living islam _ Islamic tradition

Subject: Re: Oh, the wisdom of a bookend

Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com

salamun `ala man yattabi`-ul-huda

Then you have agreed on deficient definition.

Using the word "consensus" is in fact most appropriate, because one of its
definitions is agreement by all or most. At least, this is what my
Webster's New World Dictionary has to say.

When all agree it is ijma` sarih.

When agreement of most is explicit and no disagreement is known of, you
have ijma` sukuti.

When we talk about "scholarly consensus" it is clear that we are talking
about a particular definition of the term. The whole mess is covered in
books of jurisprudence, under the topic of Majaz khass and majaz `am.

"foisted" - something sold through fraud and deception.

Oh, yes: foisted. But the question is who is dong the foisting: someone who
quotes authoritative sources, or someone who does not.

As for the Quranic basis of scholarly consensus, since no one wanted to
take up the topic elsewhere - here you go:

wa `alaykum al-slam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Mohammad Hashim Kamali's _Principles Of Islamic Jurisprudence_ is
perhaps the best work in English to quote on this. He covers the the
subject of ijma` on pages 168 through 194. And on pages 181 and 182 he
comments on Ahmad Hasan's work. Kamali and Hasan even use mach of the
same phrasing.

What he means by (c) escapes me. Proponents of ijma` all agree that (1)
ijma` can happen and (2) that it happened during the time of the
Companions (Allah be pleased with them). The proponents of ijma` then
disagree over a large number of matters: has it happened since the
Companions (Allah be pleased with them), does consensus have to be
universal or can does a particular locality - such as Medina or Kufa -
carry special weight, a few specific details about what it means for the
ijma` to take place - does the entire generation have to die first - and
whether consensus can be broken. Since the above fall under (a), I have
no idea where this leaves from for (c).

For addition benefit, a few words about the people mentioned:

* Al-Nazzam is a chief Mu`tazili. No one questioned ijma` prior to him.

* Ahmad bin Hanbal is the founder of the madhhab bearing his name. His

al-Qadi Abu Ya`la said that while on the outward this indicates that
Imam Ahmad did not consider ijma` to be sound, that he said it to
instill godfearingness for those without knowledge [i].

Ibn `Aqil said that Imam Ahmad said this out of [general] extreme
piety [war`] because someone who claims ijma` may not be aware of a
difference of opinion - and in any case: Imam Ahmad did in fact make
claims of ijma` [ii].

Imam Ahmad did not cite ijma` often, and he stuck to the first one or
two generations after the Companions (Allah be pleased with them)
[iii].

* Ibn Hazm is the well known Zahiri Imam. He wrote a commentary on Ibn

* Najm al-Din al-Tufi was a Hanbali in fiqh who died in 716 AH; it is

* Ibn Taymiyyah is the well known Hanbali mujtahid. The books of Hanbali

* Al-Shaukani is the Zaydi turned Sunni (d 1255 AH). Someone in the 13th

> He then proceeds with those analyses.

And here, the reader is left hanging. What were the conclusions? Ahmad
Hasan is supposed to discuss people of groups (b - total rejection of
ijma`) and (c - partial acceptance / partial rejection). The ironic
thing is that members of (c) actually belong to (a), and the only member
of (b) that he mentioned actually makes us of ijma`.

The question concerned ijma` over the hadith which serve as evidence for
ijma`. The response "obviously not" followed by a discussion concerning
just one of the hadiths used for ijma`. Not an answer to the question.

As well as Sunan al-Tirmidhi (2166) and Musnad Imam Ahmad (6:396) - at
least on the first part: "My community will not agree upon a
misguidance". They do not include the second part from Ibn Majah (3950).

At this point, someone will dash in with "See, they don't even agree on
the wording - so how can they have consensus!" A good point. The answer
is simple: they agree on the meaning of the general meanings the hadith,
even if they disagree on the specific wording.

Seeing whether or not they agree in the hadith evidence used for this is
easy: one need only open several books in usul al-fiqh and see the
hadith evidence presented and how it is understood. If one wishes to see
whether there is consensus, this must be continued until all books of
usul for a given period of time have been gone through; it is not a
condition to open all books since the very beginning, since one a
generation has reached consensus it is binding on the later generations.

The evidence presented above is not the only hadith evidence cited for
proving the basis ijma`. In addition, the evidence cited in support of
ijma` is not limited to hadith. Here are a few of the verses from the
Qur'an commonly cited as evidence for the basis of ijma`:

O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those of you
who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter
refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers
in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the
end. (4:59)

And if any tidings whether of safety or fear come unto them they
noise it abroad whereas if they had referred it to the messenger and
such of them as are in authority those among them who are able to
think out the matter would have known it. If it had not been for the
grace of Allah and His mercy ye would have followed Satan save a few
(of you). (4:83)

In any case, the question of whether or not there is ijma` over what
evidence proves ijma` is a moot point.

Not so.

(1) "My community will not agree on an error."

(2) "When you see disagreement, you should "follow the overwhelming

Statement (1) simply says that the ummah will never agree upon an error:
that each and every person is a Muslim will never agree on something
that is a misguidance. This hadith is about the impossibility of the
ummah as whole becoming misguided. This idea is supported by the hadith
in Bukhari and Muslim where the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) informs us that there will always exist a group within the ummah
that is upon complete guidance, and that they will be unhurt by those
who contradict them.

So (1) rules out ijma` over a misguidance, which has no bearing on ijma`
over guidance.

As for statement (2), this is not part of the meaning that is shared in
all versions of the hadith. This portion is not typically cited when
giving evidence for the basis of ijma`. Additionally, the Arabic wording
is in the imperative form. Unless there is evidence to prove otherwise,
this is taken to be an order and not a suggestion.

An "overwhelming majority" is not consensus.

I must be a real dimwit, because I cannot see how putting (1) and (2)
does anything to preclude ijma` over matters that are not misguidance.

Nonsense. If one wishes to know whether or not the jurists agree on what
ijma` is, one goes to the jurists and sees what the jursist had to say.
The question was about whether or not there is ijma` among the jursist
[fuqaha] - it should be jurisprudents [usuliyun] - and not a question
about one of the possible evidences they cite to support ijma`. The
question is about *their* understanding, and no one else's.

Proponents of ijma` agree over the principle ijma`: the scholars of a
given generation agreeing over a particular religious matter. While the
wording may vary, they agree on this meaning. And as Imam al-Ghazali
pointed out: we should not get tripped up in the words, but rather must
look at the meanings they point to - this is the essence of what he
said, not a direct quote.

The scholars who held that (1) the ijma` of a particular region
[relative ijma`] has the same weight as (2) the ijma`of the scholars of
a given generation [ijma` without any linguistic qualifications] agreed
on the latter (2). There is ijma` on the base case (2), but not on the
branch (1). Differences regarding (1) do nothing to weaken (2).

This is not exactly what Imam al-Shafi`i said. In paragraph 481 of his
_Risalah_ he differentiates agreement into two types: that which is
supported by tradition and that which is not. The former he accepts, and
the latter he denies. Somehow I do not think that there is anyone more
expert in Imam al-Shafi`is opinions other than Imam al-Shafi`i himself.
(See Majid Khadduri's translation _al-Shafi`is Risala_, pp255-57)

Kind of. He recognized that is must be supported by Prophetic tradition
and is not an independent source, and as such it is restricted to
religious matters

While in theory it potentially applies to everything religious, in
practice it tended to form only over matters essential to Islam. Since
the folks of consideration when it comes to ijma` are scholars, it was
not a condition that these things be well known amongst the masses,
though that does tend to be the case.

If by "Orthodoxy" he means people who take an extreme case of ijma`
- that all ijma` whether universal or relative is binding - then this is

But if he means "those who accept the principle of ijma`" then the
reason others could not be convinced is because they simply did not want
to be, much like today's hadith rejectors. It had and has nothing to do
with lack convincing arguments and clear proofs; it has to do with
caprice, whim, and self interest.

The type over which all Muslims agree is the explicit consensus of the
scholars of a given generation over a particular matter that has textual
support. This is known as explicit ijma` [ijma` sarih], and it is what
is meant when the word is left without qualification.

A modified form involves the same, however instead of explicit consensus
it involves all of them knowing about an issue, one part of the group
agreeing and the rest remaining silent for no reason other than
remaining silent. This is known as tacit ijma` [ijma` sukuti].

Some Hanbalis accept this, especially when it involves the Companions
(Allah be pleased with them).

The Malikis accept the ijma` of the scholars of Madina.

Some Hanbalis accept the ijma` of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

It is very difficult to prove ijma`, especially after the first few
generations. Because of this scholars tend to use the term "on this we
know of know divergence" [la na`rifu fihi khulaf]. Ibn Mundhir uses this
term in _Kitab al-Ijma`_ to differentiate between the two. But keep in
mind: "difficult to" is not the same as "cannot be" and "has not been".

By implication, the rest of the time it does not. Consider a two
analogous questions:

Or:

Obviously, all three are binding whether Islam is enforced by the State
or not.

By Allah Most High, of course. Ijma` is not an independent source: ijma`
is always built on textual evidence and it is a report that every
scholar of a given generation agreed that the evidence means a
particular thing. The consequence for rejecting a ruling over which
there is consensus goes back to whether that ruling is (1) certain
[qat`i] or (2) speculative [zanni], and whether the former is something
(3) necessarily known to be part of the religion. Rejecting (3) puts you
outside of Islam. Someone who persists in rejecting (1) once it has been
made clear to them runs the risk. Someone who rejects (2) is considered
corrupt.

One contemporary example comes to mind: The Qur'an and rejecting two
verses from it because they do not coform with hocus-pocus numerology.

Also, see above.

Yes, this was common. It was common for one Companion (Allah be pleased
with them one and all) to remain silent when another was asked a
question, and it was especially the case that when the Caliph gave an
answer *as the Caliph* that others would remain silent.

There are cases where one Companion (Allah be pleased with them) was
asked a question on inheritance laws. Sitting next to him was another
Companion (Allah be pleased with him) who held a contrary opinion. The
first Companion answered. After the person asking the question had
departed, the first turned to the second and asked why he remained
silent. His answer was "Because I was not the one asked."

The only scholars who would consider the above ijma` are those who hold
that tacit ijma` [ijma` sukuti] is binding and that it is not a require-
ment that the entire generation of scholars first die. No one, as far as
I have read in more than a half dozen books on the subject, combines
these two.

Yes, but after first gathering all available facts. And since the door
to the facts has Arabic as a lock, one must first learn Arabic in order
to do so. It is also important to note an authors prejudices and whether
or their prejudices would lead them to "doctor" the evidence.

So there is near ijma` that this happened during the Abbasids? In
closing, I quote from Kamali response to Ahmad Hasan:

This, I hope, ends the message on a positive foot.

Regards,
Musa

===== Citations =====

i Yusuf ibn `Abd al-Hadi [aka: Ibn al-Mubrid] al-Hanbali [d 909 AH],

ii ibid

iii ibid, p249. This is cited in _Muswaddah Al Taymiyyah_, authored by

iv Al-Tufi, _Al-Bulbul_. pp78-84

v Kamali, _Principles Of Islamic Jurisprudence_. p182.

back to main

home: www.livingislam.org/