed, doctrine of classical Sunni Islamic Fiqh.
(NOTE: I have filtered out the proofs and details into the Footnotes for those who have the time and interest for them. The main text will then be of reasonable length, hopefully for the busy majority. What follows is not a sermon; I do not feel qualified to give one, anyhow. I wish, it may provide a food for thought. A caveat seems in order: If the ayah selected pertains to issues we face in our daily life with our family, friends, neighbours or peers it may affect us personally and lead to some self analysis and soul searching which in turn could be divisive and distressing. If taken in the right spirit, it can be a humble attempt towards finding the “straight path”.)
THE AYAH
Surah An-Nisa (4), Ayah 115
وَمَنۡ يُّشَاقِقِ الرَّسُوۡلَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَـهُ الۡهُدٰى وَ يَـتَّبِعۡ غَيۡرَ سَبِيۡلِ الۡمُؤۡمِنِيۡنَ نُوَلِّهٖ مَاتَوَلّٰى وَنُصۡلِهٖ جَهَـنَّمَ ؕ وَسَآءَتۡ مَصِيۡرًا
“As for him who sets himself against the Messenger and follows a path other than that of the believers even after true guidance had become clear to him, We will let him go to the way he has turned to, and We will cast him into Hell - an evil destination”.
A SHORT VERSION
“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
The initial sources of Islam taught to us by our Holy Prophet are the Quran and the Sunnah. These are fundamental and have remained undisputed. A third source, Ijtihaad was later added by the Holy Prophet. He himself indulged in it and the sahaabaa and tabe’een followed suit. This generated a speciality known to us as Fiqh. Later, during the period of the jurists—fuqahaa and imams— another source was added, Ijmaa (Arabic: إجماع). Since then it has been taken for granted as the third source of Islamic law. It happens to be very cloudy and controversial. A great deal of controversy exists about how to apply ijmaa to the shari’ah. I have chosen the index ayah for discussion because of its reportedly quranic basis for Ijmaa.
Let us first define Ijmaa, what does it mean before we plunge into its controversy.
Literally Ijmaa means resolution and agreement upon something. Technically the term refers to the consensus or agreement of Islamic scholars on a point of Islamic law. A fuller definition ……. (Please see the Main Story)
There are certain prerequisites described for the validity of ijmaa: ………….. (Please see the Main Story)
Now let us move to the index ayah. Apparently the meaning of this ayah is clear from its translation. It indicates that both the Messenger and the “way of the believers” are authoritative sources of guidance. For al-Rāzī, this verse is evidence for the moral inerrancy (ʿiṣmah) of the Prophet, since if he were errant, it would not always be a punishable sin to oppose him. He further holds that this verse is a proof that right guidance requires external examples to be followed and cannot be based simply upon one’s own intuitive knowledge or inherent sense of right and wrong. Shiites, however, have a different point of view. For leading Twelver Shiite commentators, the “way of the believers” refers to the way prescribed by the teachings of their Imams.
The end of the verse projects ………… (Please see the Main Story)
The eminent scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed narrates in his very popular video series of tafseer of Quran that Imam Shaf’ai went through the Quran three hundred times to find the Quranic source of Ijmaa. He did not find any but did not give up. In his three hundred and first trial he landed on the index ayah as the Quranic proof of the authority of communal consensus (ijmaa). While this story does show the diligence of the great Imam, it also betrays the oblique and ambiguous reference to Ijmaa, if any as it took three hundred and one readings for the scholastic Imam to appreciate it.
Mufti Mohammed Shafi, a great traditional scholar has a different version of this story……. (Please see the Main Story)
Maulana Maudoodi, ……… (Please see the Main Story)
The research scholar and mentor Javed Ahmed Ghamdi declares “It (this ayah) has no relation to the interpretation or understanding of Deen”. He maintains that the scholars tend to ignore the reference to context in the rendering of this ayah. Momeneen in this ayah is referring to the sahaabaa and their “sabeel”—path. The path of the unbelievers and hypocrites of this time is labelled as “a path other than that of the believers” and it is they who are condemned to Hell.
Sayyid Qutb only venters …………. (Please see the Main Story)
Thus according to majority of commentators there is no Quranic basis for Ijmaa in this ayah. Another ayah quoted as a proof ………. (Please see the Main Story)
A third ayah ……….. (Please see the Main Story).
Thus the ayahs quoted here in support of Ijma are not conclusive for Ijma. Imam Gazali says these Ayahs are indications, not clear Nass (explicit and decisive dictum—of the Qur'an or Hadith) on Ijma. Suyuti has the same opinion. Abduh does not find any reference to Ijma in these Ayahs. Al Amidi says, “these give rise to probability (Zann), not positive knowledge”.
Since we have not found a definite proof fo Ijmaa in the Quran, let us turn to the Sunnah. About ten Ahadith are quoted in support of Ijmaa:
“My community will not agree on mistake.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (4:2167), ibn Majah (2:1303), Abu Dawood, and others with slightly different wordings)…… (Please see the Main Story)
These are all ahaad ahadith and therefore do not qualify as providing certain knowledge under the classical science of hadith criticism. Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, the research scholar and mentor maintains that all the ahaadith quoted here are weak and therefore have not found their place in the “mother of books” Bukhaari, Muslim or Mo’atta. He further explains that the words used in the hadith relate to “gumrahi” i.e. depravity and moral corruption and not to “khataa” i.e. a mistake. So the ummah will never unite on Shirk or against the five pillars. However there can be a mistake by the fuqahaa in deriving a certain conclusion from their logic and the ummah can (and have) unite on this mistake. Nonetheless, taken all ahaadith together, claim some scholars “This makes adherence to ijma’ obligatory on the Muslims”.
The opinion about silent ijmaa………. (Please see the Main Story)
There is wide scholarly differences as to what constitutes a consensus:………… (Please see the Main Story)
What is the importance or level of authority of Ijmaa in our Jurisprudence?
In the first place, it should be utilized only where the Quran and Sunnah (the first two sources) are silent on a particular issue.
“The majority of Muslim jurists, particularly the jurists of four well-known schools of law, are in agreement that express ijmaa is an authoritative source of Islamic law”. So much so that it is “similar to the rule established by the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah” and therefore it cannot be opposed nor can mujtahids debate on them. The opposite of ijmaa (i.e., lack of consensus on a point of Islamic law) is called ikhtilaf.
According to the majority of jurists, a decision based on ijmaa generally cannot override a statement of the Quran or the Sunnah.
It is extremely difficult to prove Ijma on particular issues, particularly in the case of issues open to ijtihad or tawil.
Ibn Taymiyyah has offered some pertinent comments:………….. (Please see the Main Story)
Another scholar has this to say “Moreover, even if you agree on what constitutes ijmaa and what type of ijmaa is valid, jurists disagree on what level of authority a ruling based on ijmaa is granted. Is it conclusive, bearing the same weight as an explicitly worded passage from the Quran or perfectly narrated hadith? Is it an argument in favor of a position, but not probative? Is ijma of the companions of Mohammed (pbuh) proof, but not otherwise? Is explicit ijma proof, but silent ijma not? If we have records of many rulings, but not of their basis, does the ijma of the rulings by itself generate a basis for a new ruling”?
It should be added that there is no completely uncontroversial argument for the authority of ijmaa. In fact, the premise that the ijmaa of a majority is binding is not actually accepted by a majority of jurists, and therefore is not proved by ijmaa! Putting it in a better way there is no ijmaa on ijmaa.
Ijma can be of limited local use in special cases.
Initially, for Shia the authority of the Imams rendered the consensus as irrelevant. It can be said now that the status of ijmaa for them is ambiguous.
Ghamdi labels ijmaa as a bidet—innovation— as there is no basis for it in the Quran or Sunnah.
The outstanding scholar and preacher of Indian subcontinent Maulana Wahiduddin writes:
“Usually the jurist have labelled ijmaa as a definite source of Shari’ah. This is certainly a baseless concept.
A permanent source of shari’ah has to be Nas-e-Qatai—explicit dictum. Without this, to call anything as a permanent source of shari’ah has no foundation. Ijmaa has undoubtedly a significance. But this significance is limited to a particular situation when a certain problem may be solved by ijmaa. This will definitely be a stopgap solution and not a permanent source of shari’ah”.(my translation)
In conclusion, I feel one has to decide where one stands to make a sense out of all the confusion and contradiction which we have just gone through:
- If you are a follower of the Madrasaa curriculum ( 15% Quran, 20% hadith, 25% fiqh and 40% Arabic language, poetry etc.) and have faith in Taqleed, blind and uncritical conformity with the great books of Fiqh and hadith compiled in the second and third century AH (eight and ninth century CE) by our great fuqahaa and muhaddesin then you have no problem, as always. Ijmaa is the definitive third source of the shari’ah, period.
- If you regard Al Quran as the Foundational Source of our Deem and follow the repeated advice and demand of the Holy Quran to use the Divine gift of logic, reason and knowledge to comprehend your Deen, then it is clear and obvious that Islamic Law is flexible and allows for old opinions to be revisited in the light of new knowledge. Additionally, only the sources should be regarded as infallible, not those who interpret them, however pious, honest and gifted. I feel compelled, here to quote from the PhD dissertation of a student:
“Intellect is the great blessing bestowed upon human being by Allah Almighty. Allah created human beings and endowed them with intellectual abilities. It has been the salient feature of Islamic shari’ah as compared to other sharias, that it has created a balance between Aql (Intellect) and Wahi(DivineLaw).
It is a dynamic Sharia to meet the requirements of the contemporary challenges and the demands of modern age; it also has the mechanism of "IJTHAD" that is an intellectual process on the basis of the principles laid down in Quraan and Sunnah. Thus, IJTEHAD is not a process of reconstruction of Islam but it is the process to correlate the society passing through the evolutionary ways and establish the authority of Islamic Sharia”
With this background, ijmaa has no basis in the Quran or Shari’ah. At best, it may be used locally to decide some special issues of the community at a particular time.
........and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
THE MAIN STORY
“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
The initial sources of Islam taught to us by our Holy Prophet are the Quran and the Sunnah. These are fundamental and have remained undisputed. A third source, Ijtihaad was later added by the Holy Prophet. He himself indulged in it and the sahaabaa and tabe’een followed suit. This generated a speciality known to us as Fiqh. Later, during the period of the jurists—fuqahaa and imams— another source was added, Ijmaa (Arabic: إجماع). Since then it has been taken for granted as the third source of Islamic law. It happens to be very cloudy and controversial. A great deal of controversy exists about how to apply ijmaa to the shari’ah. I have chosen the index ayah for discussion because of its reportedly quranic basis for Ijmaa.
Let us first define Ijmaa, what does it mean before we plunge into its controversy.
Literally Ijmaa means resolution and agreement upon something. Technically the term refers to the consensus or agreement of Islamic scholars on a point of Islamic law. A fuller definition runs as “the agreement of the mujtahids (jurists) from among community of Muhammad (peace be upon him) after his death in a certain period of time upon a rule of Islamic law.” It needs emphasis that ijmaa is valid only for legal issues. According to the majority, Ijmaa must be founded on the authority of Quran and Sunnah or Ijtihaad. There are three views on whether Qiyas can be a basis of Ijma or not: agree, disagree and partially agree.
There are certain prerequisites described for the validity of ijmaa:
1. The agreement must take place among mujtahids. Mujtahid is a person who is qualified to exercise ijtihad.
2. The agreement must be unanimous.
3. The mujtahids must belong to the Islamic community.
4. The agreement of mujtahids must be held after the death of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him).
5. The agreement must be among the mujtahids of one period, even though some mujtahids of subsequent periods may differ from them.
6. The agreement should be held on a rule of Islamic law (in legal matter).
7. The mujtahids should have relied upon a sanad for deriving their opinion.
Sanad is the evidence (proof) upon which the mujtahids rely on, for arriving upon an agreement.
Ijmaa can be
1) Explicit Ijma’ (ijma’ sarih) when explicit opinions of all the mujtahisds are available
Or it may be
2) Silent or tacit ijma’ (ijma’ sukuti) when a certain legal opinion of one or more mujtahid is circulated and the rest remain silent or do not acknowledge nor they object to it.
This consensus or ijmaa may be at different levels: that of the first generation of Muslims only; or of the first three generations of Muslims; or of the jurists and scholars of the Muslim world, or scholarly consensus; or of all the Muslim world, both scholars and laymen.
It should be noted that shari’ah is is not developed by consistently applying certain logical and judicial principles, but it is based on the message of the Quran and the life of its Messenger. Therefore, it is not enough to say that Mohammed (pbuh) has generically indicated that consensus is valid; jurists must size up and study exactly what is meant by “my ummah” ,“agree” and “mistake” in the relevant ahaadith. Does anyone’s opinion count? Is ijmaa only reached if every single Muslim agrees? What about every adult? Every man? Every judge? Must they agree in general terms, or specifically, or in whole or in part? Even if you accept that consensus is a valid means by which the Law can be discovered, what constitutes consensus is an open question.
Now let us move to the index ayah. Apparently the meaning of this ayah is clear from its translation. It indicates that both the Messenger and the “way of the believers” are authoritative sources of guidance. For al-Rāzī, this verse is evidence for the moral inerrancy (ʿiṣmah) of the Prophet, since if he were errant, it would not always be a punishable sin to oppose him. He further holds that this verse is a proof that right guidance requires external examples to be followed and cannot be based simply upon one’s own intuitive knowledge or inherent sense of right and wrong. Shiites, however, have a different point of view. For leading Twelver Shiite commentators, the “way of the believers” refers to the way prescribed by the teachings of their Imams.
The end of the verse projects one of the strong measures in the Sunnat-e-Ilahi. Those who oppose the Messenger and the Believers after receiving clear signs, they are left free to slip down their slippery slope leading ultimately to hellfire, their logical abode. This reminds us that “God’s forgiveness may include every sin except that partners should be associated with Him”. The ayah following the the index ayah endorses this view3
“For a certainty, God does not forgive that partners should be associated with Him, but He forgives any lesser sin to whomever He wills. He who associates partners with God has indeed gone far astray.”
The eminent scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed narrates in his very popular video series of tafseer of Quran that Imam Shaf’ai went through the Quran three hundred times to find the Quranic source of Ijmaa. He did not find any but did not give up. In his three hundred and first trial he landed on the index ayah as the Quranic proof of the authority of communal consensus (ijmaa). While this story does show the diligence of the great Imam, it also betrays the oblique and ambiguous reference to Ijmaa, if any as it took three hundred and one readings for the scholastic Imam to appreciate it.
Mufti Mohammed Shafi, a great traditional scholar has a different version of this story.“Can the validity of the authority of the Consensus of Muslim Ummah be proved from the Holy Qur’an, Imam al-Shafi'i was asked? He then recited the Quran day and night for three days completing a total of six recitations. At the end he came up with the index ayah as the answer. The Mufti adds that the Imam presented it before other scholars who all agreed with him. By the way, this shows the wide difference in the details of the riwayaat: 301 attempts mentioned in one as against 6 in another. The Mufti himself agrees with this interpretation of the ayah. He also quotes a hadith without any reference “That is, the hand of Allah is on the Muslim community. Whoever breaks away or separates himself from it will himself be separated for consignment to Hell”. Some major commentators concur with this view but the majority do not.
Maulana Maudoodi, astounding scholar of the twentieth century, on the commentary of this ayah has only this to say “When, after revelation from God, the Prophet (peace be on him) delivered his verdict in favour of the innocent Jew rather than the dishonest Muslim, the latter was so seized by un-Islamic, egotistic and chauvinistic considerations that he left Madina, went straight to Makka to join the ranks of the enemies of Islam and of the Prophet (peace be on him), and undertook open opposition. The verse alludes to that incident”.
The research scholar and mentor Javed Ahmed Ghamdi declares “It (this ayah) has no relation to the interpretation or understanding of Deen”. He maintains that the scholars tend to ignore the reference to context in the rendering of this ayah. Momeneen in this ayah is referring to the sahaabaa and their “sabeel”—path. The path of the unbelievers and hypocrites of this time is labelled as “a path other than that of the believers” and it is they who are condemned to Hell.
Sayyid Qutb only venters a reason for its revelation “It is reported that the reason behind the revelation of these verses was that Bashīr ibn Ubayriq, who had joined the Muslim ranks, reverted to disbelief “after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him.” Thus, he followed a different path to that of the believers. But the statement is general and applicable to every case in which a person puts himself in contention with God’s Messenger. To be opposed to the Prophet is to disbelieve in God and His message”. He then proceeds to explain in his lucid style what it means to “sets himself against the Messenger.4
Thus according to majority of commentators there is no Quranic basis for Ijmaa in this ayah. Another ayah quoted as a proof and Justification of Ijma’ as a Source of Islamic Law is5
“O you who have faith! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority among you.1 And if you dispute concerning anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you have faith in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more favourable in outcome”.
To quote this ayah as a proof of Ijmaa it is said “The word ‘uli al-amr’ measn ulama (scholars) of the community. Thus the agreement of the mujtahids is bound to follow”. Whereas the majority if not all the commentators have translated this word as “those vested with authority among you”. One another translation I have seen is “your (qualified) leaders”. By the way, this demonstrates the need for honesty, care and diligence to comprehend our Holy Text.
A third ayah is quoted as a basis of Ijmaa:6
“And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread it abroad; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few”.
Thus the ayahs quoted here in support of Ijma are not conclusive for Ijma. Imam Gazali says these Ayahs are indications, not clear Nass (explicit and decisive dictum—of the Qur'an or Hadith) on Ijma. Suyuti has the same opinion. Abduh does not find any reference to Ijma in these Ayahs. Al Amidi says, “these give rise to probability (Zann), not positive knowledge”.
Since we have not found a definite proof fo Ijmaa in the Quran, let us turn to the Sunnah. About ten Ahadith are quoted in support of Ijmaa:
“My community will not agree on mistake.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (4:2167), ibn Majah (2:1303), Abu Dawood, and others with slightly different wordings)
“My people will not agree on an error”
“I prayed to Allah, the Exalted, that my community may not agree on error, and He gave it to me.”
“Allah’s hand is over the community”
These are all ahaad ahadith and therefore do not qualify as providing certain knowledge under the classical science of hadith criticism. Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, the research scholar and mentor maintains that all the ahaadith quoted here are weak and therefore have not found their place in the “mother of books” Bukhaari, Muslim or Mo’atta. He further explains that the words used in the hadith relate to “gumrahi” i.e. depravity and moral corruption and not to “khataa” i.e. a mistake. So the ummah will never unite on Shirk or against the five pillars. However there can be a mistake by the fuqahaa in deriving a certain conclusion from their logic and the ummah can (and have) unite on this mistake. Nonetheless, taken all ahaadith together, claim some scholars “This makes adherence to ijma’ obligatory on the Muslims”.
The opinion about silent ijmaa is hotly debated. The views vary: it is not considered to be ijmaa nor a probable proof— silent ijmaa is an ijmaa like an explicit ijmaa— and lastly silent ijmaa is not ijmaa but it is a probable proof.
There is wide scholarly differences as to what constitutes a consensus:
Malik ibn Anas held the view that the religiously binding consensus was only the consensus of Muhammad's companions and the direct successors of those companions in the city of Medina.
Al-Shafi'i held the view that religiously binding consensus had to include all of the Muslim community in every part of the world, both the religiously learned and the layman. Thus, if even one individual out of millions would hold a differing view, then consensus would not have been reached.
Al-Ghazali modified al-Shafi'i's definition by restricting the meaning to the religious obligatory duties only.
Abu Hanifa, Ahmad bin Hanbal and Dawud al-Zahiri, on the other hand, considered this consensus to only include the companions of Muhammad, excluding all generations which followed them, in Medina and elsewhere.
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi defines even a simple majority view as constituting consensus. Ibn Taymiyyah restricts consensus to the view of the religiously learned only.
Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's has been attributed two views: that consensus means a simple majority and that it means only the consensus of the companions of Muhammad.
Abdul Wahab Khallaf opines that the old style Ijma of classical definition is no longer possible in modern times because of large number of scholars scattered all over the world.
Allama Iqbal had proposed to transfer performance of Ijma to the legislative assembly; this is the only possible form of Ijma in modern times. Obviously, such Ijma will be locally valid only.
What is the importance or level of authority of Ijmaa in our Jurisprudence?
In the first place, it should be utilized only where the Quran and Sunnah (the first two sources) are silent on a particular issue.
“The majority of Muslim jurists, particularly the jurists of four well-known schools of law, are in agreement that express ijmaa is an authoritative source of Islamic law”. So much so that it is “similar to the rule established by the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah” and therefore it cannot be opposed nor can mujtahids debate on them. The opposite of ijmaa (i.e., lack of consensus on a point of Islamic law) is called ikhtilaf.
According to the majority of jurists, a decision based on ijmaa generally cannot override a statement of the Quran or the Sunnah.
It is extremely difficult to prove Ijma on particular issues, particularly in the case of issues open to ijtihad or tawil.
Ibn Taymiyyah has offered some pertinent comments:
“The point here is that the Messenger has clearly shown all of religion in the scripture and in his sunnah. Ijmaa - the joining together of the community - is right, and it shall not join together on an error.
Whatever modern says that 'joining together’ ( Ijmaa) is the basis of the greater part of the Law has given himself away, for it is lack of knowledge of the scripture and the sunnah that drives him to say it. Similarly when they say that most events require use of logical analogy, because there is no indication in the texts - that is only the statement of one who has no knowledge of the Book and the sunnah with their clear rules for making judgements.
The sunnah cannot abrogate the Book. If there be anything abrogated in the Qur'an, the abrogation is written there, since nothing can take precedence over it. If one does not find something in it, he may look for it in the sunnah, and nothing can abrogate a hadith except another hadith: the sunnah is not abrogated by 'joining together' or anything else. For joining together cannot contradict scripture or the sunnah.
Another scholar has this to say “Moreover, even if you agree on what constitutes ijmaa and what type of ijmaa is valid, jurists disagree on what level of authority a ruling based on ijmaa is granted. Is it conclusive, bearing the same weight as an explicitly worded passage from the Quran or perfectly narrated hadith? Is it an argument in favor of a position, but not probative? Is ijma of the companions of Mohammed (pbuh) proof, but not otherwise? Is explicit ijma proof, but silent ijma not? If we have records of many rulings, but not of their basis, does the ijma of the rulings by itself generate a basis for a new ruling”?
It should be added that there is no completely uncontroversial argument for the authority of ijmaa. In fact, the premise that the ijmaa of a majority is binding is not actually accepted by a majority of jurists, and therefore is not proved by ijmaa! Putting it in a better way there is no ijmaa on ijmaa.
Ijma can be of limited local use in special cases.
Initially, for Shia the authority of the Imams rendered the consensus as irrelevant. It can be said now that the status of ijmaa for them is ambiguous.
Ghamdi labels ijmaa as a bidet—innovation— as there is no basis for it in the Quran or Sunnah.
The outstanding scholar and preacher of Indian subcontinent Maulana Wahiduddin writes:
“Usually the jurist have labelled ijmaa as a definite source of Shari’ah. This is certainly a baseless concept. A permanent source of shari’ah has to be Nas-e-Qatai—explicit dictum. Without this, to call anything as a permanent source of shari’ah has no foundation. Ijmaa has undoubtedly a significance. But this significance is limited to a particular situation when a certain problem may be solved by ijmaa. This will definitely be a stopgap solution and not a permanent source of shari’ah”.(my translation)
In conclusion, I feel one has to decide where one stands to make a sense out of all the confusion and contradiction which we have just gone through:
- If you are a follower of the Madrasaa curriculum ( 15% Quran, 20% hadith, 25% fiqh and 40% Arabic language, poetry etc.) and have faith in Taqleed, blind and uncritical conformity with the great books of Fiqh and hadith compiled in the second and third century AH (eight and ninth century CE) by our great fuqahaa and muhaddesin then you have no problem, as always. Ijmaa is the definitive third source of the shari’ah, period.
On the other hand
- If you regard Al Quran as the Foundational Source of our Deem and follow the repeated advice and demand of the Holy Quran to use the Divine gift of logic, reason and knowledge to comprehend your Deen, then it is clear and obvious that Islamic Law is flexible and allows for old opinions to be revisited in the light of new knowledge. Additionally, only the sources should be regarded as infallible, not those who interpret them, however pious, honest and gifted. I feel compelled, here to quote from the PhD dissertation of a student:
“Intellect is the great blessing bestowed upon human being by Allah Almighty. Allah created human beings and endowed them with intellectual abilities. It has been the salient feature of Islamic shari’ah as compared to other sharias, that it has created a balance between Aql (Intellect) and Wahi(DivineLaw).
It is a dynamic Sharia to meet the requirements of the contemporary challenges and the demands of modern age; it also has the mechanism of "IJTHAD" that is an intellectual process on the basis of the principles laid down in Quraan and Sunnah. Thus, IJTEHAD is not a process of reconstruction of Islam but it is the process to correlate the society passing through the evolutionary ways and establish the authority of Islamic Sharia”
With this background, ijmaa has no basis in the Quran or Shari’ah. At best, it may be used locally to decide some special issues of the community at a particular time.
........and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
Dr. Khalid Mitha
FOOTNOTES
(1) Surah 2/269
يُؤتِي الحِكمَةَ مَن يَشاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُؤتَ الحِكمَةَ فَقَد أوتِيَ خَيرًا كَثيرًا ۗ وَما يَذَّكَّرُ إِلّا أُولُو الأَلبابِ
(2) Surah 102/8
ثُمَّ لَتُسأَلُنَّ يَومَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعيمِ
(3) Surah 4/116
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَغفِرُ أَن يُشرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغفِرُ ما دونَ ذٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُشرِك بِاللَّهِ فَقَد ضَلَّ ضَلالًا بَعيدًا
(4) Qutb
The Arabic expression used in the original text of the Qur’ān and rendered here as being “in contention” with the Prophet means, in its linguistic sense, taking a stand opposite to that taken by another. Hence to put oneself “in contention with God’s Messenger” is to choose a life other than that followed by the Prophet. God’s Messenger has come forward preaching a message that comprises a whole system for life, including faith and worship as well as a legal code legislating for all practical aspects of daily life. The faith and the legal code together constitute the body of this whole system. Should one part of it be adopted and the other neglected, then the whole body, and indeed the whole system, are in ruin. A person brings himself in contention with God’s Messenger when he denies his system in total, or believes in parts of it and denies other parts, implementing the former and ignoring the latter.
(5) Surah 4/59
يا أَيُّهَا الَّذينَ آمَنوا أَطيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطيعُوا الرَّسولَ وَأُولِي الأَمرِ مِنكُم ۖ فَإِن تَنازَعتُم في شَيءٍ فَرُدّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسولِ إِن كُنتُم تُؤمِنونَ بِاللَّهِ وَاليَومِ الآخِرِ ۚ ذٰلِكَ خَيرٌ وَأَحسَنُ تَأويلًا
(6) Surah 4/83
وَاِذَا جَآءَهُمۡ اَمۡرٌ مِّنَ الۡاَمۡنِ اَوِ الۡخَـوۡفِ اَذَاعُوۡا بِهٖ ۚ وَلَوۡ رَدُّوۡهُ اِلَى الرَّسُوۡلِ وَاِلٰٓى اُولِى الۡاَمۡرِ مِنۡهُمۡ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِيۡنَ يَسۡتَنۡۢبِطُوۡنَهٗ مِنۡهُمۡ ؕ وَلَوۡلَا فَضۡلُ اللّٰهِ عَلَيۡكُمۡ وَرَحۡمَتُهٗ لَاتَّبَعۡتُمُ الشَّيۡطٰنَ اِلَّا قَلِيۡلًا
