The Difference Between Ijma' and Ittifaq

The Shaykh : From a scholarly perspective, there are two terms. The first is the term you mentioned, which is ijma' (scholarly consensus), and the second is ittifaq (agreement). Ittifaq is less indicative of ijma' than the term ijma' itself. For two reasons, I do not see the importance of using the term ijma'. The first is that ittifaq suffices for us, as I will explain. The second is that the usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) meaning of the word ijma' is almost impossible to prove. So we are relieved of it and move on to what can be proven, especially since the evidence proves it. Therefore, regarding your question, it is sufficient for us that there is agreement among the Muslims, meaning their scholars, on interpreting a command in a hadith as recommended (mustahabb) rather than obligatory (wajib). This is sufficient, and it is not necessary for us to delve deep and reach the level of ijma'. Why? The evidence here is that if the scholars of the Muslims, when answering what you requested, follow an interpretation and a figurative interpretation (ta'wil) in a certain way, whether this text is from the Qur'an or a hadith, and no one is known to have opposed them, then we must follow them, based on the well-known verse in which Allah the Exalted said: So, if the Muslims agree on something, their agreement is a proof to refute whoever opposes this proof, or opposes this path. Otherwise, the one who opposes it has strayed from the path of the believers. Therefore, we have stated a position, and perhaps written one, that we do not claim to have preceded others in. We do not adopt a view that has not been preceded in a text that admits of a face, such as a command that is sometimes for obligation and sometimes for recommendation. Why do we adopt this? So that we do not fall into opposing the path of the believers. And with this, I believe the answer to the question is complete.