Is the hadith: (My Ummah will not agree upon misguidance) evidence for the validity of scholarly consensus?

The questioner: Is the scholarly consensus in the hadith: reconciling the two opinions?

The Shaykh: What are the two opinions? What are they?

The questioner: That it is not public opinion... that whether the hadith indicates scholarly consensus?

The Shaykh: The hadith has no relation to scholarly consensus.

The questioner: What does this mean?

The Shaykh: I will explain it to you. Scholarly consensus is a positive thing; that is, an affirmative thing. The hadith does not affirm anything; rather, it negates. Before I explain to you what it negates, its apparent meaning is sufficient for you to know that it has no relation to scholarly consensus. Scholarly consensus is an affirmative thing, and the hadith negates something. So it says: ... one person holds an opinion, and let us assume one person holds an opinion, and how many are in the Ummah? Ten. Nine are opposed to this opinion; did they agree upon misguidance? No. Whether you say nine are right and one is wrong, or you reverse it completely; you say: the nine are wrong and one is right; the Ummah did not agree upon misguidance. So the hadith has no relation to established scholarly consensus; meaning, now let us give an example: The Ummah agreed that there is no god but Allah; do you imagine one person denying that there is no god but Allah? No. So the hadith is in one place, and scholarly consensus established by the Shari'ah is in another place. It is a grave error and extreme ignorance to force this hadith into proving the establishment of scholarly consensus. No, this is discussed in a direction completely different from that direction.

The questioner: Is scholarly consensus recognized by the Shari'ah?

The Shaykh: Yes, here we can say: Scholarly consensus is established. But what kind of scholarly consensus is this? Because they differed in its definition; some say: Scholarly consensus is the consensus of the Ummah of Muhammad, and this includes every individual of the Muslims, whether he is a scholar or an uneducated layman. This is scholarly consensus, and this is the correct view. And some say: No, what is the involvement of one who is not a scholar? Rather, the intended meaning is the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah. And some say: The intended meaning is the consensus of the Companions only. And some say: The intended meaning of the scholarly consensus that is a proof is the consensus of the people of Madinah, and some say the consensus of the people of Kufah, where Abu Hanifah was.
Without a doubt, these are views we see as completely contradictory, and this contradiction is evidence that that knowledge... is from Allah; because Allah described His noble Book by saying: . What more difference do you want in the definition of scholarly consensus with four or five views? So this difference is not from Allah. But what is the correct one of these views? We mentioned the first view, which is the consensus of the Ummah; why? This consensus is what some scholars, including Ibn Hazm, call that which is known from the religion by necessity. For example, now, no Muslim living in an Islamic atmosphere in an Islamic country lives and dies without knowing that intoxicants are forbidden, that riba is forbidden; this is scholarly consensus, and it is known from the religion by necessity. But many people live and die while they smoke and do not know... yes, there is no consensus. To this day, some people say: the rulings apply to what? The five [pillars]. How vast is the difference between the prohibition of intoxicants and the prohibition of smoking. The Ummah did not agree upon the prohibition of smoking, and although we see the prohibition by evidence, but the Ummah certainly agreed upon the prohibition of intoxicants; because its prohibition is known from the necessity in the religion. And this is what is intended in the saying of the Lord of the Worlds: .
So the path of the believers who all followed, their scholars and their ignorant ones, this is scholarly consensus. And any other scholarly consensus cannot be imagined first as an impossible reality, and if we imagine its occurrence, it cannot be transmitted; because how do we imagine the Companions, in some views it is the consensus of the Companions, where did the Companions gather? They studied an issue and all their opinions agreed on one view!! This is imagination. Then another imagination; if we assume that they all gathered in one place, and how would they gather? This one is in Makkah, and that one in Madinah, and in Ta'if, in Najran, in Yemen, and due to the Islamic conquests the distances also expanded... and so on. Nevertheless, we say: By Allah, they gathered in a place which might be - for example - ... do you know it?

The questioner : ... .

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: So these gathered in that place, who was the one who attended that place and transmitted to us that scholarly consensus? ! But what is known from the religion by necessity is known by every Muslim by virtue of being a Muslim, not by virtue of a meeting taking place and the issue being raised, and votes being taken, and all the votes being in agreement!

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar! So this scholarly consensus in which anything less than that can be said is nothing but imagination. But this does not mean that if it comes to us with authentic chains that two or three of the Companions were on an opinion in a certain issue, and nothing came in the Book or the Sunnah that contradicts it or contradicts this opinion, or contradicts what they agreed upon; nothing of that came. Our speech does not mean that this agreement is not a proof. No, it is a proof. But we do not call it scholarly consensus and build upon it that whoever denies scholarly consensus has disbelieved, whoever opposes scholarly consensus has disbelieved. No, and therefore we now commit and say: We are Salafis; that is, we follow what the Salaf were upon. It is not necessary that we imagine scholarly consensus - also - from those imaginations. But it is sufficient for us that a statement comes from two or three Companions who agreed without disagreement, so we hold fast to them, as they are more knowledgeable than us about what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had of knowledge and jurisprudence. Then this must be restricted as we said, that the agreement of these three does not contradict the Book and the Sunnah.
Give us a little water, by Allah.

The questioner: ... Mr. ... by scholarly consensus they were gathered.