Continuing the discussion on the possibility of consensus (ijma') and mentioning the story of the Shaykh's meeting with Abdullah al-Habashi and the discussion with him regarding consensus.

The Shaykh : I mean, you are excusing yourself for... I gave you the space to ask whatever you want, but since you are the questioner and I am the answerer, the question should be clear so that the answer is clear as well. Since you have read about consensus and read the statements of the scholars, what second consensus are you referring to, so that I can tell you whether it is permissible or not permissible, possible or not possible to contradict it, what rulings follow from it, and what is the consensus you mean? You said at the beginning, "the consensus of the Ummah," and we went through the stages and said this is impossible, impossible, and impossible. We reached the final stage, which is a Companion transmitting the consensus of the Companions. Your answer was contrary to what I wanted. I told you it is possible, and you told me it is not impossible. Yes, we told you it is not impossible, meaning it is possible. So the answer to the question is: possible, yes, it is possible. When we went back to examine this word, how can a Companion transmit the consensus of thousands of Companions scattered across the Islamic lands at that time? He stopped his donkeyThe Shaykh : at the obstacle. We did not hear an answer; we heard an answer that can be interpreted, not the actual interpretation of your words, meaning not knowing of a dissenter. Or am I mistaken that I heard this word from you, or not?

The questioner : I said it.

The Shaykh : I said it. So you mean by consensus the agreement of a group of Companions without us knowing of a dissenter among them.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Do you think this is what you mean?

The questioner : I mean, not exactly, my teacher.

The questioner : Well, what exactly is it?

The Shaykh : No, I said it exactly.

The questioner : I admit, I mean, nothing is clear to me, I mean, I am left...

The questioner : I mean, perhaps if I say, my teacher, that when the word "consensus" is uttered, the first thing that comes to mind is perhaps this, but I do not know how to express it.

The Shaykh : The problem is, my brother, people say "the consensus of the Ummah," and this is impossible.

The questioner : Impossible, even with the texts, it is impossible.

The Shaykh : And they say something they do not understand themselves.

The questioner : Yes, correct.

The Shaykh : In my time, I was afflicted with the meeting withThe Shaykh : Abdullah al-Habashi. Do you know him?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Al-Hurrari.

The questioner: It is the same.

The Shaykh : We met him in a long story, and now is not the time to discuss it. If he said thatThe Shaykh : Al-Ali is in a distant place, he likes to hear such stories, but even so, so that we do not stray from the topic, he claimed that we contradict the consensus. In a gathering, we agreed to meet with him. I suggested to him that we discuss fundamental principles around which many of the branch issues we disagree on revolve. They are eight. We said the first of these principles is consensus. What is the consensus you consider valid? He said, "the consensus of the Ummah." We told him this is an impossible matter, and its impossibility is what I am referring to now. This is a benefit for you: this is an impossible matter for two reasons. It is impossible for an individual from the Ummah to meet with every individual of the Ummah and take their opinion, even in the era with the fewest people, which is the era of the Companions. It is clear.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is impossible to imagine a Companion going around all the scattered Companions. What is your opinion on this issue? That his opinion is the same as the opinion of the ten, the thousands, all of them? First, that he agrees with the opinion of the other, this is impossible mentally and intellectually. Then, if we assume, excuse me, my expression may be lacking, it is impossible first to connect with every individual of these... or not?

The questioner : Definitely.

The Shaykh : Then, if we help in the expression, it is possible through some means to connect with every individual of these Companions. I am not saying it is impossible, it is unlikely that the opinions of all these individuals would match on the specific issue he is asking them about. Is this clear up to here?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : So, if we assume that this "unlikely" became a real fact, but it is based on an impossible matter, which is his connection with every individual of the Companions, then this is an impossible matter. Is it clear to you up to here?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I told him, "You mean by the Ummah not only the Companions, but something broader: the Companions and the Tabi'un. Who is the person who can connect with the Ummah and transmit their agreement on an issue? This is imagination... to a second definition, which is narrower than the first, but it also does not escape the circle of impossibility: the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah. Is there a difference between this definition and the first one, or not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I mean, if the Ummah represents a million, but the scholars do not represent a million, nor half a million, nor a quarter of a million, the matter is easier. I mean, who is this person who can meet with every scholar of that Ummah? And it may be, as is said in old Arabic proverbs, and our companion Abu Ahmad mentions this in the corners,

The questioner : Hidden things.

The Shaykh : Hidden things. The scholars may be... unknown. Who can advocate for these? And so the topic progresses, and you will end up at the impossibility of imagining consensus, let alone its occurrence. Is this clear up to here?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : So, what is the consensus that can be said to be valid? It is what Ibn Hazm says frankly: it is what is known from the religion by necessity. It is what is known from the religion by necessity. Here, the consensus of the Ummah is valid. Why? Because all individuals of the Ummah, from the illiterate who cannot read or write to the greatest scholar, share in knowing the ruling of the Shari'ah. Why? Because it is known from the religion by necessity. If I say, for example, that drinking khamr (intoxicants) is forbidden by consensus, this statement is correct. But you will not be able to say that smoking is forbidden by consensus, or permissible by consensus, or disliked by consensus. It is impossible to say this. Why? Because on what basis did this consensus or that one rely? I mean, suppose a consensus to forbid khamr, excuse me, smoking, a consensus to permit it, a consensus to dislike it. Who connected with the individuals of this Ummah, especially in this time? This is imagination and impossible. But the consensus that can be imagined is that it is a reality whose driver is what is known from the religion by necessity, and this is usually explicitly stated in the Book and the Sunnah.

The questioner : My teacher, when it is explicitly stated, how can it be a consensus? In a text that came, for example, like khamr.

The Shaykh : I think your question is wrong. Think about it.

The questioner : In other words, how is it a consensus?

The questioner : Your question is done. There is a text.

The questioner : I understood.

The questioner : The question is wrong.

The Shaykh : It does not need an intermediary because it is Salafi.

The questioner : O Shaykh, here we must place...

The Shaykh : Yes, let the turn pass. If it is finished, we will move to others.

The questioner : I did not grasp it.

The questioner : What did you understand?

The questioner : My Shaykh, I understood that my question is wrong because saying "the Ummah agreed" is the definition of consensus. But my intention was whether denying consensus...

The Shaykh : Your question is not relevant.

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : I am telling you, what do you want to ask? And if you are mistaken in my statement, I will tell you what you want to ask, correct it, and I will say what you need to ask.

The questioner : I will ask according to what you want.

The Shaykh : Yes, as if your question was, or you needed to ask, the following, and I understood this from the tone of your voice: Since there is a text from the Book and the Sunnah, what is the benefit of consensus here? The consensus here benefits us in terms of the indication of the text, because the text sometimes has more than one indication, and the Ummah proceeds on understanding the text in this way. So the benefit of consensus comes from here, not from the existence of the text, but from the... the text. And the discussion will continue, and if Allah wills, we will prepare for prayer.

The questioner : Is it permissible to establish consensus by analogy (qiyas)?

The Shaykh : And if Allah wills, the discussion will continue and be completed after the prayer.