The blessed person of Muhammad (sws)
is the sole source of religion. From him, this religion has been given to the
ummah through the consensus of his Companions (rta) and through their
perpetual practice and perpetual recitation in two forms: the Qur’ān and the
Sunnah. Religion is now derived from these two sources. After these two, if
anything of secondary nature that can become a source of religion, it is
ijtihād. Through ijtihād, besides many other things, we also try to
understand directives which are not directly mentioned in the Qur’ān and Sunnah
but by their nature are applications of directives which are left to the
discretion of the opinion and understanding of people. Qiyās (analogy or
deduction) is a form of ijtihād. The Qur’ān has used the word istinbāt
for it. Its product is called fiqh (jurisprudence). Its corpus began with the
ijtihāds of the Prophet (sws) himself. A substantial part of the anthologies
of akhbār-i ahād is constituted by them. After him, the companions and
their followers continued this tradition. However, during the period of our
jurists, a fourth source was added to the sources of Islam: the consensus of the
Muslims (ijmā‘). After their time till now, it is generally accepted that
consensus of the Muslims is also a source of the Islamic sharī‘ah.
This addition to the
sources of Islam is indeed a religious innovation. It has no basis in the Qur’ān
and Sunnah. If a person tries to evaluate its influence, he will come to the
conclusion that it has undermined the eternal nature of the Islamic sharī‘ah
and it has become difficult to prove its relevance to modern times. A great
scholar and preacher of the sub-continent, Mawlānā Wahīd al-Dīn Khān, writes:
Our jurists have generally
regarded the consensus of the Muslims to be an independent source of the
sharī‘ah. However, this surely is a baseless view. Only a definite text (nass
qat‘ī) can be an independent source of the sharī‘ah. Regarding
something to be an independent source of the sharī‘ah in the absence of a
definite text is an unfounded thing. Indeed, the consensus of the Muslims has an
importance; but that importance merely lies in the fact that in a particular
instance it could be the practical solution to a problem that has arisen. This
solution most certainly is temporary in nature and is not an eternal source of
the sharī‘ah.
If a person wants to study the
arguments on the basis of which our jurists prove the validity of consensus of
the Muslims, he should consult Imām Shawkānī’s Irshād al-fuhūl.
It will become evident to him how baseless and unrelated they are. However,
arguments drawn from one verse of the Qur’ān and one Hadīth narrative can raise
doubts in the minds of some people. I will try to evaluate both of these here.
The Qur’ān says:
وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ
الْهُدَى وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّى
وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءتْ مَصِيرًا (٤:
١١٥)
And those who oppose the
Prophet even after the path of guidance is fully evident to them, and leaving
the path of those who sincerely professed faith [in you] follow some other path,
We will put them on the path on which they themselves went and cast them into
Hell. It is a very evil abode. (4:115)
The jurists deduce their view from
the above verse by saying that if the way of someone other than those of the
believers is adopted, then this verse mentions the punishment of Hell for such
an attitude; it is evident from this that following the way of the believers is
mandatory on every person; hence if Muslims are united on an opinion or a view,
then no one should differ with it; it is incumbent on every believer to follow
this consensus.
An evaluation of the context of
this verse will show how baseless this line of argumentation is. In the previous
verses, the conspiracies and connivances of the hypocrites are exposed;
Regarding these hypocrites this verse says that those who want to form a
separate group to oppose the Prophet (sws) and in this way want to adopt the
path of disbelief and hypocrisy instead of the path of belief, shall be cast
into Hell. The verse warns those Muslims who would defend these hypocrites. They
are told that the people they are supporting will be led to Hell because of
their opposition and hostility to the Prophet (sws). The reason for this is that
this is not the way of the believers, and those who adopt the path of disbelief
and hypocrisy even after the true path is evident to them can only abide in
Hell. This disbelief and hypocrisy are referred to by the words
غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ of the verse cited. In
it the word “believers” refer to the Companions of the Prophet (sws) who, after
acquiring the truth, never breached their trust with the Prophet (sws) and never
opposed and evaded him. On the contrary, they followed him with full sincerity
and submitted wholeheartedly to whatever directive they were given by him. It is
this attitude of faith and faithfulness, submission and obedience, docility and
compliance which is called سَبِيلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ in
this verse. All attitudes other than this are called غَيْرَ
سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ and Hell is promised for such attitudes. This
certainly does not mean that one cannot differ from the interpretations,
opinions and ijtihāds nor does it mean that if in the light of the Qur’ān and
Sunnah a person criticizes a view on which there is consensus, then he would
become worthy of Hell. The fact of the matter is that this issue is not even
touched upon by this verse. What is merely said in this verse is that after
guidance has become fully evident if someone opposes the guide sent by God and
is audacious enough to set up his own faction in opposition to him, then this is
nothing but disbelief with which belief can have no meaning. The Almighty puts
such people on the path they have chosen for themselves. Consequently, the
Qur’ān says that a person who chooses such a path should only wait for Hell.
Similar is the case of Hadīth: the
Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا
يَجْمَعُ أُمَّتِي أو قال أُمَّةَ مُحَمَّدٍ على ضَلَالَةٍ (indeed, God
will never unite my ummah or the ummah of Muhammad on some error).
It may be noted that it is not a sound Hadīth and for this very reason has not
been able to find any place in the primary books of Hadīth like al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh
of al-Bukharī and al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh of Muslim and the Mu’attā’ of Mālik.
However, even if it is supposed that the Prophet (sws) has in fact given these
glad tidings to his ummah, can these words really mean that the ummah can never
make a mistake? The fact of the matter is that there is a world of difference
between a mistake and straying into error and whatever is said in the Hadīth
relates to straying into error and not committing a mistake. It is impossible
that the whole ummah be united in straying into some error. The reason for this
is that the difference between guidance and error has been made evident to a
conclusive degree. Thus it is logically impossible that all the scholars,
mujtahids and those at the helm of state affairs unite on a polytheistic belief
while fully comprehending it to be polytheistic or reject the messengerhood of
Muhammad (sws) or deny the accountability of the Hereafter or deviate from
directives such as the prayer, the fast, the hajj, the zakāh and animal
sacrifice. Such things are in the category of self-evident facts for this ummah.
There can evolve a consensus on evasion from them. However, there can be a
mistake in understanding things which need deliberation or require ijtihād and
it is also possible that all people of this ummah are unanimous in this mistake.
There is nothing in reason or revelation which precludes this possibility. Thus
even if this narrative’s ascription to the Prophet (sws) is regarded to be
correct, it is evident from its words that his glad tidings relate to consensus
on straying into error and about such straying it can be said with certainty
that Muslims cannot unanimously do so. The narrative does not relate in any way
to a mistake in understanding a directive or in doing an ijtihād.
(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)
|