What is the definitive position on the issue of using analogical reasoning and scholarly consensus as evidence and acting upon them?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Likewise, O our Shaykh, regarding the issue of analogical reasoning and scholarly consensus, and the statement of the majority of scholars that they are used as evidence, we find among students of knowledge those who deny using them as evidence and acting upon them. And we find on the other side those who speak of denial, either by declaring someone an innovator or an open sinner, or by citing some texts from the early scholars declaring the denier of scholarly consensus a disbeliever, and so on. What is the definitive position in this matter, may Allah preserve you?
The Shaykh : I say that the reality of scholarly consensus, as is well known from the books of the principles of jurisprudence, is a matter of great disagreement. The scholarly consensus that we believe in, use as evidence, and rely upon is not every consensus that is mentioned. It is not the famous position among scholars of the principles of jurisprudence that whoever denies scholarly consensus is a disbeliever. Rather, it is what Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm stated in his book *Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam*: the consensus that is equivalent to what is known from the religion by necessity. This is the consensus that can be considered a proof, and upon which one can rule that its opponent is a disbeliever or an apostate from Islam. However, this is not the case for one who doubts the authenticity of a hadith that has not reached the level of mass transmission, meaning it has not also become known from the religion by necessity. Rather, he is in error, or perhaps he is an open sinner. But we see that regarding the other consensuses that are mentioned, we affirm them with the known condition that they do not contradict an infallible text. Perhaps you know, and many of the brothers present with you know, that we consider the practice of some of the Salaf such that it is not permissible for the Muslims of the later generations to contradict them, where no hadith applies, and where none of the many definitions of consensus applies to such an agreement on an issue by some of the Salaf. This is not called consensus, but nevertheless, we see that it is not befitting to contradict them. Therefore, those who deny consensus, or who believe in consensus more than what should be believed in...
Each of these groups must define the consensus they mean, and then the facts will become clear: are they correct or incorrect? This is perhaps my answer to your question, or perhaps not.
The questioner : Consensus, yes. Now, what remains is analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : What remains is analogical reasoning.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Regarding analogical reasoning, I think we have mentioned in some of what we have written that we agree with Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) that analogical reasoning is a necessity to which one does not resort except out of necessity. As for this expansion that many jurists, some schools of jurisprudence, and especially the later ones among them, engage in, this expansion is not the analogical reasoning that we approve of and adopt as the fourth proof among the proofs of the Shari'ah. May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : I say that the reality of scholarly consensus, as is well known from the books of the principles of jurisprudence, is a matter of great disagreement. The scholarly consensus that we believe in, use as evidence, and rely upon is not every consensus that is mentioned. It is not the famous position among scholars of the principles of jurisprudence that whoever denies scholarly consensus is a disbeliever. Rather, it is what Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm stated in his book *Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam*: the consensus that is equivalent to what is known from the religion by necessity. This is the consensus that can be considered a proof, and upon which one can rule that its opponent is a disbeliever or an apostate from Islam. However, this is not the case for one who doubts the authenticity of a hadith that has not reached the level of mass transmission, meaning it has not also become known from the religion by necessity. Rather, he is in error, or perhaps he is an open sinner. But we see that regarding the other consensuses that are mentioned, we affirm them with the known condition that they do not contradict an infallible text. Perhaps you know, and many of the brothers present with you know, that we consider the practice of some of the Salaf such that it is not permissible for the Muslims of the later generations to contradict them, where no hadith applies, and where none of the many definitions of consensus applies to such an agreement on an issue by some of the Salaf. This is not called consensus, but nevertheless, we see that it is not befitting to contradict them. Therefore, those who deny consensus, or who believe in consensus more than what should be believed in...
Each of these groups must define the consensus they mean, and then the facts will become clear: are they correct or incorrect? This is perhaps my answer to your question, or perhaps not.
The questioner : Consensus, yes. Now, what remains is analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : What remains is analogical reasoning.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Regarding analogical reasoning, I think we have mentioned in some of what we have written that we agree with Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) that analogical reasoning is a necessity to which one does not resort except out of necessity. As for this expansion that many jurists, some schools of jurisprudence, and especially the later ones among them, engage in, this expansion is not the analogical reasoning that we approve of and adopt as the fourth proof among the proofs of the Shari'ah. May Allah bless you.