8.1. PROOF (HUJJIYYAH) OF IJMA`
What proof is there that ijma is a source of law? The ulema have sought to justify ijma on the authority of the Quran , the Sunnah, and reason. We shall presently discuss the ayat and the ahadith that have been quoted in support of ijma’. It should be noted at the outset, however, that the ulema have on the whole maintained the impression that the textual evidence in support of ijma’ does not amount to a conclusive proof. Having said this, one might add that both al- Ghazali and al-Amidi are of the view that when compared to the Quran, the Sunnah provides a stronger argument in favour of ijma.
1. Ijma’ in the Qur’an
The Qur’an (al-Nisa’, 4:59) is explicit on the requirement of obedience to God, to His Messenger, and those who are in charge of affairs, the ulu al amr. It is also suggested that this ayah lends support to the infallibility of ijma. According to al-Fakhr al-Razi, since God has commanded obedience to the ulu al-amr, the judgement of the ulu al-amr must therefore be immune from error. For God cannot command obedience to anyone who is liable to committing errors. The word ‘amr’ in this context is general and would thus include both secular and religious affairs. The former is discharged by the political rulers, whereas the latter is discharged by the ulema, whereas other commentators have considered it to be a reference to the umara , that is, ‘rulers and commanders’. The zahir of the text includes both, and enjoins obedience to each in their respective spheres. Hence, when the ulu al-amr in juridical matters,namely the mujtahidin, reach a consensus on a ruling, it must be obeyed.
Further support for this conclusion can be found elsewhere in sura al-Nisa’ (4:83) which once again confirms the authority of the ulu al-amr next to the Prophet himself. The one ayah which is most frequently quoted in support of ijma occurs in sura al-Nisa (4:115), which ai as follows:
And anyone who splits off from the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him and follows a way other than that of the believers, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell. What an evil refuge!
The commentators observe that `the way of the believers’ in this ayah refers to their ‘agreement and the way that they have chosen’, in other words, to their consensus. Adherence to the way of the community is thus binding, while departure from it is forbidden. Departing from the believers’ way has been approximated to disobeying the Prophet, both of which are forbidden. There are several points that the commentators have highlighted concerning this ayah. However, before elaborating further, a brief discussion of the other Qur’anic passages which are quoted in support of consensus would be useful.
The Qur’an is expressive of the dignified status that God has bestowed on the Muslim community. Thus we read in sura Al-`Imran (3:109): `You are the best community that has been raised for mankind. You enjoin right and forbid evil and you believe in God.’ This ayah attests to some of the outstanding merits of the Muslim community. It is thus argued that had the community been capable of agreeing on an error, the Qur’an would not have praised it in such terms. It is further noted that the contents of this ayah give some indication as to the meaning of the phrase `the believers’ way’.
On the same theme, we read in sura al-Baqarah (2:143): `Thus We have made you a middle nation [ummatan wasatan], that you may be witnesses over mankind.’ Literally, wasat means `middle’, implying justice and balance, qualities which merit recognition of the agreed decision of the community and the rectitude of its way. Furthermore, it is by virtue of uprightness that God has bestowed upon the Muslim community the merit of being a `witness over mankind’.
In yet another reference to the ummah, the Qur’an proclaims in sura al-A’raf (7:181): `And of those We created are a nation who direct others with truth and dispense justice on its basis.’ There are three other ayat which need to be quoted. These are:
Al-‘Imran (3:102):`Cling firmly together to God’s rope and do not separate.’
This ayah obviously forbids separation (tafarruq). Since opposition to the ijma’ is a form of tafarruq, it is therefore prohibited.
Al-Shura (42:10):‘And in whatever you differ, the judgment remains with God’, ‘which implicitly approves that in which the community is in agreement.’
Al-Nisa’ (4:59): `Then if you dispute over something, refer it to God and the Messenger.’
By implication (i.e., divergent implication –mafhum al-mukhalafah), this ayah too upholds the authority of all that is agreed upon by the community.
Having quoted all the foregoing ayat, al-Ghazali observes that ‘all of these are apparent indications (zawahir) none of which amounts to a clear nass on the subject of ijma `.’ Al-Ghazali adds that of all these, the ayah at 4:115 is closest to the point. For it renders adherence to the `believers’ way’ an obligation. Al-Shafi`i has also quoted it, and has drawn the conclusion that this ayah provides a clear authority for ijma `. According to him, following a way other than that of the believers is haram, and following the believers’ way is wajib. But despite this, al-Ghazali explains that the main theme of this ayah is a warning against disobedience to the Prophet and hostility against the believers. It requires the believers to give the Prophet active support and defend him against enemies. It is not enough for a believer merely to avoid causing hardship (mashaqqa) to the Prophet; he must actively help him and obey all his commands and prohibitions. This is the main theme of the ayah. The Prophet himself has not given it a specific interpretation to warrant a departure from its manifest (zahir) meaning. The Prophet, in other words, has not made any reference to ijma` in this context From this analysis, it would appear that al-Ghazali does not agree with the conclusion that al-Shafi’i has drawn from this ayah.
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti’s interpretation of the same ayah is broadly in line with what al-Ghazali had to say. There is no indication in al-Suyuti’s Tafsir al-Jalalayn to the effect that this ayah provides an explicit authority for ijma’.
Following a path other than that of the believers’, according to both al-Suyuti and al-Shawkani, means abandoning Islam. Al-Shawkani adds: ‘A number of ulema have drawn the conclusion that this ayah provides the authority for ijma’. But this is an unwarranted conclusion, as following a way other than that of the believers means unbelief, that is, renouncing Islam in favour of another religion.’ Al-Shawkani further suggests that the occasion of revelation (sha’n al-nuzul) of this ayah relates to the context of apostasy. Specifically, it is reported that one Tu`mah b. Ubayraq had accused a Jew of a theft which Tu’mah had committed himself. As a result of the revelation of this ayah, the Jew was cleared of the charge but Tu’mah himself renounced Islam and fled to Mecca.
Muhammad ‘Abduh and his disciple, Rashid Rida have observed that the ayah under discussion was revealed concerning the ‘way of the believers’ during the lifetime of the Prophet, and its application must be confined to that period. For hostility toward the Prophet was only possible when he was alive. `Abduh further remarks that to quote this ayah in support of ijma` leads to irrational conclusions, for it would amount to drawing a parallel between those who are threatened with the punishment of Hell and a mujtahid who differs with the opinion of others. A mujtahid, even when he takes an exception to the prevalent opinion, or to the path followed by other mujtahidun, is still a Muslim, and even merits a reward for his efforts. ‘Abduh concludes that the sha’n al-nuzul of this ayah does not lend support to the conclusion that al-Shafi’i has drawn from it.
It is further suggested that the threat in the ayah under discussion is primarily concerned with the first part of the ayah, namely, disobeying the Prophet, and not necessarily with the second. Hence divergence from the believers’ way is lawful in the absence of opposition to the Prophet. The validity of this critique is, however, disputed, as the ayah itself does not distinguish between the two parts as such, and therefore the threat applies equally to both.
Al-Amidi discusses the Qur’anic ayat concerning ijma’, and concludes that they may give rise to a probability (zann) but they do not impart positive knowledge. If we assume that ijma` is a decisive proof, then establishing its authority on the basis of speculative evidence is not enough. Speculative evidence would suffice only if ijma’ were deemed to be a speculative doctrine, which is not the case.
2. The Sunnah on Ijma `
The Hadith which is most frequently quoted in support of ijma’ reads: `My community shall never agree on an error.’ The last word in this Hadith, namely al-dalalah, is rendered in some reports as al-khata.’ The jurists have used the two words interchangeably, but in the classical Hadith collections this Hadith has been recorded with the word al-dalalah. Al-Ghazali has pointed out that this Hadith is not mutawatir, and as such, it is not an absolute authority like the Qur’an. The Qur’an on the other hand is mutawatir but contains no nass on ijma`. Having said this, however, al-Ghazali adds that a number of prominent Companions have reported ahadith from the Prophet, which although different in their wording, are all in consonance on the theme of the infallibility of the community and its immunity from error. Leading figures among the Companions such as ‘Umar b. al-Khattab, `Abdullah b. Mas’ud, Anas b. Malik. `Abdullah b. Umar, Abu Said al-Khudri, Abu Hurayrah, Hudhayfah and others have reported ahadith which include the following:
1. My community shall never agree upon an error (al-khata’):
2. God will not let my community agree upon an error:
3. I beseeched Almighty God not to bring my community to the point of agreeing on dalalah and He granted me this:
4. Those who seek the joy of residing in Paradise will follow the community. For Satan can chase an individual but he stands farther away from two people:
5. The hand of God is with the community and (its safety) is not endangered by isolated oppositions:
6. Whoever leaves the community or separates himself from it by the length of a span is breaking his bond with Islam:
7. A group of my ummah shall continue to remain on the right path. They will be the dominant force and will not be harmed by the opposition of opponents:
8. Whoever separates himself from the community and dies, dies the death of ignorance (jahiliyyah):
9. And finally, the well-known saying of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud which is as follows: Whatever the Muslims deem to be good in the eyes of God.
Having quoted these (and other) ahadith, both al-Ghazali and al-Amidi observe that their main theme and purport has not been opposed by the Companions, the Successors and others throughout the ages, and that everyone has agreed on their broad outline. The ulema have continued to rely on them in their exposition of the general and detailed rules of the Shari’ah. In answer to the point that all these are solitary (ahad) reports which do not amount to a definitive proof, the same authors observe that the main purport of these ahadith nevertheless conveys positive knowledge, and that the infallibility of the ummah is sustained by their collective weight The point may be illustrated by saying that we know the courage of `Ali, the generosity of Hatim, the erudition of al- Shafi’i in fiqh, and the esteem in which the Prophet held his Companions, despite the absence of Mutawatir reports on these subjects. Although the foregoing ahadith are all Ahad and could be subjected to doubt if taken individually, their collective import may, nevertheless, not be denied.
As to the question whether ‘dalalah’ and `khata’ ‘, in these ahadith (especially in the first four) could mean disbelief (kufr) and heresy (bid’ah) with the view that the Prophet might have meant that his community shall not fall into disbelief, it is observed that khata’ is general and could include kufr but that dalalah does not, for dalalah only means an error or erroneous conduct. If dalalah meant disbelief, then the ahadith under discussion would fail to provide an authority for the infallibility of the ummah, but if it meant an error only, then they could provide such authority.
It is further observed that the article ‘la’ in the Hadith under discussion could either imply negation (nafy) or prohibition (nahy). If the latter, it would simply prohibit the people from deviation, and as such the Hadith could not sustain the notion of infallibility for the ummah. According to another observer, the manifest (zahir) meaning of the Hadith is that the ummah abstains from a collective agreement on an error. The Hadith, in other words, precludes a general agreement on an error, but not the error itself. These are some of the doubts which have been expressed concerning the precise meaning of the Hadith. They may or may not be correct, but so long as the Hadith is open to such doubts, it cannot provide a decisive proof (dalil qat’i) for ijma. Muhammad Abduh has observed that the Hadith in question does not speak of ijma into thos Hadith regardless of whether reference is made to the agreement of the jurists or to that of the community at large.
It is further suggested that some of the foregoing ahadith (nos. 4, 5 and 6 in particular) simply encourage fraternity and love among the members of the community, and, as such, do not en-visage the notion of ijma’ as a source of law. As for our Hadith number seven, although al-Ghazali quotes it, it is not relevant to ijma`, as it obviously means that a group of the ummah shall remain on the right path, not the ummah as a whole. The Shi’ah Imamiyyah have quoted this Hadith in support of their doctrine of the ijma’ of ahl al-bayt, which refers to the members of the family of the Prophet.
The word `ummah’ (or jama’ah) in the foregoing ahadith means, according to one view, the overwhelming majority of Muslims. This view is supported in a number of statements from the Companions. According to another view, jama’ah refers to the scholars of the community only. The masses, it is argued, look up to the scholars from whom they acquire knowledge of law and religion, and it is the latter whose consensus is contemplated in the relevant ahadith. According to yet another opinion, ummah (and jama’ah) refers only to the Companions, who are the founding fathers of the Muslim community. According to this interpretation, ummah and jama’ah in all the foregoing ahadith refer to the companions only.
And finally, ummah and jama`ah refer to the whole of the Muslim community and not to a particular section thereof. The grace of ‘ismah, according to this view, is endowed on the whole of the community without any reservation or specification. Thus is the view of al-Shafi’i, who wrote in his Risalah: ‘And we know that the people at large cannot agree on an error or on what may contradict the Sunnah of the Prophet.
Having discussed the ahadith relating to ijma’, Ahmad Hasan observes that they are inconclusive. All of them emphasise unity and integration. Some of them are predictive and others circumstantial: They may mean ijma`, or something else.’ Hence the argument that they provide the authority for ijma’ is ‘definitely subjective’. The same author elaborates that:
a. There was no idea of ijma` as a doctrine of jurisprudence in the early period;
b. The jurists could not determine a definite meaning for ‘ummah’ or Jama’ah ; and d.
c. Ahadith which convey a general meaning should not be restricted to a particular point of view.
Notwithstanding the doubts and uncertainties in the nusus, the majority of ulema have concluded that the consensus of all the mujtahidun on a particular ruling is a sure indication that the word of truth has prevailed over their differences; that it is due to the strength of that truth that they have reached a consensus. This rational argument in support of ijma` has been further advanced to the effect that consensus upon a shar’i ruling is bound to be founded on sound ijtihad. In exercising ijtihad, the mujtahid is normally guided by certain rules and guidelines. Ijtihad often consists of an interpretation of the nass, or of a rational extension of its ruling. Even in the absence of a nass, ijtihad still observes both the letter and spirit of the sources which the mujtahid has mastered through his general knowledge. Since ijtihad is founded on sound authority in the first place, the unanimous agreement of all the mujtahidun on a particular ruling indicates that there is clear authority in the Shari’ah to sustain their consensus. In the event of this authority being weak or speculative, we can only expect disagreement (ikhtilaf), which would automatically preclude consensus. Ijma’ in other words, accounts for its own authority.
by M. H. Kamali.
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.