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

The questioner : Scholarly consensus is a recent matter ... .

The Shaykh : What ... what are they?

The questioner : It is not public opinion ... is the hadith an indication of scholarly consensus?

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

The questioner : What does this mean?

The Shaykh : I will explain to you. Scholarly consensus is a positive thing, meaning it is an affirmative matter. 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 matter, and the hadith negates something. It says one person is on an opinion, and suppose that one person is on an opinion and the Ummah, what is its number? Ten. Nine are in disagreement with this opinion. Are they ... on error? Whether you say nine are on the truth and one is on falsehood, or you reverse it completely and say nine are on falsehood and one is on the truth, the Ummah has not agreed upon error. Therefore, the hadith has no relation to scholarly consensus ... meaning, now let me give an example. The Ummah agreed that there is no god but Allah. Do you imagine that one person would deny that there is no god but Allah? No. So the hadith is in one valley, and scholarly consensus, which is established by the Shari'ah, is in another valley. It is a grave error and extreme ignorance to force this hadith into proving the establishment of scholarly consensus. No, this ... aspect is not that aspect at all.

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

The Shaykh : Yes, now here we can say that scholarly consensus is established, but which 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 among the Muslims, whether they are a scholar or not. This is scholarly consensus, and this is not correct. And some say, what does the non-scholar have to do with it? 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 scholarly consensus, which is a proof, is the consensus of the people of Madinah, and the consensus of the people of Kufah, where Abu Hanifah was. Without a doubt, these are views that we see are in complete contradiction. And this contradiction is evidence that that knowledge ... is from Allah, because Allah described His noble Book by saying What do you want? More difference than four or five definitions of scholarly consensus? So this difference is not from Allah. But what is the correct one among 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, no Muslim living in an Islamic atmosphere in an Islamic country lives and dies without knowing that intoxicants are forbidden and that riba is forbidden. Do you hear? This is a consensus and is known from the religion by necessity. But many people live and die while they smoke and do not know that ... Yes, there is no consensus to this day. Some people say the rulings apply to it. What? The five [pillars]. So there is a vast difference between the prohibition of intoxicants and the prohibition of smoking. The Ummah did not agree on the prohibition of smoking, even though we see the prohibition by evidence. But the Ummah certainly agreed on the prohibition of intoxicants because its prohibition is known by necessity from the religion. And this is what is intended in the saying of the Lord of the Worlds 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 conceived. First, as a reality, it is impossible. And if we conceive of it happening, it cannot be transmitted, because how do you imagine that the Companions, who in some views are the scholarly consensus, where did the Companions gather? They studied one of the issues and all their opinions agreed on one statement. This is imagination. Then another imagination: suppose 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 and Najran in Yemen, and due to the Islamic conquests, the distances also expanded, ... etc. Nevertheless, we say, by Allah, they gathered in a place, which might be, for example, a wall ... .

The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: ...

The Shaykh : So these people gathered in that place. Who was present in 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 gathering taking place and the issue being raised and votes being taken and all the votes being in agreement. Allahu Akbar! So this is the scholarly consensus about which it can be said. Anything less than that 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 something comes that contradicts this opinion, and 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 contradicts scholarly consensus has become a disbeliever. Whoever contradicts scholarly consensus has become a disbeliever. No. And therefore, we now agree and say that we are Salafis, meaning we follow what the Salaf were upon. It is not necessary for us to imagine scholarly consensus as well, 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 to them by saying that they are more knowledgeable than us about what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon in terms of knowledge and piety. Then this must be restricted, as we said, that it is an agreement that ... does not contradict the Book and the Sunnah. Give us a little water.

The questioner : My professor ... they were gathered.