Is one who denies scholarly consensus or analogical reasoning in contradiction with the creed of the people of the Sunnah and the community?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Is one who denies the binding nature of scholarly consensus and analogical reasoning in contradiction with the principles of the people of the Sunnah and the community in this matter?
The Shaykh : As you know, scholarly consensus has many definitions. What we believe and by which we profess our faith in Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) is that the consensus which one is not excused for denying, and for which its denier may even be declared a disbeliever, is only that which is known from the religion by necessity, as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said. As for the consensus of a group of scholars or the majority of scholars, while there are dissenters among them, that is not consensus. However, we say that such a consensus, for which no dissent is known, should be adhered to and followed, unless there is a strong, established proof that compels the dissenter to oppose the majority. If there is no such proof, he must follow them. This is among the meanings of the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He):[An-Nisa 4:115]. The path of the believers is the well-known path that is traveled and frequented by the majority of Muslims. So, if the issue is a known matter of scholarly disagreement, then the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) applies: [An-Nisa 4:59]. Yes.
The questioner : Regarding analogical reasoning, the question is: Is one who denies, for example, the binding nature of scholarly consensus and analogical reasoning considered in contradiction with the principles of the...
The Shaykh : Why are you mixing scholarly consensus with analogical reasoning now? We have finished answering regarding scholarly consensus. Now the question is about analogical reasoning?
The questioner : It is the same question: scholarly consensus and analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : In my opinion, people are divided into three schools of thought regarding this: two schools at opposite extremes—those who denied analogical reasoning, such as the Zahiris, and those who expanded the application of analogical reasoning to the point that they sometimes prioritize it over explicit texts—and the truth is the middle ground between these two. The best expression I have found from the Salaf and the Imams is the saying of Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him): "Analogical reasoning is a necessity." A Muslim is not driven to use analogical reasoning except out of necessity. This leads us to the brother's question just now: Is it permissible for a Muslim to issue a ruling based on opinion? One must use opinion in some rulings where the scholar finds no explicit text to rely on and depend upon. Hence the saying of Imam al-Shafi'i: "Analogical reasoning is a necessity." The rulings in which it is truly necessary to resort to analogical reasoning are many, many. As some scholars rightly said, if we deny analogical reasoning, we lose many types of Islamic jurisprudence. However, Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) refutes this argument by saying, "In the general texts, there is what suffices and is enough to dispense with the use of analogical reasoning." Therefore, some of those who respond to him—and I think you mentioned some examples of this—note that Ibn Hazm himself sometimes falls into the very analogical reasoning he denied. This is a proof of Imam al-Shafi'i's saying that analogical reasoning is a necessity; analogical reasoning is a necessity. Yes.
The questioner : By the way, Shaykh, there is a treatise by al-San'ani titled "Iqtibas li-Ma'rifat al-Haqq min Anwa' al-Qiyas" (Extraction for Knowing the Truth from the Types of Analogical Reasoning). This treatise was a manuscript and has been edited, and it is now in press, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : And now, what is the situation?
The questioner : It is in press and will be released soon, if Allah wills. He said exactly what you said: that people in this matter are between excess and deficiency, and the middle path is the detailed distinction you mentioned.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed. May Allah reward him with good.
The Shaykh : As you know, scholarly consensus has many definitions. What we believe and by which we profess our faith in Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) is that the consensus which one is not excused for denying, and for which its denier may even be declared a disbeliever, is only that which is known from the religion by necessity, as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said. As for the consensus of a group of scholars or the majority of scholars, while there are dissenters among them, that is not consensus. However, we say that such a consensus, for which no dissent is known, should be adhered to and followed, unless there is a strong, established proof that compels the dissenter to oppose the majority. If there is no such proof, he must follow them. This is among the meanings of the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He):
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.
ومن يشاقق الرسول من بعد ما تبين له الهدى ويتبع غير سبيل المؤمنين نوله ما تولى ونصله جهنم وساءت مصيراAnd if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day
فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخرThe questioner : Regarding analogical reasoning, the question is: Is one who denies, for example, the binding nature of scholarly consensus and analogical reasoning considered in contradiction with the principles of the...
The Shaykh : Why are you mixing scholarly consensus with analogical reasoning now? We have finished answering regarding scholarly consensus. Now the question is about analogical reasoning?
The questioner : It is the same question: scholarly consensus and analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : In my opinion, people are divided into three schools of thought regarding this: two schools at opposite extremes—those who denied analogical reasoning, such as the Zahiris, and those who expanded the application of analogical reasoning to the point that they sometimes prioritize it over explicit texts—and the truth is the middle ground between these two. The best expression I have found from the Salaf and the Imams is the saying of Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him): "Analogical reasoning is a necessity." A Muslim is not driven to use analogical reasoning except out of necessity. This leads us to the brother's question just now: Is it permissible for a Muslim to issue a ruling based on opinion? One must use opinion in some rulings where the scholar finds no explicit text to rely on and depend upon. Hence the saying of Imam al-Shafi'i: "Analogical reasoning is a necessity." The rulings in which it is truly necessary to resort to analogical reasoning are many, many. As some scholars rightly said, if we deny analogical reasoning, we lose many types of Islamic jurisprudence. However, Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) refutes this argument by saying, "In the general texts, there is what suffices and is enough to dispense with the use of analogical reasoning." Therefore, some of those who respond to him—and I think you mentioned some examples of this—note that Ibn Hazm himself sometimes falls into the very analogical reasoning he denied. This is a proof of Imam al-Shafi'i's saying that analogical reasoning is a necessity; analogical reasoning is a necessity. Yes.
The questioner : By the way, Shaykh, there is a treatise by al-San'ani titled "Iqtibas li-Ma'rifat al-Haqq min Anwa' al-Qiyas" (Extraction for Knowing the Truth from the Types of Analogical Reasoning). This treatise was a manuscript and has been edited, and it is now in press, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : And now, what is the situation?
The questioner : It is in press and will be released soon, if Allah wills. He said exactly what you said: that people in this matter are between excess and deficiency, and the middle path is the detailed distinction you mentioned.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed. May Allah reward him with good.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.