When we talk about consensus (em>ijmā`) in Islam, we mean that which has been established with certainty within the Muslim community without any dissention,
or that which has been the practice of the Muslims in every age without exception. Near to this in strength is where a large number of scholars have asserted that consensus exists on a matter and no objection can be found to this in any of the scholarly sources.
The situation is not the same for less rigorous claims of consensus. There are scholars who are known for the habit of declaring something to be a matter of consensus simply because they have never heard any disagreement about it. This is not sufficient. You may be unaware of a dissenting opinion, but that does not mean it is nonexistent.
This is why Ahmad b. Hanbal said: “Whoever claims there is consensus on something has spoken untruly. It may be that people have disagreed, but he is unaware of it.”
Then there are people who consider it consensus whenever the four schools of law agree on something, these being the schools of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿi, and Ahmad b. Hanbal. This is untrue. There are many cases where these four imams agreed on something, but disagreed with many of their contemporaries, or the Successors, or a number of the Prophet’s Companions.
We can see that later scholars of these schools sometimes resort to those other opinions. For instance, there are a number of cases where the Hanbalī jurist Ibn Qudāmah gives preference to the views of these other scholars in his legal encyclopaedia al-Mughnī.
Once a scholar declares a certain opinion to be a matter of consensus, other scholars follow suit in their works, until it appears that dozens of authorities are claiming it to be a matter of consensus. However, a little comparative research will reveal that they are all relying on one source of their claim.
A good example of this is the question of whether wine and similar alcoholic beverages are impure. There is certainly consensus that it is unlawful to consume such beverages, because they intoxicate, but whether they are also impure is a matter of very strong scholarly debate. A number of scholars have held the view that wine is not an impure substance, due to a lack of any direct textual evidence to establish its impurity.
Moreover, there is compelling evidence that it is a pure substance. First, there is the fact that it starts out as a pure before fermentation, so there is no reason to assume that its becoming an intoxicating beverage changes the ruling regarding its purity. Then there is the fact that the Prophet ordered the people of Madinah to dispose of their wine by pouring it out in the streets. This was on the day that the verse was revealed declaring wine to be unlawful. Had it also been impure, he would not have commanded them to dispose of it in that manner. Moreover, the Prophet never instructed anyone to wash their clothes or their bodies if wine splashed on them, even after it had become unlawful to drink.
The jurists al-Rabī` and Dāwūd al-Zāhirī said: “Wine is a pure substance, even though it is unlawful to consume. It is the same as poison, which is surely prohibited, though it is not an impurity.”
The purity of wine has also been related from the jurists al-Layth, al-Muzanī, and some of the later jurists from Baghdad and Kairouan. In recent ages, a number of scholars have favoured this opinion, including al-Shawkānī, al-San`ānī, Muhammad Rashīd Ridā, al-Albānī, and Ibn al-`Uthaymīn.
A similar case is the question of whether blood that flows from a wound is pure. Like the previous question, there have been a great number of scholars who assert that its impurity is a matter of consensus. Nevertheless, there have been a number of illustrious jurists, past and present, who have held the view that it is pure. Surely, the claim of consensus in this case is suspect.
Be that as it may, there are cases where consensus is certain, with regard to both Islamic beliefs and questions of law. These have to be respected.
Source: IslamToday
Comments