The Consensus of Scholars, the Consensus of the Ummah, Anomalous Views, and the Types of Consensus, and Whether One Who Opposes the Consensus Is Declared a Disbeliever

The questioner : My teacher, I would like to ask you about the topic of the consensus of scholars and the consensus of the ummah, and anomalous views. I mean, a simple look at this?

Another questioner : First of all, the question has many branches, but we need to know first what is ijma' (scholarly consensus). So, our question is: what is ijma'? And then we will address other questions.

The Shaykh : All praise is due to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our own selves and from the evil of our deeds. Whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide, and whomsoever He misguides, none can guide. And I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. As for what follows:
Ijma' (scholarly consensus) among scholars has categories. The first category is that which it is not permissible to oppose. There are other categories of ijma', so it may be beneficial to mention them, or at least what is feasible to mention. The first ijma' is the ijma' of the ummah. This definition includes the ijma' of the scholars of the ummah and the rest of the ummah. Some say that ijma' is the ijma' of the scholars, but Imam al-Ghazali says that ijma' is the ijma' of the ummah, such that it includes those from the ummah other than the scholars, whether they are students of knowledge or ordinary Muslims. This is the ijma' that some scholars, who do not consider the other types of ijma' that we will mention, God willing, refer to as "what is known from the religion by necessity." What is known from the religion by necessity is shared by the entire ummah, with no difference, as we mentioned, between a scholar and others. This is the ijma' whose denial by a Muslim constitutes exiting the religion. The other ijma's are not like that; they fall under calm scholarly discussion. The ijma' other than the first type is theoretical ijma', which some scholars refer to as "what is agreed upon by scholars," and they do not call it ijma'. This is because the ijma' that is truly considered, where denying it is exiting the religion, cannot be conceived except in the first sense.
As for theoretical ijma', which is the gathering of the opinions of scholars who spoke on an issue in a specific era, this is impossible and cannot be realized in reality. This is easy to conceive, God willing, because scholars in every region and country, as we all know, are scattered. Who can contact every individual scholar and collect their opinions to find them all in agreement? This is impossible to achieve. Therefore, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), as mentioned by his son Abdullah ibn Ahmad in his book *Masail al-Imam Ahmad*, has several books called *Kitab al-Masail* (Books of Issues). This means that Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about many issues and answered them. Some of his students recorded these answers from him, including his son Abdullah, who is the narrator of his father's *Musnad*, which is the famous *Musnad of Ahmad*. Among them is Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the author of the book *Sunan*, which is the third of the six books. Among them is his son Salih, Salih ibn Imam Ahmad. And among them is Ibn Hanin and others.
Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrates from his father, saying: "Whoever claims ijma' has lied, and how does he know? Perhaps they differed." In the first part of this statement, Imam Ahmad points to the impossibility of ijma' occurring, because he says: "Whoever claims ijma' has lied, and how does he know?" This is a second critique, because even if they agreed today, they might differ tomorrow. So how does this person know that all scholars, at one hour, or in one day, or one week, or one month, or one year, agreed on something and then did not differ? How does he know? Therefore, some fair-minded scholars inclined to not use the term "ijma'" unless it is in the first sense, which is what is known from the religion by necessity. Instead of saying "ijma'," they say "the scholars agreed." This does not mean that every scholar spoke on this issue first, and then their words were compared to match each other second. Rather, the opinions transmitted from these scholars are in agreement with one another. Therefore, in this case, it is said that the scholars agreed.
One of those ijma's I hinted at earlier is the ijma' of a specific region or a particular town in that region, such as the ijma' of the people of Madinah. Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) considers the ijma' of the people of Madinah valid, without any other ijma'. This is because Madinah, as we all know, was the headquarters and settlement of the Islamic call during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. It was the refuge and gathering place of scholars from all regions and countries, including the Companions and others. Therefore, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that what the scholars of Madinah specifically, from the Companions and the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions) whom he encountered in his era, agreed upon is the ijma'. But the reality that a researcher notices, indeed touches with his own hand, is that despite this ijma' being within a very narrow circle, namely Madinah and not the entire Islamic world, scholars often correct Imam Malik regarding many of the ijma's he claimed from the people of Madinah. They say to him: "Such-and-such, a great scholar of Madinah, indeed the master of the Tabi'un, namely Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, opposed this." So this minimized ijma', which is the proof of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) over the other Imams, this very ijma' could not be proven. How then can the ijma' of the ummah in all regions of the Islamic lands be proven?
One of these types is the ijma' of the people of Kufa, and Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) and his companions use it as proof. The same is said about this as is said about the previous ijma', namely the ijma' of the people of Madinah, meaning that it was criticized with many opinions that oppose the claimed ijma'.
Then comes, among the types of ijma', the ijma' of silence. The ijma' of silence means that a scholar among the Muslim scholars speaks in the presence of Muslims with a statement, and no one criticizes him. They say: since this noble scholar spoke these words and no one present followed up with criticism, it means that this is the truth and the correct view; otherwise, it would have been criticized. In reality, this ijma' is accepted by the tranquil soul with one condition: that there is no text from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that opposes it. Otherwise, it is an acceptable ijma'. And why? For two reasons:
The first reason: Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: So Allah says here: If a correct narration comes to us that one of the Muslim scholars spoke on an issue in the presence of their scholars and they approved it, then the soul is tranquil at that point to say that this is the way of the believers. But with the previous condition, and I remind you of it: that there is no text from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that opposes this ijma' of silence.
In the opinion of scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence), the ijma' of silence is actually the weakest of the ijma's, because the speaker may speak with a statement, and there may be someone in the assembly who sees the opposite, but considers it in the public interest not to speak against what he heard, in order to avert the greater harm with the lesser harm. I am now giving two examples:
One of them relates to tacit consensus; what is an example of that? The other relates to the possibility that in tacit consensus, someone may have remained silent reluctantly for a reason. I will now mention an example, which is the second example. An example of tacit consensus: It is reported in Sahih al-Bukhari that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on a Friday and recited a prostration verse, so he descended from the pulpit and prostrated, and the people prostrated with him. In the second week, he also delivered a sermon and recited a prostration verse, whether it was that one or another, I do not remember now. When he saw the people preparing to prostrate, he gestured to them, saying (may Allah be pleased with him): "Indeed, Allah has not made it obligatory upon us. Indeed, Allah has not made the prostration of recitation obligatory upon us unless we wish." This is an explicit text that the prostration of recitation is not an obligatory command, but rather it is left to the will of the reciter or the listener. There is no doubt that when 'Umar ibn al-Khattab was preaching in the mosque of Madinah, there were hundreds of Companions and Successors present. So when no one stood up, and he was the Caliph of the Muslims, to clarify a disagreement with what the Commander of the Faithful said, the soul is reassured that there is no disagreement regarding this opinion. However, this does not provide certainty and conviction. Therefore, it is not considered that one who opposes this consensus becomes a disbeliever, because disbelief is not permissible to attribute to someone unless the one who opposes it opposes a matter that, as we said in the definition of the first type of consensus, is known from the religion by necessity. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, it is possible that there is someone who holds an opinion contrary to this view, even if it was not transmitted. But this is a theoretical, probabilistic possibility for one or more reasons, as is said today. An example of this, which is the second example I referred to earlier: 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) had performed Hajj during the time of 'Uthman ibn 'Affan. It is established from 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) that when he came to Mina and stayed there during the days of Tashriq, he completed the prayer and did not shorten it. It is known to all Muslim scholars that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), on the day of his Farewell Pilgrimage, from the day he left Madinah until he returned to it, prayed two rak'ahs, two rak'ahs. This means that in Mina itself, he also prayed two rak'ahs, two rak'ahs. As for 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), he completed the prayer. Here, scholars mention two opinions or two reasons, which we may turn to later, so as not to stray too far from clarifying the example. So when Ibn Mas'ud prayed behind 'Uthman, he would follow him in Mina and pray four rak'ahs. He was asked: "You say that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray two rak'ahs, two rak'ahs, until he returned to Madinah. So why do you complete the prayer?" He would give a very brief answer, but also a very wise one. He would say: "Disagreement is evil. Disagreement is evil." Meaning, opposing the action of an individual Muslim to the action of the Caliph of the Muslims, who is undoubtedly a person of knowledge, religion, and righteousness in a known place attested to by that, necessitates that his completion of the prayer has a perspective. He does not do it to spite the Sunnah while knowing it. So I do not want to oppose him by praying differently from his prayer, even though I believe the Sunnah is to shorten. So he says, "Disagreement is evil."
So he was praying, and in his heart he believed the Sunnah was two rak'ahs, but when he was asked, he said, "Disagreement is evil." So this example can illustrate the possibility that there may be a statement or action in a gathering of people, and one may not agree with it but remains silent, as I said at the beginning of my speech, in order to avert the greater harm by the lesser harm. So he remains silent so that there is no fitnah or confusion in the community of Muslims. This is what comes to my mind now regarding the types of consensus. And that none of this can lead to declaring a Muslim a disbeliever, unless he denies or opposes what is known from the religion by necessity, which is the certain consensus, and there is no other consensus. But in reality, we observe that the issue should not be given major importance, because the result is that if there is no text from the Book of Allah or a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and a group of the early Muslims agreed, especially if they were from the honored Companions, then no one has the right to oppose them except with a text from the Book of Allah or from a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When does one oppose? If the first group and the first generation themselves differed, then at that time one chooses from what they differed in what is closest to the truth in one's view. And for this reason, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) classifies knowledge into three levels, and he says:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said... The Companions said, that is not deception
What is knowledge? You set yourself up for foolish disagreement... Between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist
No, and neither denying the attributes and negating them... Out of fear of ta'til and tashbih."
This is what I have as an answer to the previous question. And if there are some branches that we did not address in relation to the question, there is no objection on my part to hearing what you have.