The deviation of contemporary scholars from previous scholarly consensus and their consensus on new issues
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner:
Honorable Shaykh, may Allah grant you success. Do contemporary scholars have the right to contradict the consensus of previous eras, especially the consensus of the preferred eras? Or is the answer no, meaning that their consensus is restricted to matters where there was no previous consensus?
The Shaykh:
Yes. In matters where there is no previous consensus, it is not permissible to contradict them; one must provide evidence. As for issues where no consensus has preceded them, contemporary scholars may exercise independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in them. If they agree, that is, if the scholars of the era agree on such and such in a matter where no consensus preceded them—new issues that have arisen—then if the scholars of the Muslim community in the various regions agree on a ruling, it becomes a consensus in that specific issue.
The questioner:
Honorable Shaykh, may Allah grant them success.
The Shaykh:
Yes. And even if it is based on probability, it means it is obligatory to act upon it; it is obligatory to act upon it unless a contradicting opinion appears. As long as no contradicting opinion has appeared, the apparent reality is that they are aware of the matter. As long as no contradicting opinion has appeared, the apparent reality is that they are in consensus, and we have no choice but to follow the apparent reality. However, it cannot be said that this is definitive.
The questioner:
Welcome.
The Shaykh:
In terms of reality, in terms of reality only. But in terms of providing evidence, there is no doubt that consensus is used as evidence, even if it is based on probability.
Honorable Shaykh, may Allah grant you success. Do contemporary scholars have the right to contradict the consensus of previous eras, especially the consensus of the preferred eras? Or is the answer no, meaning that their consensus is restricted to matters where there was no previous consensus?
The Shaykh:
Yes. In matters where there is no previous consensus, it is not permissible to contradict them; one must provide evidence. As for issues where no consensus has preceded them, contemporary scholars may exercise independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in them. If they agree, that is, if the scholars of the era agree on such and such in a matter where no consensus preceded them—new issues that have arisen—then if the scholars of the Muslim community in the various regions agree on a ruling, it becomes a consensus in that specific issue.
The questioner:
Honorable Shaykh, may Allah grant them success.
The Shaykh:
Yes. And even if it is based on probability, it means it is obligatory to act upon it; it is obligatory to act upon it unless a contradicting opinion appears. As long as no contradicting opinion has appeared, the apparent reality is that they are aware of the matter. As long as no contradicting opinion has appeared, the apparent reality is that they are in consensus, and we have no choice but to follow the apparent reality. However, it cannot be said that this is definitive.
The questioner:
Welcome.
The Shaykh:
In terms of reality, in terms of reality only. But in terms of providing evidence, there is no doubt that consensus is used as evidence, even if it is based on probability.
Source
قناة «العلامة الدكتور صالح الفوزان»، 34 من 36 /شرح العقيدة الواسطية (شرح قديم)/اتباع آثار رسول الله/صالح الفوزان/العقيدة/كبار العلماء — youtube.com (1:14:14)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.