The Series "The Caliphate and the Imamate in Islamic Thought"
By the writer and thinker Thaer Salama – Abu Malek
Part Forty: By Whom is Consensus (Ijma) Established?
The intended meaning of the scholars whose agreement is required is those who were present at the time the incident occurred or the issue was raised. No consideration is given to those who will exist in the future; rather, they must follow if they exist. No consideration is given to the dissenting opinion after a sufficient period has passed for consideration, examination, and the spread of news about the incident. Since the texts received from the Prophet ﷺ preceded the consensus, it is inconceivable that there are evidences from the Sunnah that abrogate or contradict the consensus1. Furthermore, what invalidates the consensus is not the personal opinion of a Companion or a scholar, such that it is said: we have not received all of their opinions. Rather, it is invalidated by a report (i.e., a Hadith), because the consensus reveals evidence. Therefore, the establishment of consensus is only invalidated by the existence of contradictory evidence2 or a scholarly opinion based on contradictory evidence. In that case, news must be received about the invalidation of the consensus and the return of the Companions to the evidence, or their adherence to what they transmitted unanimously3 because they consider it the valid evidence. Accordingly, the absence of transmitted opposition to their consensus with evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the establishment and decisiveness of the consensus.
Despite this, the consensus on the obligation of appointing a Caliph and the prohibition of the earth being without a Caliph was established during the era of the Companions in various events. Throughout the eras following the era of the Companions, no one considered to be from that field (politics and jurisprudence) deviated from it, and no one whose opinion is considered deviated from it. "No consideration is given to the opinion of one who is proven to be immoral or ignorant or not qualified to give Fatwas, Hadith, and narrations4," especially since this consensus is based on solid evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that testifies to the obligation of what has been agreed upon. No consideration is given to a dissenting opinion because their opinion contradicts the definitive Quran and Sunnah. The consensus on this issue has been transmitted to us by more scholars than can be counted; in fact, no scholar has transmitted a significant statement that violates the establishment of this consensus. Praise be to Allah in the beginning and the end.
Therefore, the consensus of the Companions does not mean the consensus of their opinions or their agreement on a matter. Rather, in one of its aspects, it means their revealing of evidence that they did not transmit to us verbally, i.e., they did not say to us (collectively or individually) that the Prophet ﷺ said such and such. Rather, due to the clarity of the issue on which they agreed, they did not need to transmit it through the transmission of the Hadith indicating it. An example of this is:
If you saw someone talking on a mobile phone today, you would not explain to a third person what that person is doing. Whereas if someone had a mobile phone a hundred years ago and was talking on it, the matter would be so ambiguous to people that it would require explanation. But today, due to its clarity, it does not need explanation, and explaining it is considered an affectation. This is firstly.
Secondly: The meaning is not the consensus of their opinions, because the Sharia is only taken from the Quran and Sunnah. Their consensus is based on the Quran and Sunnah, but the method of transmission is as we mentioned in the first point.
Thirdly: The difference between their consensus and its اعتبارbeing considered valid and the consensus of others which is not considered valid is the شبهة possibility of direct connection with the Messenger ﷺ to convey the ruling from him. Therefore, they had this connection, so their transmission is evidence. Subsequent centuries did not have this connection, so the consensus of subsequent centuries depends on their consensus. If they transmitted the consensus from generation to generation, then that is excellent, just as the Ummah transmitted from generation to generation that men in private life are separate from women, and just as the Ummah transmitted from generation to generation that the number of Rak'ahs in prayer is such and such, and that the Sunnah of Fajr is confirmed.
Fourthly: Those by whom the consensus is established are the Companions who were present when the incident occurred, provided that they are from the people of the field and craft related to the incident. For example, if the consensus is related to establishing a Caliph after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and giving that priority over all other obligations, then those who were present in that situation from among the people of jurisprudence and knowledge agreed, and no objection was transmitted from others, and no objection was made to their action despite its importance and its reaching all the Companions, and the Companions' pledge of allegiance to the Caliph in the mosque after that. So we did not find any objection and we did not find anyone narrating a Hadith that contradicts it. Therefore, it is said that the consensus has been established.
Therefore, the point here is the establishment of consensus by those who attended the event, and then this event is of such importance and fame that its news spread, and nothing was narrated from any of the Companions that contradicts it or establishes a different ruling for it. Therefore, it is said in such rulings that consensus has been reached in them5.
1- The Companions differed at the time of the plague on whether to enter the plague-stricken land or not, so they disputed the concept of destiny in that. Then the opinion of some of them not to enter was supported by a report from the Prophet ﷺ narrated by Abd al-Rahman bin Auf, may Allah be pleased with him. As soon as the report was narrated, the Companions' قول statement agreed to follow the text, so it is inconceivable that they would agree on something contrary to what was reported, and therefore it is inconceivable that a report would come with the opposite of what they agreed upon after their action, then they would not retract what they agreed upon! If this scenario is absent, then the remaining scenario is that the consensus is not violated.
2- From a purely theoretical point of view, if we imagine the opposition of the transmission of a group of Companions to evidence through their consensus, through another evidence that contradicts it brought by one of them, then what happens is only that what they transmitted is not given the characteristic of definiteness, and the conflicting evidence is confronted with the evidence that they revealed unanimously, and weighting occurs.
3- It is impossible to have a consensus on an opinion and its opposite, and therefore it cannot be said: consensus abrogates consensus!
4- مراتب الإجماع The Levels of Consensus by Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, p. 4
5- The Companions did not disagree in the Saqifa on the obligation of appointing a Caliph, even if they initially disagreed on who it should be. They rejected the opinion of the advisor with the two Emirs and did not act on it. They disagreed on who the Caliph should be, whether he should be from the Quraysh or from Medina, whether it should be Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaidah, or Sa'd, but they did not disagree on the obligation that the Muslims should have a Caliph. So understand well the basis of the ruling on which consensus and certainty were achieved.