On the nature of 'Ijma

[ahmedqman]

I recently read the claim by an anonymous person:

"Ijma of classical definition is no longer possible in modern times (because of huge number of scholars spread over continents), and you know it. In fact, there has never been a single example of true 'ijma (of which I am aware) since the companions. "

But the thing is, we have classical scholars all throughout history (and even today) that decalre 'ijma on an issue!

So this raises some important questions:

How is 'ijma determined? Is the above comment true? If not, how is it verified? How was it verified amongst the various 'ulamah of our history? With regards to looking at older books and so on... how do we know that the opposing view wasn't silenced and that there was actually ijma' on the issue at that time? Do we know of 'ulama that agreed to an ijma' that did not necessarily write something? Or do we only know the ijma' as determined by prominent shaykhs? If the previous is the case, then how do we know a particular viewpoint wasn't silenced and an ijma' wasn't "declared" to silence an opposing viewpoint?

I'm sure classical scholars have worked this out. I raise this question because it's a typical tactic of many Muslism to cast doubt on the ijma' and to try an determine proofs for himself/herself.

My main point is pretty much the way scholars have determined such things. As a Sunni Muslim, I find it obligatory to trust the 'ulama, but there are people out there that question certain things.

[ahsanirfan]

Interesting question. I thought I might add some insight of mine here. But I won't take your post in its proper sequence, rather, there are some issues that need to be clarified first.

Ijma is a word that the ulema would call "mushtarik" is something that possesses "ishtirak," it's equivocal. It is used for a variety of different, though related concepts. Essentially there are different types of Ijma'. Broadly speaking however, we define Ijma' on two dimensions:

1) Time - an Ijma' in a particular time period, regardless of where the Shuyukh lived.

2) Place - an Ijma in a particular place, regardless of when the Shuyukh lived.

All types of Ijma' can be traced back to either one of these, or a combination of both.

Also one must keep in mind that Ijma was never a complete consensus. It was the consensus of the overwhelming majority of ulema. Obviously, it's impossible that a complete consensus would develop over an issue. Be that as it may there are a handful of issues that have attained a 100% consensus. As it turns out, these issues are very basic. Also, the ulema were aware that they can never have a complete consensus, so they took into account that descrepancy. It's not like the ulema were unaware that a complete consensus could never develop over any issue.

Another thing that one must keep in mind is that if an opinion goes contrary to a consensus it may still be a valid opinion provided that the proper methodological tools were employed in order to arrive at that conclusion. An example of this is the Hanbali opinion of wiping over the socks. Many are unaware that this is in fact the mashhur opinion of the madhhab. For this one can see Sidi Musa Furber's website www.hanbali.org. We all know that Hanbalis have always been few and far between. Given that more than 90% of the Ummah is not Hanbali, it would apparently seem that the Hanbalis are violating an Ijma on this issue. However, since they have a valid way of arriving to their conclusion, this apparent violation of ijma is in reality not considered to be a violation, because essentially the Hanbali Usul is considered valid by the others.

Consequently, a corollary of this is that there can only be an ijma on those issues that have been dervied through the proper Usuli channels. For example the mashhur of all four madhahib is that there are 20 raka'at in the Tarawih prayer. All methodologies used to arrive at this position are valid, and thus the position is considered an ijma'. Another result of this is that any violation of ijma that has been concluded through means that reside outside of already accepted Usul system would be considered a proper violation of ijma. Hence, if someone today declares that Tarawih is not 20 but 8 then he is proper violation of ijma, since his methodology necessarily resides outside of the already accepted methodology.

Thus far it all sounds like circular reasoning. However, one must look at this from the proper point of view. A ijma proper is in usuli matters. Everyone has agreed to four basic sources of law (Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas). And everyone has agreed to four different ways (the four madhhahib) of using these sources. Thus we have an ijma proper in usuli matters. Any opinion arrived at using means that reside outside of these sources and methodologies is a proper violation of ijma.

[ahsanirfan]

A consequence of the points higlighted in the previous discussion is that when one cites an ijma on an issue, he doesn't simply mean that since all of the scholars agreed with an issue, we must also agree with that issue. There are certain assumptions embedded in the citation of an ijma'.

1) The scholars have agreed on particular methodologies, each one being based on the subjective experiences of each scholar.

2) The scholars that have agreed upon these methodologies all possess certain key requirements that allow them to develope these methodologies and use them.

3) Thus as a result of this process, despite the subjectiveness of each scholar or each methodology, only one opinion emerges. Thus we have more reason to accept that opinion rather than simply rely on our own whim to come up with one.

Now having gotten rid of some of the preliminaries, my next post shall insha Allah focus on the "how" of the issue of ijma'.

[ahsanirfan]

So how do scholars determine an ijma.' The actual question is: Should the question of a complete consensus even arise? Allow me to explain.

Each madhhab has its own methodology of dealing with evidences. so to the proponents of one madhhab it matter little what the scholars of the other madhahib have considered. Should a Hanafi concern himself whether the Malikis consider dogs pure or not? Both practically and theoretically, no. So what kind of ijma are we talking about here? One key result of the crystallization of fiqh has been that each madhhab relies on the ijma of its own school. If there has been an ijma of Hanafis on one opinion, then that opinion is the mainstream Hanafi opinion. And as defined earlier, an ijma doesn't necessarily have to include every single scholar. Thus, even if one or two or maybe even ten Hanafi ulema held a counter opinion to the mainstream Hanafi opinion, that still does not violate the fact that the mainstream opinion of the Hanafi madhhab, is in fact the ijma. This, in fiqhi terminology, is known as the "mashhur" opinion of the madhhab.

The ijma that eally matters of any madhhab is the ijma of the Salaf us Saliheen. This ijma includes the ijma of the Sahaba. If, for one issue, there was an ijma during that period of time, then it is highly unlikely that there not be an ijma for that same issue at a later period of time. However, it is possible that even if there was no ijma during that period, an ijma develops at a later time. This would, I warrant, happen at the onsent of the crystallization of fiqh. This would not be an ijma proper, but an ijma of time, and such it matters little for anyone working within the madhhab paradigm.

The question now arises that if an ijma has taken time to develop, why cannot we follow the opinions of those from the early generation whose opinions violate the later ijma? A violation of this sort of ijma is less serious than a violation of an ijma proper. However, such a violation should not ocur because of one reason and one reason alone. Consider the example of the madhahib. During the early period there were close to 120 madhahib. Now we have only four. Why can't we follow any of the other defunct madhahib? The answer is simple. The chains of trasnmission that lead us back to the founders of the madhahib have been lost. Only four chains remain, that of the four madhahib. Similarily, any early opinion that violates a later ijma must have a continuous chain of transmission back to the originator of the opinion for the opinion to be valid proper. Consider the example of the wiping of the socks again. In actual terms we do have an ijma that one should not wipe over their socks in wudu. But the Hanbali madhhabs differs with this ijma. And why should they not when they have a continuous chain of transmission back to the originator of the opinion?

So if an ijma proper doesn't really matter when one operates within the fiqh/madhhab paradigm then why do we use it? The ijma argument is typically used in issues of aqida, or in those fiqhi issues that have aqida overtones. Also, a violation of an ijma can be considered kufr if the ijma is of the type where the overwhelming majority of the scholars throughout Islamic have agreed on an issue. There are many reasons for this, one among them being the hadith of the Rasul that tells us that his Ummah will never agree on an error. A corollary of that is that those who disagreed with something agreed upon are not part of the Ummah. This is indeed very serious.

[ahsanirfan]

Having considered all of the above, the quotation you have provided makes little sense, especially in those issue that have already been decided upon.

For contemporary issues you really can't have an ijma. Simple because for every new issues one must look for precedents in the already vast corpus of fiqh. As such, the process is highly subjective and thus you will end up having many different opinions on one issue alone. However, as time goes by, one hopes that the subjectivity irons itself out like it did for previous issues. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If it does, then we have an ijma of a lesser degree. And if chains of transmission for the "anti-ijma" opinions remain, then we do not really have an ijma.

[Sunni_Student786]

Brother Ahsanirfan,

After reading your posts above, I have a question.

I believe that you said that if the Mutamid/Mashur ruling of the four madhabs on an issue is the same, then that constitutes Ijma, but I have heard that that is not the case. If it was, would that not mean that there is Ijma that Music is haraam without question, since the Mutamid/Mashur of all four madhabs is that it is haraam?

If you could answer the above, I would appreciate it.

P.S. I have just bumped the thread wherein it was said that even if the Mutamid/Mashur of the four madhabs is in agreement, that still doesn't constitute ijma.

Wa'salaam.

[tazkiyyah]

Is there an Ijma on what constitutes an ijma?

[Sunni_Student786]

Is there an Ijma on what constitutes an ijma?

Good question.

[khair]

Almost all jurists agree that refusal to accept an ijma' other than an ijma of suhaba or an ijma established with continuity, tawatur, in all the previous generations of Muslims (ijma' qat'i), like the Qur'anic verses, is not kufr. In case of ijma' suhaba and ijma' qat'i two cases are distinguished:

Ijma' on matters related to the fundamentals of din whose comprehension is needed by all Muslims, e.g. the belief in the oneness of God and in prophethood, the obligatory character of the five "pillars" of Islam, facing the Ka'bah while praying, the number of rak'at in each prayer, the times for hajj and fasting, prohibition of adultery, alcoholic drinks, stealing and usury.


Ijma' on matters whose knowledge is expected only from "specialists" (khawas), e.g. marrying at the same time a woman and her paternal aunt or a murderer being cut off from inheritance.

There seems to be a general agreement that refusal to accept ijma' suhaba or ijma qat'i on matters of the first category is kufr but opinions differ as to whether a refusal to accept ijma' suhaba or ijma qat'i on matters of the second category is also kufr.(31)

Imam al-Harmayn (Diya al-Din 'Abd al-Malik al-Juwayni) says that refusing to accept a method of deriving rules of shari'ah is not kufr. Therefore, a person does not accept the principle of ijma' as a valid source of rules is not a kafir. Only a person who accepts the principle of ijma' and also recognizes that a certain ruling is based on ijma' and then refuses to accept it can be declared as committing kufr.(32)

http://www.************************/MeaningOfIjma.htm

[ahsanirfan]

Brother Ahsanirfan,

After reading your posts above, I have a question.

I believe that you said that if the Mutamid/Mashur ruling of the four madhabs on an issue is the same, then that constitutes Ijma, but I have heard that that is not the case. If it was, would that not mean that there is Ijma that Music is haraam without question, since the Mutamid/Mashur of all four madhabs is that it is haraam?

If you could answer the above, I would appreciate it.

P.S. I have just bumped the thread wherein it was said that even if the Mutamid/Mashur of the four madhabs is in agreement, that still doesn't constitute ijma.

Wa'salaam.

I don't think I ever explicitly mentioned that the Mu'tamid/Mashhur rulings of all the madhahib constitute an ijma. You are, however, correct.

One must understand that even though the madhhab has one mashhur opinion, other opinions in the madhhab aren't necessarily "invalid." Take the example of the Hanafi time for Asr. Abu Hanifa's opinion was that it should begin late, while Muhammad ibn Hassan disagreed and opined that it should begin early. Considering the usul of the madhhab, both opinions are valid. The mashhur is indeed the later time, however the second opinion is also a "strong" opinion, simply by virtue of it falling within the usul of the madhhab.

Having considered this, music, I would opine (though I could be wrong) would fall under that category of rulings that aren't mashhur, but nevertheless valid. I think a Maliki would be able to explain this to you better, but from my readings about the usul of the madhhab, the rulings of a Maliki mujtahid (a mujtahid within the school) are considered followable regardless, simply by virtue of him being a Maliki mujtahid. This warrants the "halalness" of music, since Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi was one of those Maliki mujtahidin who allowed the listening of music. What many people do not know is that he even allowed the consumption of any meat that is considered halal by the priests of the Jewish or Christian religion. This implies that if today, a Reverend were to allow (as is the case) the consumption of stunned chicken, one can consume it, provided that the Muslim who is consuming it, lives in non-Muslim territory. I don't want people taking this as a free reign to start consuming anything and everything that these priests allow, because this position, like any other position, comes with its conditions and peripherals that need to be fullfilled before being able to take the opinion. It's simply part of Maliki usul, and I don't think anyone can argue with that. Maybe a Maliki can clarify matters for us.

Thus, just because the Maliki usul allows for the validity of such an opinion, though in the minority, such a position would be "less" haram, than an outright violation of ijma.' That is why we say that there is no ijma on the matter of music, even though if we do the numbers, it certainly does look like ijma.