What is your opinion regarding scholarly consensus in terms of its validity, establishment, and transmission? With discussion.

The questioner : All right, the second question. The second question, which is the most important. The second question, which is the most important, meaning what the well-known innovator al-Suqaf raised regarding your statement on scholarly consensus, and so on. He mentioned the narration of Imam Ahmad that you cited, and he said thatThe Shaykh : He denies the scholarly consensus, meaning its validity, its establishment, and its transmission, meaning on these three points: validity, establishment, and transmission. So he mentioned your statement and refuted this statement. What is your opinion, O Shaykh, regarding ... .

The Shaykh : I do not know. You have not established for yourself that this is a liar and a fabricator.

The questioner : The man is known to be wicked and corrupt.

The Shaykh : Why do you give credence to what is attributed to him?

The questioner : No, no, O Shaykh ... validity and establishment ... .

The Shaykh : If your question had been this, without mentioning al-Suqaf.

The questioner : ... O Shaykh, this is an introduction to the question.

The Shaykh : It is not possible to enter without this introduction, O Shaykh. May Allah guide you.

The questioner : Meaning, he brought up his words on scholarly consensus, which is known among the people of knowledge, so I say what he raised as a doubt.

The Shaykh : Make ... at that time. May Allah bless you. We are brothers who attend our gatherings. We say, Allah the Exalted said: We cite this verse, but al-Suqaf, may Allah bless you, is a liar and a fabricator. He has no religion, no creation, no fairness, and no surprise. The point for you is: we deny hypothetical consensus. Perhaps you are with me, or you will be with me, if Allah wills. What is hypothetical consensus?

The questioner : Hypothetical consensus is the consensus of all people on, or the consensus of the scholars on, any issue of the ages.

The Shaykh : This is impossible. I say this is impossible.

The questioner : Even the Shaykh al-Islam.

The Shaykh : Leave me alone regarding the Shaykh al-Islam, O Shaykh. We are students of knowledge, and we are now trying to understand each other. I said, perhaps you will be with me, or you will be. You were with me, and praise be to Allah, and this is what I deny.

The questioner : The consensus of all scholars in every age is not possible. Meaning, consensus is two phrases: the consensus of all scholars in every age, this does not happen.

The Shaykh : So what do you want from me now? And I mentioned the previous verse to you. We say ... .

The questioner : All right, what are the ages, O Shaykh ... .

The Shaykh : Be patient. We say that if a transmission comes from some of the righteous Salaf, and this transmitted matter does not contradict a text in the Book and the Sunnah, then this is the way of the believers. What is your opinion?

The questioner : My opinion is that this statement needs a criterion, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: To?

The questioner : A criterion.

The Shaykh : In my opinion, I have set the criterion. So bring what you have of addition.

The questioner : I say the criterion is that it is established in an age. It is said, in the age of the Companions, just as it is said, it is a narration from Imam Ahmad, and the opinion of the Zahiris, and the statement of many of the people of knowledge, the opinion of Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) and others. It is said, in the age of the Companions, because Medina was the gathering place of the people of knowledge, and the consensus of the Companions was the consensus of their gathering. And their consensus on an issue. But after the dispersion ... .
The Shaykh: Do not repeat the words. May Allah bless you. I say, what consensus do you mean?

The questioner : How do you mean? I do not understand, O Shaykh. The consensus of all the Companions.

The Shaykh : This is impossible, O Shaykh. May Allah guide you.

The questioner : In the era of the Prophethood.

The Shaykh : Immediately after the death of the Messenger.

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, I do not think so.

The Shaykh : I will ask you a question now. Were the Companions of the Messenger gathered in Medina after the death of the Messenger, or were they dispersed?

The questioner : The majority were present, and the one who was not present, his location is known.The Shaykh : There is no power nor strength except in Allah. May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : Answer me on this point. It is said that the Companions, whoever was not present among them, the principle for them is the predominant majority.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Where are the two words? Correct, two words. Meaning, two long words.

The questioner : The word implies. One word.

The Shaykh : I am telling you, one word implies two words, meaning two long sentences. The best speech is what is little and conveys. Were they dispersed or were they gathered in Medina? One word. Were they dispersed? Were they gathered? This is the one word.The questioner : Most of them were present.

The Shaykh : My brother, I did not say most or all.

The questioner : Dispersed. Dispersed.

The Shaykh : They were dispersed. Now you come to what you want, but not like this. Speech is thrown, but rather in sequence. Now, if I wanted to argue, I would hold you to your words when you said "most of them." Now you come to it. Since you are insistent, but let us hear from you clearly. And because you mean what you say, otherwise you might say a word and you do not want it. But when I ask you and you answer me with the same answer that came previously, we know absolutely that you mean what you say. Now, were most of the Companions in Medina or were they outside Medina? One word?

The questioner : In Medina.

The Shaykh : What is your evidence?

The questioner : The known state of their condition.

The Shaykh : This is speech. What is known?

The questioner : The transmission ... in the era of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. Were there not among the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in Makkah? Say, yes.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : In Ta'if? Say, yes.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : In the Levant? Yes, yes. Who counted those who were in Medina, then went to every town of these lands and counted them by number, then performed an operation of addition and subtraction, and so on, until it is possible for a person after fifteen centuries to say that they were in Medina, they were the majority? Then you come with questions that no one can answer. Did this proportion remain continuous until the limits of the second century? Did this majority in Medina remain like this, a majority, until ... .

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : So what is the benefit of this specification, which puts its owner in a rabbit hole? What is the benefit of this, since the numerical majority, this majority, differs with the passage of a year or more, by your admission that it cannot be said that their number, after the death of the Messenger (may peace and blessings be upon him), until just before the entry of the second century, what is the benefit of this restriction? Then, allow me, were those who were in Medina, and by the claim that they are the overwhelming majority, meaning this is a discussion now from the perspective as we Syrians say, "if it does not come with you, come with it." I want to come with you now. I say, suppose the people of Medina are the majority of the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). How do you imagine gathering them to discuss one issue? How do you imagine in that time?

The questioner : All right, our Shaykh, if I said a word, I do not know, but I say this statement. Is it not said, meaning, perhaps a person might say, perhaps a person might come and speak and say, this statement leads to the invalidation of consensus if we say this statement?

The Shaykh : It might be said?

The questioner : Yes, it might be said.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. Is this statement that might be said, what does this pedantry benefit you? I say this statement that might be said is said to someone like me. And I have told you It is not the majority as you say. I am not the majority as you say. This speech is said to someone like me.

The questioner : I say it might pose a problem for you, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. This does not refute me. It refutes others.

The questioner : How do you refute, O Shaykh, if it is refuted against you?

The Shaykh : I have already refuted it. May Allah guide you. You say majority. I say minority, according to my knowledge. May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : All right, meaning you say, O Shaykh, I say Jarir ibn Munda'r that the statement of the majority is considered consensus. Meaning, it is not necessary for consensus, and the disagreement of one or two is not considered. Is this your statement, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, I said a clear word. And even if I am a foreigner, I speak in clear Arabic.

The questioner : Better than the Arabs, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. This is a good opinion of you. I say, if an issue comes to us from three or four of the Companions of the Messenger, I say this is before this. Our book speaks the truth. I say, before, if a statement comes from a group of the Companions of the Messenger, this is not the consensus that you are humming about. It is much less. Four or five of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, I say, it does not contradict a text from the Book or the Sunnah. This is what I commit to, and I order my companions to commit to it. What do you want? Do not argue in words.

The questioner : I do not argue in words.

The Shaykh : If you allow me, stay with me. What do you want from me if you hear this from me? You say, it might be said so and so.

The questioner : If you name this consensus or proof, because they do not distinguish between proof and consensus.

The Shaykh : Do not cling to the words, my brother. Words do not change the reality of meanings. So whether I call it that or not, what is the outcome? We are here with some students of knowledge. Listen to me, O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. Half of the speech... I am saying now: Do you agree with me that if a statement comes from some of the Companions, three or more, for example, and we do not know of a contradictor to it, and we do not know a text from the Book or the Sunnah, that it must be followed? Or not?

The questioner : I say if one person’s statement becomes well-known and it is not known that he has a contradictor.

The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except by Allah. Well, what matters to you now from your previous research? That most of the Companions were present in the city, or that they were not present? What matters to you now? You say, a person might say, this person does not say it to me and you, because we have accepted the minimum number for consensus, the minimum number for consensus. What is it? Three. Now, glory to Allah, I am saying now: You are asking if it is called consensus. I wanted to say now: Why do you say it is called consensus or not? And what is the difference if I tell you it is called consensus or not called consensus? Say what you want. You are in your research now, take absolute freedom. That is, if it is correct for me to say, what suits you in your research, and your research is the successful one and the stronger position, and my research is the weaker position, take any expression of the two: it is called consensus or it is not called consensus. Then you will see behind it the reality that whether you call it consensus or do not call it consensus, there is no difference from the practical side, from the jurisprudential side, there is no difference. Here, I am giving you full freedom. What do you want to say? Consensus?

The questioner : I do not call it consensus.

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah guide you. I am telling you, what do you want to call it? Say consensus or not consensus.

The questioner : Not consensus. It is called a proof.

The Shaykh : Well, what is the outcome behind this?

The questioner : For work.

The Shaykh : Practically, yes.

The questioner : It is obligatory to act upon it and it is not permissible to contradict it.

The Shaykh : I did not understand, O Shaykh. What is the outcome behind calling it consensus or not calling it consensus? I am telling you?

The questioner : That the first, that the first, O Shaykh, the usuliyyun (scholars of principles) made it...

The Shaykh : Let us leave the usuliyyun, O Shaykh. The usuliyyun have in their minds something other than what is in our minds. May Allah guide you. I am now, stand with me at this question and answer it with full freedom. It is the same for you whether you called it consensus or did not call it consensus. Leave the proof for now. It is the same for you whether you called it consensus or did not call it consensus. There is no difference between this and that. And I tell you with complete frankness, listen, O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. We have an example in Syria, they say the blond one is like me, he remains hot-tempered, meaning he cannot control his nerves, metaphorically, because the Arabs... black-haired people do not have patience. This is me repeating to your ears more than three or four times and you do not answer. There is no difference. I am telling you there is no difference between saying this is consensus, calling it consensus, or calling it not consensus. There is no difference. Say what you want. Say what you want. Say consensus, say it is not consensus.

The questioner : It is not consensus.

The Shaykh : Well, what is the difference, what is the outcome behind not calling these three consensus?

The questioner : That if it were three from the Tabi'un...

The Shaykh : I am talking about the Companions. May Allah guide you.

The questioner : The Companions, we say it is a proof.

The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except by Allah. May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you.

The questioner : Meaning, we will hear, if Allah wills.The Shaykh : Meaning, with his patience, may Allah reward him with good.

The Shaykh : And more than this, do you want, O Shaykh? First, our research is about the Companions, and our research is what is the outcome behind calling the three consensus or not consensus. So do not move from the Companions to the Tabi'un.

The questioner : The benefit is considered here.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. I am telling you, our research is about the Companions. Do not move now to the Tabi'un. And I fear that when we research the Tabi'un, you will move to the followers of the Tabi'un. There is no power or strength except by Allah. Now, what is our research now?

The questioner : The Companions are binding and a proof. We do not say this.

The Shaykh: There is no power nor strength except with Allah.

The questioner : Or call it consensus, you, O Shaykh. The important thing is that it is a proof. The benefit is one, and it is action.

The Shaykh : Look, now the answer has come out. The benefit is one.

The questioner : We do not say the word, O Shaykh, but we say the benefit becomes clear later, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I will not leave you in this confusion. Allow me a moment. Now you say that the three are a proof.

The questioner : Rather, one. I say, O Shaykh, even one.

The Shaykh : You say the three are a proof, and I say the three with you are a proof. You say the three are consensus or not consensus?

The questioner : Not consensus.

The Shaykh : Does it result, if I contradict you and say to you it is consensus, does it result in a disagreement between me and you?

The questioner : It results, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Very much imagined.

The questioner : I am telling you, what is the difference.

The Shaykh : You will not be able to.

The questioner : Well, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : O Shaykh, I say, the statement of one of the Companions if it becomes well-known.

The Shaykh : The research is not about the statement of one. Do not limit it.

The questioner : I am bringing this to you, O Shaykh, even to clarify the benefit, the benefit of the difference. I say, I brought this to you even to clarify, even to mention to you the difference. So I tell you, O Shaykh, if one person’s statement is well-known, is it not the case with you that if the statement of a Companion becomes well-known and it is not known that he has a contradictor, is it not considered a proof with you, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Likewise, the statement of the three is a proof.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, May Allah guide you.

The questioner : Well, what is the difference between the two, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : You asked, and you are not answering your question. The difference is that we have one Companion, we do not know if he has a contradictor or he has no contradictor. What is your opinion of it? Is it a proof?

The questioner : It is a proof. If the statement of one Companion is well-known and it is not known that he has a contradictor, it is a proof.

The Shaykh : My question is the opposite. May Allah guide you.

The questioner : I did not understand, O Shaykh. Allow me.

The Shaykh : This is the problem. May Allah forgive you. You said earlier, the statement of a Companion, do you not think, the statement of a Companion, we cannot say it is known that he has a contradictor or it is not known that he has a contradictor?

The questioner : We can say it.

The Shaykh : Is this equal to the statement of a Companion whose contradictor is not known?The questioner : Likewise, the same thing. Whether three, it is not known that they have a contradictor.

The Shaykh : I did not understand me.

The questioner: I did not understand you.

The Shaykh : My brother, when one says he did not understand, he is thanked, but when he answers and he did not understand, he is not thanked... We have a statement from a Companion and another statement from another Companion. For one of the statements, we can say it is not known that he has a contradictor, and for the second statement, we cannot say it is not known that he has a contradictor. With me up to here?

The questioner : With you.

The Shaykh : Well, does the effect of this statement differ from that one?

The questioner: Many.

The Shaykh : A lot. So there is a difference there between a statement of a Companion described by scholars as not known to have a contradictor, and a statement of a Companion for which we cannot say it is not known to have a contradictor. There is a difference. Now, three from the Companions, it is not known that they have a contradictor, and three from the Companions, we cannot say it is not known that they have a contradictor. Is there a difference or not?

The questioner : Seriously.

The Shaykh : Well, so these three and these three, are they a proof or not?

The questioner : It is a proof.

The Shaykh : So your rambling around the word "we do not know a contradictor" has no benefit. I told you earlier, brother Khalid will not benefit anything from this research at all, because you finally agreed with me that when you ramble around "it is not known that he has a contradictor," there is no benefit, no fruit. Listen, my brother, may Allah guide you. But be happy with all good. I will be with you all the way, if Allah wills. There is no difference between three from the Companions for whom we can say it is not known that they have a contradictor, or three from the Companions for whom we cannot say it. There is no difference. These three are like these three. I, Al-Albani, and you, Khalid, agree that they are a proof. What did we benefit from this research? Nothing. Stay in your place. But the happy point of disagreement: these three, do we call them consensus?

The questioner : I do not call them consensus. No, they are not called consensus.

The Shaykh : We do not call it consensus. Well, if I contradict you and call it consensus, what is the fruit of the disagreement between me and you in the naming? You do not call it consensus, and I call it consensus.

The questioner : Well, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Not well, my brother. I am asking you, what is the difference? Say there is no difference.

The questioner : No difference, no difference at all. But O Shaykh, I asked you a question and you did not answer me with yes or no.

The Shaykh : Glory to Allah, there is no difference at all.

The questioner : O our Shaykh, welcome. I am telling you, the statement of one whose contradictor is not known, after investigation and research, it is established that he has no contradictor. The statement of one of the Companions.

The Shaykh : Why am I not answering you? This is me asking you. Do you know why?

The questioner: I did not know, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Because this is not the subject of the research.

The questioner : No, O Shaykh, it is connected to the first.

The Shaykh : My brother, all of fiqh, from its beginning to its end, is connected, every part of it linked to the rest. What is this talk about? It is connected, yes, but what is the original topic you raised? It is the statement of that wicked al-Suqaf that he attributes to me the denial of ijma' (scholarly consensus), correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So where have you reached in this research regarding this single individual, whether he is a proof or not? Is that not our topic? Have you finished the fundamental, original topic, which is that ijma' (scholarly consensus) is a proof? Have you finished with that so that I can say... Leave the topic you have drifted into without finishing your research on the basic topic, my brother, may Allah reward you. Have you finished the topic of ijma' (scholarly consensus)?

The questioner : Yes, I have finished, and I will return to it.

The Shaykh : No problem, you can return to it. I have noted that my brother Khalid is asking whether a Companion who has no known opponent is a proof or not. Is that not your question?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : At your service, but finish your first topic.

The questioner : I will return to it.

The Shaykh : Finish your first topic, and I have recorded your question and will answer you.

The questioner : I have finished it.

The Shaykh : Finished it based on what?

The questioner : I finished it, Shaykh, on the basis that the statement of the three, that the statement of the three is considered ijma' (scholarly consensus) by concession, Shaykh, until I reached this point.

The Shaykh : ... The word "by concession."

The questioner : No, until I reach this, no, until we reach this point.

The Shaykh : My brother, you will not reach the point; you want to state your opinion and your belief.The questioner : Fine, the three are a proof, and it is not ijma' (scholarly consensus).

The Shaykh : Fine, if someone says to you, "It is a proof and ijma' (scholarly consensus)," what is the difference?

The questioner : I want...

The Shaykh : He is still saying, "I, I, how many times have I asked you this question?"

The questioner : No difference, no, be gentle, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : If you return to what I said earlier, you will not reach the goal of your rambling about whether this is ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not. My brother, in clear Arabic, it is the same for you whether you call it ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not. Do you not remember that I said?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If you return to what I warned you about earlier, the important thing is that this is ijma' (scholarly consensus), excuse me, a proof. As for whether we call it ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not, that is a verbal disagreement that has no bearing on us. You have wasted precious time for all of us by rambling about ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not ijma' (scholarly consensus). I am telling you, my brother, there is no difference whether you call it ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not. Here you are, and praise be to Allah, you have patience, may Allah guide you. Here you are, and praise be to Allah, you have concluded that there is no benefit in calling it ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not calling it ijma' (scholarly consensus). The benefit is that it is a proof. Ijma' (scholarly consensus) is a proof. As for whether it is called ijma' (scholarly consensus) or not, that is a discussion of terms. Now, do you want the answer regarding the single individual? The brothers know my answer. Prepare yourself for the answer regarding the hadith. In the name of Allah.Those present : This is a good opportunity.

Another questioner : This is one of the opportunities of a lifetime...

The questioner : We, my brother Khalid, benefit from our discussions with our brothers like us, students of knowledge, so we learn from their methods of discussion, whether they are correct or incorrect.

The Shaykh : The error, so that we do not fall into it.

The questioner : The important thing now, and do not rush. This is the emphatic nun, "do not rush" on me. So I hope your answer is in the briefest words, not in the words of the lecture, and so on. The point is, the question: What do you say about drinking while standing? Is it permissible or not permissible?

The Shaykh : And whoever opposes the Messenger after the clear proof has come to him and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to what he has turned and We will cast him into Hellfire, and evil is the destination.

The questioner : It is permissible.