Explanation of the author's statement: "And the consensus that is verifiable is what the righteous Salaf were upon. For after them, disagreement increased and the Ummah spread out."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him: "And the consensus that is verifiable is what the righteous Salaf were upon, for after them, disagreement increased and the Ummah spread out". The words of Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, are moderate. He says that the consensus that is verifiable is what the righteous Salaf were upon. It appears that by this he means the three generations: the Companions, the Tabi'un, and the generation after them. Why? He mentioned that after these Salaf, disagreement increased due to the prevalence of desires, because people's desires diverged and they were not all seeking the truth, so opinions differed and statements varied.
He also says: "The Ummah spread out". What does "spread out" mean? It means they dispersed from the farthest west to the farthest east, for they were previously only in the Arabian Peninsula. They spread to the east and west of the earth, and it became one of the most difficult things to encompass them, let alone encompass their statements; indeed, it may be impossible. So Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, seems to be saying: Whoever claims consensus after the righteous Salaf, who are the three generations, his claim of consensus is not valid, because the consensus that is verifiable is what the righteous Salaf were upon.
Now, is it possible for consensus to exist after disagreement? We say: Even if it is found, it does not remove the disagreement. The disagreement is not removed by the existence of consensus after it.
Now, is there disagreement after consensus has been established? No, because it is not possible for anyone to deviate from consensus. Therefore, the occurrence of disagreement after consensus is impossible and not acceptable, because consensus is evidence that cannot be contradicted, so disagreement after it cannot occur. Is the occurrence of consensus after disagreement possible or not? It is possible, but is it considered consensus? The correct view is that it is not considered consensus, because opinions do not die with the death of their holders. So the disagreement that is established remains. For example, if the scholars of the present era research a matter of knowledge, and all means of media—audio, visual, and written—are used in researching it, and all the scholars of the earth agree that it is permissible, but there is an old disagreement in it, does this consensus abrogate what came before it? No, it is not possible, because opinions do not die with the death of their holders. It is as if the dissenters are now present, as if they are with us and dissenting from us.
If someone were to say: Is it not possible that if they were present and the matter were discussed with them, they would return? We say: This is possible, but it is also possible that they would not return and would bring evidence that necessitates those who reached consensus to invalidate their consensus, is that not so? Therefore, their absence is neither in their favor nor against them. You do not say: It is possible that these people would change their opinions and return, and that those who died would have the strength of argument and clarification by which these people would return from their consensus. Consider the matter as if these people remain in their disagreement and these people remain in their consensus. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, tacit consensus is not a proof. It is not a proof, because there may be an excuse for not expressing dissent. But there is no doubt that if it spreads among a people at a time when the door is open for freedom of opinion, then it becomes evidence that it is near-consensus, but we do not assert that it is consensus. Many jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, often argue by saying: "And because this statement spread and was not refuted, it became consensus." This is tacit consensus, but in reality, a person cannot assert that it is a proof, because if a person were questioned, his opinion might change, as you understand now. Now, an opinion settles in your hearts, but if someone discussed it with you, perhaps you would return and your opinion would change. Yes. Yes, Khalid.
He also says: "The Ummah spread out". What does "spread out" mean? It means they dispersed from the farthest west to the farthest east, for they were previously only in the Arabian Peninsula. They spread to the east and west of the earth, and it became one of the most difficult things to encompass them, let alone encompass their statements; indeed, it may be impossible. So Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, seems to be saying: Whoever claims consensus after the righteous Salaf, who are the three generations, his claim of consensus is not valid, because the consensus that is verifiable is what the righteous Salaf were upon.
Now, is it possible for consensus to exist after disagreement? We say: Even if it is found, it does not remove the disagreement. The disagreement is not removed by the existence of consensus after it.
Now, is there disagreement after consensus has been established? No, because it is not possible for anyone to deviate from consensus. Therefore, the occurrence of disagreement after consensus is impossible and not acceptable, because consensus is evidence that cannot be contradicted, so disagreement after it cannot occur. Is the occurrence of consensus after disagreement possible or not? It is possible, but is it considered consensus? The correct view is that it is not considered consensus, because opinions do not die with the death of their holders. So the disagreement that is established remains. For example, if the scholars of the present era research a matter of knowledge, and all means of media—audio, visual, and written—are used in researching it, and all the scholars of the earth agree that it is permissible, but there is an old disagreement in it, does this consensus abrogate what came before it? No, it is not possible, because opinions do not die with the death of their holders. It is as if the dissenters are now present, as if they are with us and dissenting from us.
If someone were to say: Is it not possible that if they were present and the matter were discussed with them, they would return? We say: This is possible, but it is also possible that they would not return and would bring evidence that necessitates those who reached consensus to invalidate their consensus, is that not so? Therefore, their absence is neither in their favor nor against them. You do not say: It is possible that these people would change their opinions and return, and that those who died would have the strength of argument and clarification by which these people would return from their consensus. Consider the matter as if these people remain in their disagreement and these people remain in their consensus. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, tacit consensus is not a proof. It is not a proof, because there may be an excuse for not expressing dissent. But there is no doubt that if it spreads among a people at a time when the door is open for freedom of opinion, then it becomes evidence that it is near-consensus, but we do not assert that it is consensus. Many jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, often argue by saying: "And because this statement spread and was not refuted, it became consensus." This is tacit consensus, but in reality, a person cannot assert that it is a proof, because if a person were questioned, his opinion might change, as you understand now. Now, an opinion settles in your hearts, but if someone discussed it with you, perhaps you would return and your opinion would change. Yes. Yes, Khalid.