What is the ruling on scholarly consensus?

The questioner : Regarding the ruling on scholarly consensus?

The Shaykh : As for the ruling on scholarly consensus, consensus in reality, as stated here, we bear witness to Ibn Hazm’s jurisprudence: the consensus that can be used as evidence is the consensus of the Muslim community. As for the consensus of some scholars, or many scholars, or the majority of scholars on a matter, that does not mean that the entire community has reached consensus on that matter. The consensus mentioned by the jurists has multiple definitions, and they undoubtedly differ from one another. The first and strongest definition, if it is established—and it is undoubtedly established, and its explanation will follow—is the consensus of the Muslim community. This is the first definition of consensus. The second definition is the consensus of the scholars of the community. The difference between this and the first is that the first includes non-scholars as well; the entire community, including scholars, students of knowledge, and the general public. This is the first consensus. The second consensus is specific to the scholars: the consensus of the scholars of the community. You have a second consensus that descends to a third rank, which is the consensus of a group of scholars of the community. Here comes the position of Malik in his argumentation with the consensus of the people of Madinah. This is opposed to what some of the Hanafis claim regarding the consensus of the scholars of Kufa. All of these have no value except the first consensus, which is the consensus of the Muslim community. And its evidence is as stated by Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) in his book *Al-Risalah*: His saying, the Exalted: . The path of the believers is the proof, and nothing else. But what is intended by "the proof"? Because we will say something that is less than consensus, and yet it is a proof. The intention is that those who define consensus build upon it a very serious ruling, namely declaring as disbelievers those who oppose the consensus. So here, if we take these four definitions of consensus, starting from the consensus of the Muslim community, the consensus of the scholars of the community, the consensus of the people of Madinah, and the consensus of the people of Kufa, it is very clear that the first consensus is the one that entails declaring as disbelievers those who oppose it, by the previous verse: . So if there is no consensus of the first rank, does the consensus of the second, third, and fourth ranks benefit us? We say there is no doubt about that. Rather, I will say, and on this we always proceed in our jurisprudence: if a statement comes from some of our predecessors, or from some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and we do not know of anyone who opposed them, it is obligatory for us to follow them in that, and it is not permissible to oppose them, because they were more guided than us and more eager than us to follow the Shari'ah of our Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He). But if we suppose that someone opposed something of that, we cannot say that he has become a disbeliever, because he did not oppose a consensus that is known from the religion by necessity. Let us give a practical example. It was reported in a narration in *Sahih Muslim*: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade drinking while standing. It was said to him—and here is the point—'What about eating?' He said, 'It is worse.'" Meaning, what do you say, O Anas, while you are narrating to us from our Prophet that he forbade drinking while standing? What do you say about eating while standing? He said, "It is worse than drinking while standing." So I do not find in myself anything that would make me comply with opposing this Companion in his statement that eating is worse than drinking while standing, meaning it is forbidden, because I do not find in the statements of the other Companions anything that opposes this statement, let alone that I do not find in the elevated hadiths of the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) anything that opposes the statement of this Companion. So we should follow him. If other Companions join him in some other matters, the ruling gains strength upon strength. So the attention to the topic of consensus and its validity is only for the first consensus, which entails the opposition of the Muslims, and in which is that threat mentioned in the Noble Qur'an. As for the other consensuses, they are weighed by the measure: is there disagreement or not? If there is disagreement, then the ruling is as Allah the Exalted said: . But if there is no disagreement, then there is nothing that permits or justifies us to oppose these scholars, even if there is no consensus in the first sense. And this is the meaning intended by Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) when he said, "Whoever claims consensus has lied, and what does he know? Perhaps they differed." He means the theoretical consensus in which views may differ and opinions may vary. He does not mean the consensus upon which the community has acted, for that is something known from the religion by necessity. And so we see in the depths of the books of jurisprudence consensuses that are claimed, and then we find that there is someone who opposed this claim of consensus. So then the saying of Allah the Exalted applies: . In summary, if some scholars agree on something, and we do not find anything that opposes it in the Book or the Sunnah, or in the statements of other scholars, we should be with them and not impose our personal opinions on that matter, as long as no evidence has reached us that obligates us to oppose them, and no other statements oppose them, until we have the choice to take this or that. This is what is in my mind now as the answer regarding consensus. Yes.