Is there any abrogating and abrogated in scholarly consensus?

The questioner: Regarding the same subject.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner: Is there any abrogating and abrogated with regard to scholarly consensus in a certain era? For example, there was a consensus on a jurisprudential issue in this era, and after that era ended, a second era came, or before it. Is there any abrogating and abrogated, and is there evidence for that?

The Shaykh: It is inconceivable that there would be a consensus that is abrogated by another consensus, except if you consider some types of consensus that contradict the first consensus. We have said that the consensus which is not permissible to contradict is the consensus upon which the entire Ummah (the Muslim community) agreed in its entirety. Such a consensus cannot be followed by a consensus that abrogates it; that is impossible. However, there may be a consensus of other types of consensus, and in reality, it is not a consensus, but the statement of Ahmad ibn Hanbal applies to it: "Whoever claims consensus has lied, and what does he know? Perhaps they differed." It is possible that a report of consensus on an issue is transmitted, and then people come and contradict this consensus, but calling this a consensus is a misnomer, because there was no certain consensus. This may happen. As for the consensus that is the first type, known from the religion by necessity, it cannot be abrogated in any way.

The questioner: A group of scholars, let us suppose, for example, the four Imams, meaning, for example, in a ruling, and with the decision of the scholars and the ruler, like what happened in the present time, or jurisprudential issues, they issued a consensus and legislated it, and we know by the consensus that preceded it that it is forbidden to issue fatwas on these topics...?

The Shaykh: By Allah, Professor, it would be good if you gave an example, and I believe my previous answer is completely clear. Not everything that is claimed to be a consensus is actually a matter upon which there is consensus. If the intention is that there is a certain consensus and yet it was contradicted, then this is not permissible, of course. But there may be a consensus that is not established with certainty, and it is possible for some scholars to contradict it. However, we look at this one who contradicted, and the answer to that has been given previously: Did he contradict what the scholars were upon with evidence from the Book of Allah, or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or from the sayings of the righteous Salaf (the earliest generations), the Companions and those after them from the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions)? If he does not have any of that, then it is not permissible for him to contradict. And although we do not say this is disbelief (kufr) because he contradicted the consensus, because there is no consensus except what is known from the religion by necessity. Now, it is actually fitting, if you wish, to give an example for that, because this example may be known from the religion by necessity, and yet it was contradicted. This is certainly not permissible. Is it not known from the religion by necessity? If it was contradicted, then we look at this one who contradicted: Did he do so with evidence from the Book of Allah, or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or is it following desire, or is it following a benefit they claimed, or is it considering the era as they say today, or... and so on. Then, in that case, each situation has its answer. So if you have an example, bring it.