What is the ruling on one who contradicts the consensus of the Salaf on an issue in the principles or the branches?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The questioner says: “O honorable Shaykh, what is the ruling on one who contradicts the consensus of the Salaf on an issue in the principles or the branches?”
The Shaykh : Consensus is a proof according to most of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence. If the Salaf reach consensus on an issue, it is not permissible to depart from their consensus. However, the whole matter lies in the validity of the consensus. Sometimes a consensus is reported that is not actually a consensus; that is, some scholars report that the Salaf or those after them reached consensus on something, but there was no consensus in that matter.
One of the strangest things that has passed me is that a consensus is sometimes reported that contradicts another consensus. I have seen some scholars say, “The scholars reached consensus on accepting the testimony of a slave,” and I have seen other scholars say, “They reached consensus on rejecting the testimony of a slave.” How is this possible? These are two contradictory consensuses. If you want to know that some scholars are lenient in reporting consensus, refer to the book by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), “Al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah ‘ala Ghawwat al-Jahmiyyah wa al-Mu’tadilah”, in which he mentions many places where a consensus was reported but there was no consensus. If the consensus of the Salaf on a principle or branch issue is established, then their consensus is a proof and it is not permissible to contradict it. But the whole matter lies in the validity of the consensus. Yes.
The Shaykh : Consensus is a proof according to most of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence. If the Salaf reach consensus on an issue, it is not permissible to depart from their consensus. However, the whole matter lies in the validity of the consensus. Sometimes a consensus is reported that is not actually a consensus; that is, some scholars report that the Salaf or those after them reached consensus on something, but there was no consensus in that matter.
One of the strangest things that has passed me is that a consensus is sometimes reported that contradicts another consensus. I have seen some scholars say, “The scholars reached consensus on accepting the testimony of a slave,” and I have seen other scholars say, “They reached consensus on rejecting the testimony of a slave.” How is this possible? These are two contradictory consensuses. If you want to know that some scholars are lenient in reporting consensus, refer to the book by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), “Al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah ‘ala Ghawwat al-Jahmiyyah wa al-Mu’tadilah”, in which he mentions many places where a consensus was reported but there was no consensus. If the consensus of the Salaf on a principle or branch issue is established, then their consensus is a proof and it is not permissible to contradict it. But the whole matter lies in the validity of the consensus. Yes.