Sometimes we read in books that this is the opinion of the majority. Does that mean the majority of a single era only, or the majority of all eras holding the same opinion? And what is the meaning of the majority?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Sometimes we read in books that this is the opinion of the majority. Does that mean the majority of a single era only, or the majority of all eras holding the same opinion? And what is the meaning of the majority?
The Shaykh : This varies depending on who uses the term "the majority." If, for example, it is Imam al-Nawawi or Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, he means the majority across all the preceding centuries. If the speaker is, for example, Imam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi or al-Mundhiri, he means those before al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi, meaning the first three centuries, for instance. So the matter is relative; one looks at the person who uttered the word. In the era in which he lived, he means the majority who were in his time and before him; it does not, of course, include those who came after him. As for these later scholars, they mean all the centuries that preceded them. These are the majority. So the matter is relative; it has no fixed meaning... one cannot expand it or restrict it.
The majority means the greater number, the majority of scholars. The important point is that the one who uses the term "the majority" is like the one who says "the majority of scholars"; this is according to his own estimation. But with precision, meaning fifty-one or fifty-two or fifty-five, this is something they do not seek to determine, and it cannot be determined.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : Contradicting the opinion of the majority.
The Shaykh : Contradicting the opinion of the majority in the face of evidence is obligatory. But without evidence, there is no doubt that the soul finds more peace in the majority than in the minority. If there is evidence, it is obligatory to follow it, whether it agrees with the opinion of the majority or the greater number, or contradicts it. But if there is no evidence, as each of us feels, the soul finds more peace in the opinion of the majority than in the minority. So the principle is to follow the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. If the student of knowledge does not find the evidence, the soul finds peace in following the opinion of the majority. But if we contradict the opinion of the majority and go to the opinion of the minority because the soul finds peace in the opinion of the minority, there is no harm in that, due to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him).
The questioner : If the disagreement is in understanding the text, but the majority understands it in a certain way, what is the ruling?
The Shaykh : The same answer: there is only psychological peace. Whatever the person's soul finds peace in, he goes with it, whether it agrees with the opinion of the majority or contradicts it. This is because there is no command in the Shari'ah to adhere to the opinion of the majority. In fact, if we were to recall some texts, we would find that the texts criticize the majority. From the Book, the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He:[Al-A'raf 7:187] [Al-Baqarah 2:243] [Saba 34:13] and the like. From the Sunnah, everyone recalls the hadith of the Islamic sects that divide into seventy-three sects, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So there is no praise in the Book and the Sunnah for the majority, nor a command to adhere to the majority. And the hadith Mishkat al-Masabih 173Isnād Da'īf (Zubair `Aliza'i): First, the first part of the hadith is authentic, but the other part is weak Mishkat al-Masabih 173Isnād Da'īf (Zubair `Aliza'i). Second, the community is not the majority. The intended meaning in such a hadith is the community of the righteous predecessors, as the explanation of that came in some narrations in "Sunan al-Tirmidhi" and others. When he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sunan Ibn Majah 3993Sahih (Darussalam), they said: "Who are they, O Messenger of Allah?" He said: . In another narration: . The community mentioned in the previous hadith is only the community of the righteous predecessors. This has a long discussion, perhaps another occasion will come when we speak about it, if Allah wills.
Another questioner: Does the majority intended here mean the general people?
The Shaykh : The scholars.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Of course. And is consensus the opinion of the majority?
The Shaykh : Consensus is not the majority according to the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence). Consensus, of course, has many definitions. Some say consensus of the Ummah, and some say consensus of the scholars, meaning by this restriction excluding non-scholars. And some say consensus of the Companions, and there is a lot of discussion about this too, mentioned by al-Shawkani in "Irsad al-Fuhul", al-Siddiq Hasan Khan in "Tahsil al-Ma'mul min 'Ilm al-Usul", and others, especially Imam Ibn Hazm in "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam", that such consensuses cannot occur, let alone be transmitted if they did occur. How can the consensus of the scholars in a single era be realized? And if it is realized, who transmits it? Who can contact the individuals of the consensus? This is almost impossible; it is a theoretical matter. Especially since this consensus they speak of leads to declaring those who contradict it disbelievers. Declaring disbelievers for contradicting a matter that cannot be realized, and if it were realized, cannot be transmitted, how can takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) be based on it? But the reality is that the takfir they transmit is coupled with contradicting the certain consensus, which some scholars of usul al-fiqh describe as contradicting what is established in the religion by necessity. Contradicting what is established in the religion by necessity is what necessitates takfir after the proof is established, as is the rule. To this type of consensus, the saying of our Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He, applies:[An-Nisa 4:115]. This is the consensus on which Imam al-Shafi'i relied using this verse. So whoever follows a path other than the path of the believers, and the path of the believers is all of them, if they are on a contrary methodology, that is the clear error. But a matter that is claimed but cannot occur and cannot be imagined, that is not the consensus where if a person contradicts it, he is considered an errant and the warning mentioned in the previous verse befalls him.
The questioner : Even in the era of the Companions.
The Shaykh : It is not possible, even in the era of the Companions. This is a matter that is easy for a person to imagine. The Companions, in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), were closer to each other in terms of their regions and lands. But after the Messenger (peace be upon him), where people would be in need of what might be called consensus, they dispersed in the lands due to the Islamic conquests. How can we imagine that all these Companions, at a distance from each other, even if it were the distance of a house, agreed on an issue? Then the previous question arises: where did they gather, and who met them and transmitted that consensus from them? All of this cannot be proven. But there is a simpler matter than this complex one: it is sufficient for the Muslim to establish for himself that some of the Companions said something or did something, and that that be a valid evidence for him, and that he adhere to it. But to claim that this is consensus, that is contrary to what their expressions and the word "consensus" itself indicate in terms of the Arabic language.
There is a type of scholarly consensus (ijma') called silent consensus (ijma' sukuti), which also falls under the general consensus mentioned earlier. For example, if one of the Companions spoke a word or performed an action related to the Shari'ah in the presence of a group of them, and they remained silent about it, there is no doubt that the soul finds peace in such silent consensus. We say that this is not the consensus we defined, nor what they call the consensus of the Ummah, or the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, or the consensus of the Companions; rather, this is a relative consensus. For example, what is reported in "Sahih al-Bukhari" that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon to the Companions on Friday during his caliphate, and he recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation. He then descended from the pulpit and prostrated, and they prostrated with him. Then, in the following Friday, he delivered a sermon to them again, and a verse of prostration passed by, so the people prepared to prostrate as they had done in the previous Friday. He said to them: "Indeed, Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, has not made it obligatory upon us except that we may do so if we wish", meaning the prostration of recitation. "Indeed, Allah has not made it obligatory", meaning He has not made it a duty upon us except that we may do so if we wish. So the matter is left to our choice, and what is left to our choice is certainly not something that Allah has made obligatory upon us, because the known obligations in all acts of worship do not allow us the choice to do them or leave them; rather, it is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) upon us to perform them. So when 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said to those present in the mosque: "Indeed, Allah has not made it obligatory upon us except that we may do so if we wish", and he confirmed this by his action, as he did not descend to prostrate, nor did the people in the mosque prostrate, this type is called silent consensus, because none of the Companions or Successors present objected to him or ... on the basis of the Book of Allah or the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So there is no doubt that the soul finds more peace in such a ruling than in the statement of those who came after them, such as the Hanafis, for example, who say that the prostration of recitation is obligatory in a way that makes its omission sinful. What 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did and the approval of the Companions present for it, and although this is not the consensus of the Companions, this consensus from this number that was present, the soul finds peace in following them, especially since we have been commanded to follow their guidance.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, this is a common misconception among people. His statement (peace and blessings be upon him) does not mean that the consensus we mentioned earlier, either by the first definition,
the consensus of the Ummah, except by the interpretation we mentioned, which is what is known from the religion by necessity. This is a correct matter. And by the second interpretation, the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah. The third interpretation, the consensus of the Companions in their time, does not mean anything of this from the hadith. Rather, it means a possible occurrence, and indeed it is a reality and can be imagined. If we suppose that the number of Companions at a certain time, gathered in a certain place, was, for example, one hundred, and an issue was put on the table for discussion before them, and they differed into two opinions. We suppose that ... of them were on one side, ten of them were on the other side, or even ninety-nine were on one opinion and one was on another opinion. Here, we can imagine that this individual is with the truth, as well as ten or twenty, and the others are with the error. Here, his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) is true, because the truth, as you know, in my opinion, does not multiply, due to His statement, Blessed and Exalted is He: [Yunus 10:32]. The truth, therefore, revolves between these two groups or these two parties, the many and the few. And since it is established for us with certainty that prioritizing by majority is not a valid criterion, it is possible that the truth is with the minority and the error is with the majority. Here comes his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) , because the truth was found with one of the parties, and it does not concern us whether the truth is with the majority or the minority. But his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) : If one of them were alone and the truth was with the majority, the Ummah did not agree on misguidance. And if the truth was with the individual, as Ibn Mas'ud said: "The group is the one with whom the truth is, even if he is one". In any case, his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) is its place. As for the entire Ummah, with no one deviating from it, this is not necessarily the case. However, perhaps you have clarified from my words that the matter without doubt is that Muslims can agree on something, but not by the usuli definition where the statement of every scholar is transmitted and then transmitted by one or more people. This is not the intended meaning. The intended meaning of the consensus expressed as what is known from the religion by necessity is what the Muslims have followed, as we mentioned earlier, the argument of Imam al-Shafi'i with His statement, the Exalted: [An-Nisa 4:115]. As for the issues that revolve around scientific and theoretical research, it is absolutely impossible to claim that Muslims have agreed, because it is not imaginable for them to agree in one place or be scattered in one place and have all their statements transmitted by one or more people. So I think I have clarified the meaning of his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) .
The Shaykh : This varies depending on who uses the term "the majority." If, for example, it is Imam al-Nawawi or Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, he means the majority across all the preceding centuries. If the speaker is, for example, Imam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi or al-Mundhiri, he means those before al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi, meaning the first three centuries, for instance. So the matter is relative; one looks at the person who uttered the word. In the era in which he lived, he means the majority who were in his time and before him; it does not, of course, include those who came after him. As for these later scholars, they mean all the centuries that preceded them. These are the majority. So the matter is relative; it has no fixed meaning... one cannot expand it or restrict it.
The majority means the greater number, the majority of scholars. The important point is that the one who uses the term "the majority" is like the one who says "the majority of scholars"; this is according to his own estimation. But with precision, meaning fifty-one or fifty-two or fifty-five, this is something they do not seek to determine, and it cannot be determined.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : Contradicting the opinion of the majority.
The Shaykh : Contradicting the opinion of the majority in the face of evidence is obligatory. But without evidence, there is no doubt that the soul finds more peace in the majority than in the minority. If there is evidence, it is obligatory to follow it, whether it agrees with the opinion of the majority or the greater number, or contradicts it. But if there is no evidence, as each of us feels, the soul finds more peace in the opinion of the majority than in the minority. So the principle is to follow the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. If the student of knowledge does not find the evidence, the soul finds peace in following the opinion of the majority. But if we contradict the opinion of the majority and go to the opinion of the minority because the soul finds peace in the opinion of the minority, there is no harm in that, due to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him)
Consult your heart, even if the muftis have given you a ruling
استفت قلبك وإن أفتاك المفتونThe questioner : If the disagreement is in understanding the text, but the majority understands it in a certain way, what is the ruling?
The Shaykh : The same answer: there is only psychological peace. Whatever the person's soul finds peace in, he goes with it, whether it agrees with the opinion of the majority or contradicts it. This is because there is no command in the Shari'ah to adhere to the opinion of the majority. In fact, if we were to recall some texts, we would find that the texts criticize the majority. From the Book, the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He:
but most of the people do not know."
ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمونbut most of the people do not show gratitude.
ولكن أكثر الناس لا يشكرونAnd few of My servants are grateful.
وقليل من عبادي الشكورThe Jews divided into seventy-one sects, and the Christians divided into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, all in the Fire except one.
افترقت اليهود على إحدى وسبعين فرقة وافترقت النصارى على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة وستفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة كلها في النار إلا واحدةGod’s hand is over the community, and he who is separate from it will be separate in hell.
عليكم بالجماعة ومن شذ شذ في النارhe who is separate from it will be separate in hell
ومن شذ شذ في النارall of which will be in Hell apart from one
كلها في النار إلا واحدةIt is the Jama'ah.
هي الجماعةIt is the one that is upon what I am upon and my Companions
هي التي تكون على ما أنا عليه وأصحابيAnother questioner: Does the majority intended here mean the general people?
The Shaykh : The scholars.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Of course. And is consensus the opinion of the majority?
The Shaykh : Consensus is not the majority according to the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence). Consensus, of course, has many definitions. Some say consensus of the Ummah, and some say consensus of the scholars, meaning by this restriction excluding non-scholars. And some say consensus of the Companions, and there is a lot of discussion about this too, mentioned by al-Shawkani in "Irsad al-Fuhul", al-Siddiq Hasan Khan in "Tahsil al-Ma'mul min 'Ilm al-Usul", and others, especially Imam Ibn Hazm in "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam", that such consensuses cannot occur, let alone be transmitted if they did occur. How can the consensus of the scholars in a single era be realized? And if it is realized, who transmits it? Who can contact the individuals of the consensus? This is almost impossible; it is a theoretical matter. Especially since this consensus they speak of leads to declaring those who contradict it disbelievers. Declaring disbelievers for contradicting a matter that cannot be realized, and if it were realized, cannot be transmitted, how can takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) be based on it? But the reality is that the takfir they transmit is coupled with contradicting the certain consensus, which some scholars of usul al-fiqh describe as contradicting what is established in the religion by necessity. Contradicting what is established in the religion by necessity is what necessitates takfir after the proof is established, as is the rule. To this type of consensus, the saying of our Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He, applies:
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.
ومن يشاقق الرسول من بعد ما تبين له الهدى ويتبع غير سبيل المؤمنين نوله ما تولى ونصله جهنم وساءت مصيراThe questioner : Even in the era of the Companions.
The Shaykh : It is not possible, even in the era of the Companions. This is a matter that is easy for a person to imagine. The Companions, in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), were closer to each other in terms of their regions and lands. But after the Messenger (peace be upon him), where people would be in need of what might be called consensus, they dispersed in the lands due to the Islamic conquests. How can we imagine that all these Companions, at a distance from each other, even if it were the distance of a house, agreed on an issue? Then the previous question arises: where did they gather, and who met them and transmitted that consensus from them? All of this cannot be proven. But there is a simpler matter than this complex one: it is sufficient for the Muslim to establish for himself that some of the Companions said something or did something, and that that be a valid evidence for him, and that he adhere to it. But to claim that this is consensus, that is contrary to what their expressions and the word "consensus" itself indicate in terms of the Arabic language.
There is a type of scholarly consensus (ijma') called silent consensus (ijma' sukuti), which also falls under the general consensus mentioned earlier. For example, if one of the Companions spoke a word or performed an action related to the Shari'ah in the presence of a group of them, and they remained silent about it, there is no doubt that the soul finds peace in such silent consensus. We say that this is not the consensus we defined, nor what they call the consensus of the Ummah, or the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, or the consensus of the Companions; rather, this is a relative consensus. For example, what is reported in "Sahih al-Bukhari" that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon to the Companions on Friday during his caliphate, and he recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation. He then descended from the pulpit and prostrated, and they prostrated with him. Then, in the following Friday, he delivered a sermon to them again, and a verse of prostration passed by, so the people prepared to prostrate as they had done in the previous Friday. He said to them: "Indeed, Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, has not made it obligatory upon us except that we may do so if we wish", meaning the prostration of recitation. "Indeed, Allah has not made it obligatory", meaning He has not made it a duty upon us except that we may do so if we wish. So the matter is left to our choice, and what is left to our choice is certainly not something that Allah has made obligatory upon us, because the known obligations in all acts of worship do not allow us the choice to do them or leave them; rather, it is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) upon us to perform them. So when 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said to those present in the mosque: "Indeed, Allah has not made it obligatory upon us except that we may do so if we wish", and he confirmed this by his action, as he did not descend to prostrate, nor did the people in the mosque prostrate, this type is called silent consensus, because none of the Companions or Successors present objected to him or ... on the basis of the Book of Allah or the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So there is no doubt that the soul finds more peace in such a ruling than in the statement of those who came after them, such as the Hanafis, for example, who say that the prostration of recitation is obligatory in a way that makes its omission sinful. What 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did and the approval of the Companions present for it, and although this is not the consensus of the Companions, this consensus from this number that was present, the soul finds peace in following them, especially since we have been commanded to follow their guidance.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, this is a common misconception among people. His statement (peace and blessings be upon him)
My Ummah will not agree upon misguidance
لا تجتمع أمتي على ضلالةthe consensus of the Ummah, except by the interpretation we mentioned, which is what is known from the religion by necessity. This is a correct matter. And by the second interpretation, the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah. The third interpretation, the consensus of the Companions in their time, does not mean anything of this from the hadith. Rather, it means a possible occurrence, and indeed it is a reality and can be imagined. If we suppose that the number of Companions at a certain time, gathered in a certain place, was, for example, one hundred, and an issue was put on the table for discussion before them, and they differed into two opinions. We suppose that ... of them were on one side, ten of them were on the other side, or even ninety-nine were on one opinion and one was on another opinion. Here, we can imagine that this individual is with the truth, as well as ten or twenty, and the others are with the error. Here, his statement (peace and blessings be upon him)