Sunni Scholars: There is no ijma after Sahaba RA
Introduction
Non-Ahmadi Muslims frequently assert there is a consensus (ijma) labelling Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslims. They also assert there is an ijma against the beliefs held by Ahmadi Muslims. However, Sunni scholars throughout history have limited consensus to what the companions RA (sahaba) agreed upon. Additionally Sunni scholars have said that there is no consensus on the very definition of consensus. A point which is further proven through the many different definitions of ijma presented by scholars, which will be shown in this article.
Hence, claims of ijma against Ahmadis ought to be rejected as their alleged formulation is after the time of the companions RA. Furthermore, to substantiate a consensus against Ahmadis, there first must be clarity and unanimity on the very definition of ijma, a requirement lacking among non-Ahmadi Muslims.
IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL (d. 241H)
“1587 – Narrated to us, saying: I heard my father saying: What a man claims as a consensus is a lie. Whoever claims consensus, he is lying.”
[Masa’il-ul-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal RH narrated by his son Abdullah bin Ahmad RH, pg. 438-439]
SHAYKH UL-ISLAM IBN TAYMIYA (d. 728H)
Ibn Taymiyyah RH explains the above quote:
“Our Sheikh said: I said: What Ahmad rejects is the claim of consensus of the dissenters after the Companions, or after them and after the Successors, or after the three praiseworthy centuries. Hardly can any argument in his speech be found that relies on consensus after the era of the Successors or after the three centuries. Even though the younger Successors lived until the third century, his speech about the consensus of every era is only about the Successors. Then, this is from him a prohibition against claiming general verbal consensus, which is like silent consensus, or the consensus of the majority without knowledge of the dissenter.”
[al-Musawwada fi usul al-fiqh, pg. 316]
SHAYKH UL-ISLAM IBN TAYMIYA (d. 728H)
Ibn Taymiyyah RH clarifies his stance below, where he defines consensus as what the Companions RA agreed upon:
The fourth source is consensus (ijmaa’) which is agreed upon among the general body of Muslims – the jurists, Sufis, hadith scholars, theologians and others collectively. However, some deviant groups like the Mu’tazilites and Shia rejected it. But the well-known consensus is that of the Companions. As for after that, knowing it with certainty is mostly impossible. This is why the scholars differed regarding the mentioning of consensus events after the Companions, and they differed on some of its issues like the consensus of the Successors on one of the sayings of the Companions, and the consensus whose era did not end until some dissented from it, and silent consensus, and others.
[Qa’idah fi al-Mu’jizat wa al-Karamat, vol 7, pg. 42]
IBN HAZM (d. 456H)
In various instances, Ibn Hazm RH expressed his belief that ijma refers to what the companions RA agreed upon:
“And the Ijma’ is that about which it is certain that Sahabah knew it and asserted their belief in it and not one from them differed.”
[Al-Muhalla bi’l Athar, vol 2, pg. 127]
IBN HAZM (d. 456H)
“It is not permissible for anyone to claim the validity of a consensus of the people from the time after the Companionsra, about [a matter on] which the Companionsra themselves had no consensus. Anyone who claims otherwise is undoubtedly a liar, for the generations that came after the Companions, from the tabi‘un and those who followed them, it is impossible to document and enumerate the statements of all of them, for they filled the world, praise be to Allah.”
[an-Nubdha al-kafiya fi ahkam usul ad-din, pg. 20]
IBN HAZM (d. 456H)
Ibn Hazm RH reiterates his belief of ijma being entwined with the companions. He further states that many scholars from the Zahiri school held this position:
“Abu Sulayman [Dawud az-Zahiri] and many of our fellows [from the Zahiri school] said: There is no consensus except the consensus of the Companions RA.”
[Al-Ahkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, vol 4, pg. 147]
FAKHR AD-DIN AR-RAZI (d. 606H)
“In fairness, there is no way for us to know of the existence of a consensus, except during the time of the Companions RA, when the believers were few and could all be known specifically.”
[Al-Mahsul Fi ‘Ilm ‘Usul Al-Fiqh, vol 4, pg. 34-35]
IMAM AL-JUWAYNI (d. 478H)
Al-Juwayni RH was the teacher of Imam al Ghazali RH, he said:
“Whoever thinks that the occurrence of consensus on some speculative question of law is easily conceivable in our time despite the absence of unifying motives does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that most of the questions on which there is a consensus go back to the Companionsra of the Messengersa of Allah, when they were united and close together.”
[Al-Burhan Fi Usul al-Fiqh, vol 1, pg. 261]
IBN HIBBAN (d. 354H)
“And consensus according to us is the consensus of the Companions who witnessed the descent of revelation and the sending down [of the Quran], and took precaution against distortion and alteration”
[Sahih Ibn Hibban, vol 5, pg. 471]
AS-SARKHASI AL-HANAFI (d. 483H)
“Some scholars said: “The consensus that necessitates knowledge can only come from the consensus of the Companions, who were the best of people after the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. This is because they accompanied him and heard from him the knowledge of the revelation and interpretation.”
[‘Uṣūl As-Sarakhsī, vol 1, pg. 313]
SHAMS AD-DIN AL-ISFAHANI (d. 688H)
“The truth is that it is impossible to know of consensus except in the case of the consensus of the Companionsra, where the establishers of consensus – and they were the scholars among them – were few. Now, however, after the spread of Islam and the increase of scholars, there is no prospect of knowing it.”
[al-Bahr al-muhit fi usul al-fiqh, vol 4, pg. 439]
MUHAMMAD B. ISMA‘IL AS-SAN‘ANI (d. 1182H)
“Our certain opinion, however, is that the occurrence of ijma‘ is impossible, since the ummah of Muhammadsa has filled the horizons, and is now in every territory and under every star; therefore, its [the community’s] established scholars are innumerable, and it is not feasible that anyone would be able to know their whereabouts. So, one who claims that there is consensus after the expansion of the religion [of Islam], and despite the profusion of the Muslim scholars, would be making a false claim.”
[Tat’hir al I’tiqad min Adran al-Ilhad, pg. 80]
MUHAMMAD IBN SALIH AL-‘UTHAYMIN (d. 1421H)
Muhammad ibn al-Uthaymin asserts that Ibn Taymiyyah RH held the belief that ijma applies to what the first three generations adhered to. This contradicts an earlier quote attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah RH, where he limited ijma to the first generation. Whether this discrepancy arises from differing views of Ibn Taymiyyah or an error on the part of ibn al-Uthaymin, it remains a rebuttal to many non-Ahmadi Muslims who claim a consensus against Ahmadi Muslims. As such assertion of an alleged consensus is nonetheless wrong as its formulated beyond these specified timeframes.
“Concerning his statement: “And the regulated ljma (consensus), is what the righteous Salaf were upon; since after them, disagreement increased, and the Ummah spread out.”
[Commentary On Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s Al-Aqidah Al-Wasitiyyah, vol 2, pg. 465-466]
Meaning, the Ijma’ (consensus) which it is possible to regulate by, and be inclusive with, is what the righteous Salaf were upon, and they are the first three generations; the Companions, the Tabi’in and their followers.
Then, the author gave the reason for that, in his saying: “since after them, disagreement increased, and the Ummah spread out.” Meaning that, the differences became as numerous as the desires; because the people separated into groups, and not all of them intended the truth. So, the opinions differed, and there were diverse categories of sayings. “And the Ummah spread out:” So, including them all became among the most difficult of matters.
So it is as if Shaikh Al-Islam, may Allah have mercy upon him, was saying: “Whoever claims Ijma’ (consensus) after the righteous Salaf, who are the first three generations, then his claim to a consensus is not correct, because the consensus that can be a guidline is that of the righteous Salaf.” Is it possible to find a consensus after the differing? We say: There is no Ijma’ (consensus) with the existence of preceding differences, and there is no use for differences after the Ijma’ (consensus) has been verified.”
HAZRAT MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD AS (d. 1326H)
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS, in alignment with several Sunni mujtahids mentioned previously, held a similar perspective on ijma.
“The valid argument per the law of the Shari‘a is only the ijma’ of the Companions (ra).”
[Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part V, pg. 540]
HAZRAT MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD AS (d. 1326H)
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS further states, there is no consensus on the definition of ijma.
[Urdu]
“His statement: You did not give any answer regarding what is meant by consensus (ijma’), which clearly proves that you cannot understand academic questions. The definition of consensus is that at one time, all the mujtahids (scholars qualified to practice ijtihad), without a single dissenting person, agree upon a Shari’ah ruling. If even one mujtahid opposes, then consensus is not achieved.
My statement: My straightforward statement contained the essence of the definition of consensus. Yes, I did not express it in the contrived and complex manner of the legal theorists, which is not free from intricacy, so that the general public is not deprived of understanding the discourse. However, you claimed to give the technical definition of consensus, but then betrayed it and did not state it completely. This will make you apprehensive that none of your accepted cases of consensus can be considered valid consensus in light of all the conditions that the legal theorists have stipulated for verifying consensus. Or it may mean that any matters in it that serve my beneficial purpose should be kept concealed, and that consensus along with its conditions has been stated in this manner.
[Arabic]Consensus (ijma’) is the agreement of qualified mujtahids (scholars capable of exercising ijtihad) from the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him, in a single era, whether it is on a verbal or practical matter in every era. It has two pillars:
1) Decisive (azima): This is when they verbally state their agreement by saying “We have reached consensus on this,” if it is a verbal matter, or commence the action if it is a practical matter.2) Concession (rukhsa): This is when some of the mujtahids verbally state or perform an action, while the rest remain silent and do not object to it for three days or a period in which it is usually known that if there was any opposition, it would have been expressed. This is called silent consensus (ijma’ sukuti).
For consensus to be valid, agreement of all is required, contrary to the view of some. Adhering to the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Some like al-Baqillani have said that the statements of the common folk are sufficient for the formation of consensus. It is not a condition that the mujtahids be from the Companions or the Ahl al-Bayt. Some have said consensus is only for the Companions, while others have restricted it to the relatives of the Prophet. According to some, being from the people of Medina, meaning the city of the Prophet, is a necessary condition. According to others, the extinction of their era is a condition for the realization of consensus. Ash-Shafi’i stated that the condition is the extinction of the era and the passing of all mujtahids, for their consensus is not a proof until they have died, as retraction is possible beforehand, and with possibility, inductive conclusion cannot be established. For the transmission of consensus, consensus itself is required. A latter consensus is permissible despite an earlier difference of opinion. The optimal approach is that consensus should continue in every era. Some Mu’tazilites have said that consensus is formed by the agreement of the majority, based on the evidence “Whoever deviates, deviates into the Fire.” Some have said that consensus does not exist and its conditions cannot be realized.
[Urdu]Meaning, consensus (ijma’) is the name given to the agreement that occurs among the qualified mujtahids of the Ummah of Muhammad in a single era, and it is better if it is found in every era. And it makes no difference whether the matter agreed upon is verbal or practical. And there are two types of consensus: one is called ‘azima (decisive), and ‘azima means that those forming the consensus explicitly acknowledge their consensus by saying “We have reached agreement on this statement or action.” But for an action, the condition is that they must commence performing that action. The second type of consensus is called rukhsa (concession), and it means that if the consensus is on a statement, some verbally express their agreement while others remain silent. And if the consensus is on an action, some commence performing it while others abstain from practical opposition, even if they do not perform the action themselves. And they do not express their opposition verbally or practically for three days, or for a period in which it is normally understood that if there was any opposition, it would have been expressed. And this consensus is called ijma’ sukuti (silent consensus). And it is necessary in this that there is agreement of all, although some do not consider the agreement of all to be necessary, so that the hadith “Whoever deviates…” remains applicable and is not nullified. And some have gone towards the view that being mujtahids is not a necessary condition, rather the statements of the common folk are sufficient for the formation of consensus, as is the view of al-Baqillani.
[al-Haqq Mubahatha Ludhiyana, pg. 116-118]
And according to some, a necessary condition for consensus is that it should be of the Companions, not of others. And according to some, consensus is only that of the Ahl al-Bayt, meaning relatives of the Messenger of Allah. And according to some, it is a necessary condition that those forming the consensus should specifically be residents of Medina. And according to some, for the realization of consensus, it is a condition that its era should pass. Thus, according to al-Shafi’i, it is a necessary condition that the era of consensus should end and all those who formed the consensus should pass away. And as long as all of them do not die, the consensus will not be considered valid, because it is possible that someone may retract his statement. And it is necessary to establish that no one has retracted, and for the transmission of consensus, consensus itself is required. Meaning, there should also be consensus among those who consider consensus on a matter valid. And a latter consensus along with a previous difference of opinion is permissible, meaning if people did not reach consensus on an issue earlier, but consensus emerged in a later era, then that consensus is also valid. And it is better in consensus that its continuity persists in every era. And according to some Mu’tazilites, the agreement of the majority can also constitute consensus, based on the evidence “Whoever deviates, deviates into the Fire.” And some have said that consensus is nothing and cannot be realized along with all its conditions. See the books of principles of jurisprudence of the four Imams. Now from this whole discourse, it is evident that there is no consensus among the scholars on the definition of consensus itself, and the doors of denial and acceptance are both open.”
SHAYKH OF AL-AZHAR MAHMUD SHALTUT (d. 1383H)
Mahmud Shaltut in agreeance to the point mentioned by the Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS half a century prior, affirms that there is no consensus on the definition of ijma.
“I can hardly think of anything that has become commonplace among people as a fundamental principle of Islamic legislation, and then opinions have befallen it and different schools of thought have differed about it from all sides, like this principle called consensus. They differed in its reality: […]. And those who said it includes everyone differed: […]. And those who said it is possible and its occurrence is imaginable differed: […]. And those who said it is possible to know it and ascertain it differed: […]. And those who said it is a legal proof differed: […]. And just as they differed in its reality and its proof, they differed in the rulings it contains: […]. Perhaps the scholars’ differing views on consensus in this way explains the widespread phenomenon in their books, which is the narration of consensus on many issues that have been proven to be subject to disagreement among scholars. This is because everyone who narrated consensus on an issue that is subject to disagreement has based their narration on what they understand or what their Imam or sect they belong to understand about the meaning of consensus and what is sufficient to confirm it.”
[al-Ijma‘ wa-thubut al-‘aqida. In: ar-Risala, pg. 464]
SHAH WALIULLAH DEHLAWI (d. 1176H)
Shah Wali Allāh RH entwines ijmā’ with the Caliphate. To begin with, he severely criticizes the classical definition of ijmā’, stating that by ijmā’ it is not meant that the community in toto agrees upon a point, and not a single person disagrees with this decision as such a type of ijmā’ is impracticable, indeed impossible. Clarifying his point of view about ijmā’, Shah Wali Allāh RH states that ijmā’ is reached in the community when the Caliph issues his edict after consulting the men of opinion. This edict should be enforced in such a way that it spreads widely and is estbalished in the entire Muslim world.
This is a good example which showcases there is no ijma on the definition of ijma as Shah Wali Allāh RH gives an unique definition of ijma. This also refutes non-Ahmadi Muslims who claim there is an ijma against Ahmadi Muslims when according to Shah Wali Allāh RH the formulation of an ijma is impossible without a caliph.
“You must have heard the term ‘ijma’ (consensus) from the religious scholars. This does not mean that all jurists, such that not one of them remains separate and they unanimously agree on an issue in one time period, because this situation has neither occurred nor can occur. Rather, what is meant by ijma is that the Caliph (in particular), after consulting with the advisors or without consultation, issues a decree which becomes enforceable to the extent that it spreads across the entire Islamic world and becomes possible in the whole of the Islamic world.”
[Izālat al-Khafā’, vol 1, pg. 100]
SHAYKH ‘ABDUL MANNAN AN-NURPURI (d. 1433H)
Scholars have held varying definitions of ijma, with some outright rejecting its concept. For instance, Abdul Mannan An-Nurpuri, a prominent Ahl-e-Hadith Sunni scholar, completely denies the validity of ijma. This rejection further shows the the lack of unanimity among scholars regarding ijma’s legitimacy. Without unanimity even on the very basis of the ijma, let alone on the definition between scholars, the claim of ijma against Ahmadi Muslims becomes futile.
“Ijma’ and Qiyas as a foundation for legislation is not proven from Qur’an and Hadith. The being of Ijma’ of the companions and the Ijma’ of the Aimmah Mujtahidin as a Hujjah in religion is not proven from Qur’an and Hadith.”
[Maqalat-e-Nurpuri, pg. 85]
AL-GHAZALI (d. 505H)
Imam al-Ghazali RH asserted that the accusation of takfir against al-Nazzam is unwarranted due to the speculative nature of ijma. As such Imam al-Ghazali RH did not even believe ijma to be definitive proof (hujjat-i qat‘iyya). Therefore, if there was to be an ijma in existence today, it would still have no bearing according to Sunni scholars.
“We don’t charge someone with infidelity if he opposes what has been agreed upon. We have an opinion regarding imputing infidelity to an-Nazzam who rejected the principle of consensus. For there are many doubts about whether consensus is a decisive argument”
[Al-Iqtisad Fi Al-I’tiqad, pg. 307]
SHAYKH MUQBIL IBN HADI AL-WADI’I (d. 1422H)
The great Yemeni Muhaddith, the father of the Salafiyah Da’wah in Yemen – Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadi Al-Wadi’i explains how the Quran and Sunnah are Hujjah alone. As for ijma’ he does not consider it as independent proofs in of themselves. However, if there is already evidence from the Quran and Sunnah on an issue, and there is also consensus of scholars supporting that view, then that adds strength and weight to the position. But ijma’ alone, without a basis in Quran or Sunnah, cannot stand alone as a proof. Therefore, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadi Al-Wadi’i like Imam al-Ghazali RH accepts that consensus can not be considered definitive proof (hujjat-i qat‘iyya). Hence, even if one were to acknowledge the validity of ijma, it cannot be wielded as an argument against Islam Ahmadiyya, given its speculative nature.
“As for us, we say the sources of evidence are the Quran, Sunnah, consensus, and analogical reasoning. But the sources of evidence are not just the Quran and Sunnah..As for consensus (ijmaa’), that by which the religion of Allah has no proof, it is not an authoritative evidence, but it may be used for supportive evidence just as analogical reasoning (qiyas) is used for supportive evidence..we have evidence, and by evidence we mean other than consensus (ijmaa’). However, consensus adds strength to the evidence. A matter upon which people have reached consensus and for which there is evidence from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, is not like a matter upon which people have not reached consensus. So consensus adds strength to the evidence. But relying solely on consensus is not sufficient.”
[Ijabat As-Saail ‘alaa aham al-masaail, pg. 624-625]
AL-BAHARI (d. 1119H) & AL-ANSARI (d. 1325H)
According to the Hanafiyyah there can be no Ijma’ about future events like Signs of the hour and matters of the hereafter because in matters of Ghaib (unseen) there is no role of Ijtihad. This is refutes non Ahmadis who say that there is an Ijma’ that Nuzul (descend) of Isa AS will happen in the literal physical sense.
“As for future matters like the signs of the Hour and affairs of the Hereafter, according to the Hanafis there is no consensus. This means there is no need to use it as proof, not that it is not a proof for them. How could it not be when the evidences are general? Because the unseen has no room for ijtihad (juristic reasoning) and opinion since conjecture is not sufficient for it. There must be a definitive proof indicating it. In that case, there is no need for consensus as proof. The truth is that it is valid to use it as proof for these matters as well, to support the evidences. It is possible they all heard it individually, so they reached consensus on what they heard but did not narrate it due to the existence of this agreement. Therefore, this consensus benefits us, but that definitive proof does not benefit due to the lack of its continuous mass transmission. So the truth is that future matters from reports are like religious rulings in being proven by consensus.” (This) and Allah speaks the truth and guides to the path.”
[Fawātih̩u r-Rah̩mūni, vol 2, pg. 296]