We read in the books that this is the opinion of the majority; does that mean the majority of a single era only?

The questioner : Sometimes we read in the books that this is the opinion of the majority; does that mean the majority of a single era only? Or do the majorities of all eras hold the same opinion? And what is the meaning of "the majority"?

The Shaykh : This varies depending on the one who uses the term "the majority." If it is, for example, Imam al-Nawawi or Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, he means the majority across all the preceding centuries. If the one speaking 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 comprehensive meaning that can be either expanded or restricted.

The questioner : What is the meaning of "the majority"?

The Shaykh : "The majority" means the greater number, the majority of scholars, the greater number in this precision. The important thing is that the one who uses the term "the majority" is like the one who says "the majority of scholars"; this is in his estimation. As for this precision, that "majority" means fifty-one or fifty-two or fifty-five; this is a matter they do not investigate, and it cannot be investigated.

The questioner : That he said a contemporary one...

The Shaykh : No, it is not...

The questioner : Contradicting the opinion of the majority?

The Shaykh : Contradicting the opinion of the majority in light of the evidence; that is obligatory. But without evidence, there is no doubt that the soul finds more peace with the majority than with 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 with the opinion of the majority than with the minority. So the original 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 with the opinion of the minority, there is no harm in that, due to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . Yes.

The questioner : If the disagreement is in understanding the text, a text that exists for everyone, but the majority understands it in one way; is there also...?

The Shaykh : The same answer. There is nothing but psychological peace. Whatever the person's soul finds peace with, he goes to it, whether it agrees with the opinion of the majority or contradicts it. This is because there is no exhortation 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, His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): , , , 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 of the majority in the Book and the Sunnah, nor exhortation to adhere to the majority. And the hadith: . First, the first part of the hadith is authentic, but the other part is weak: . Second, "the community" (al-jama'ah) is not the majority. The intended meaning in such a hadith is the community of the righteous Salaf. This is explained in some narrations in "Sunan al-Tirmidhi" and others. When he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , they said, "Who are they, O Messenger of Allah?" He said: . In another narration: . The community to which the previous hadith exhorts you is the community of the righteous Salaf. This has a long discussion, perhaps another occasion will come when we speak about it, if Allah wills.

Another questioner : Is the intended majority the general people?

The Shaykh : The scholars, the scholars.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Of course, and is consensus (ijma') the opinion of the majority?

The Shaykh : Consensus (ijma') is not equal to the majority according to the scholars of usul al-fiqh. And consensus, of course, has many definitions. Some say consensus of the Ummah, and some say consensus of the scholars, meaning that by this restriction, non-scholars are excluded. And some say consensus of the Companions. This also has a great deal of discussion. Al-Shawkani spoke about it in "Irsad al-Fuhul," and al-Siddiq Hasan Khan in "Tahsil al-Ma'mul min 'Ilm al-Usul," and others, especially Imam Ibn Hazm in his book "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam." 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 this consensus? This is a matter that is almost impossible; it is a theoretical matter. Especially since this consensus they speak of leads to declaring those who contradict it as disbelievers! Declaring disbeliever status for contradicting a matter that cannot be realized, and if it were realized, could not be transmitted, how can takfir be built upon it? But the reality is that the takfir they transmit is associated 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. And upon this type of consensus, the saying of our Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He) is applied: . And this is the consensus upon which Imam al-Shafi'i argued using this verse . So the path of all the believers, if they are on a methodology and it is contradicted, that is the clear misguidance. But a matter that is claimed, which cannot occur and cannot be conceived, is not the consensus where a person who contradicts it is considered misguided and subject to the warning mentioned in the previous verse.

The questioner : ... in the era of the Companions.

The Shaykh : It is not possible.

The questioner : Even in the era of the Companions?

The Shaykh : Even in the era of the Companions. This is a matter that is easy for a person to imagine: that 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. So how can we imagine that all these Companions, at a distance from each other, agreed on an issue? And the previous point applies: 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, which is that it is sufficient for the Muslim to establish for himself that some of the Companions said something or did something, for that to be a valid evidence for him and for him to adhere to it. As for claiming that this is consensus, that is contrary to what their expressions indicate, and the word "consensus" itself in terms of the Arabic language.
There is a type of scholarly consensus (ijma') called silent consensus (ijma' sukuti). This is also 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: This is not the consensus we have defined, which 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 came 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." That is, 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. This is because the known obligations in all acts of worship are not subject to our choice to perform 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. This is because none of the Companions or the Tabi'un who were there objected to him, or [objected] with evidence from 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 its omission is a sin. So what 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did and the Companions approved of himThose present : , and this—although it is not the consensus of the Companions—is this consensus of the number of people who were present in the mosque. So the soul finds peace in following them, especially since we have been commanded to follow their guidance.

The questioner: ... the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): ... .

The Shaykh: No, this is a common misconception among people. His saying (peace be upon him): does not mean that the consensus we mentioned earlier, whether by the first definition, the consensus of the Ummah, except by the interpretation we mentioned, "which is known from the religion by necessity," is a correct matter. And by the second interpretation, the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, and the third interpretation, the consensus of the Companions in their time, it does not mean any of this. Rather, it means a possible occurrence, which is in fact a real and conceivable scenario. 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 among them, and they differed into two opinions: let us assume that eighty of them were on one side, and ten of them were on the other side. Or perhaps ninety-nine were on one opinion, and one was on another opinion. Here, it is possible to conceive that this individual is right, in addition to the ten or twenty, and the others are wrong. Here, his saying (peace be upon him): applies, because the truth, as you know, in my opinion, does not multiply, due to His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): . So the truth, then, revolves between these two groups, or these two parties, the majority and the minority. 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, his saying (peace be upon him): applies; because the truth was found with one of the parties. It does not concern us now whether the truth is with the majority or the minority. But his saying (peace be upon him): If one of them was alone and the truth was with the majority, then the Ummah did not agree on error. 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 saying (peace be upon him): this is its place. As for the entire Ummah, with no one deviating from it, this is not necessarily... he is on that. But perhaps you have clarified from my words that the matter which is certain is that the Muslims can agree on something, but not according to the usuli definition that the words of every scholar are transmitted, and then one or more people transmit them. This is not what is intended. The intended meaning of the consensus expressed as "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 saying (the Exalted): . As for the issues that revolve around scientific and theoretical research; this can never be claimed that the Muslims have agreed upon; because it is not conceivable that they agree in one place, or that they are dispersed in one place, and that their opinions are all transmitted by one or more people. So I think the meaning of his saying (peace be upon him): has become clear.
Yes.