about whether there is a scholarly consensus (ijma') for which no explicit text exists
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : This morning you were talking about scholarly consensus (ijma').
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : This morning you were talking about scholarly consensus (ijma').
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : We didn't finish; we didn't hear the rest of the speech. You spoke on a topic, so let me finish it.
The questioner : Please, go ahead.
The questioner : Regarding intoxicants, for example, this is an example where everyone agrees on their prohibition.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : Intoxicants; the prohibition of intoxicants.
The Shaykh: Yes, that is right.
The questioner : Generally speaking.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : This, of course, is originally prohibited by an explicit Qur'anic text. We want to know how scholarly consensus (ijma') can exist for a matter for which no text has come down. Does this exist or not? I mean, how does scholarly consensus (ijma') work, given that the scholars consider the Qur'an, then the Sunnah, then scholarly consensus (ijma'), and then analogical reasoning (qiyas)?
The Shaykh : This is what you missed.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And we discussed that the scholarly consensus (ijma') that can be realized, that one can believe in, and that one must accept is that which corresponds to what is known from the religion by necessity. We gave the example of intoxicants: the prohibition of intoxicants is known by the scholar and the non-scholar alike; every Muslim, by virtue of being a Muslim, knows the prohibition of these intoxicants. So this is a valid example of what the Ummah has agreed upon. However, this consensus did not come from transmitting the opinion of so-and-so, the opinion of so-and-so, and the opinion of so-and-so, but rather because it is explicitly stated in the Book and the Sunnah, and explicitly stated in the books of scholars, sequentially, in interpreting the meaning of the verse and the hadiths that came regarding the prohibition of these intoxicants. To complete the topic, we gave them the example of the Qadianis. Why did these people leave the circle of Islam, even though they do not deny anything from the Qur'an? Because they interpret the Qur'an contrary to what the Ummah has agreed upon, meaning contrary to what is known from the religion by necessity. We said earlier, if we asked any Muslim, "Do you believe there are prophets after the Messenger?" he would say, "I seek refuge in Allah." But the Qadianis say there are prophets. Now, do they deny the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ahzab 33:40]? No, they do not deny it. Do they deny ? No, they do not deny it. So how do they say there are prophets? They interpret it with an interpretation (ta'wil) that contradicts the consensus of the Ummah. They all converged on this. This is the scholarly consensus (ijma') that can be real and valid, and departing from it is disbelief (kufr). As for other consensuses, they are fantasy and cannot be realized.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : This morning you were talking about scholarly consensus (ijma').
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : We didn't finish; we didn't hear the rest of the speech. You spoke on a topic, so let me finish it.
The questioner : Please, go ahead.
The questioner : Regarding intoxicants, for example, this is an example where everyone agrees on their prohibition.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : Intoxicants; the prohibition of intoxicants.
The Shaykh: Yes, that is right.
The questioner : Generally speaking.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : This, of course, is originally prohibited by an explicit Qur'anic text. We want to know how scholarly consensus (ijma') can exist for a matter for which no text has come down. Does this exist or not? I mean, how does scholarly consensus (ijma') work, given that the scholars consider the Qur'an, then the Sunnah, then scholarly consensus (ijma'), and then analogical reasoning (qiyas)?
The Shaykh : This is what you missed.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And we discussed that the scholarly consensus (ijma') that can be realized, that one can believe in, and that one must accept is that which corresponds to what is known from the religion by necessity. We gave the example of intoxicants: the prohibition of intoxicants is known by the scholar and the non-scholar alike; every Muslim, by virtue of being a Muslim, knows the prohibition of these intoxicants. So this is a valid example of what the Ummah has agreed upon. However, this consensus did not come from transmitting the opinion of so-and-so, the opinion of so-and-so, and the opinion of so-and-so, but rather because it is explicitly stated in the Book and the Sunnah, and explicitly stated in the books of scholars, sequentially, in interpreting the meaning of the verse and the hadiths that came regarding the prohibition of these intoxicants. To complete the topic, we gave them the example of the Qadianis. Why did these people leave the circle of Islam, even though they do not deny anything from the Qur'an? Because they interpret the Qur'an contrary to what the Ummah has agreed upon, meaning contrary to what is known from the religion by necessity. We said earlier, if we asked any Muslim, "Do you believe there are prophets after the Messenger?" he would say, "I seek refuge in Allah." But the Qadianis say there are prophets. Now, do they deny the saying of Allah the Exalted:
but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets
و لكن رسول الله وخاتم النبيينThere is no prophet after me
لا نبي بعدي
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.