The sole source of religion is the noble person of the Messenger of God (PBUH). From him this religion was transmitted through the consensus of his Companions and through their verbal and practical continuity, and it has reached us in two forms: first, the Quran, and second, the Sunnah. After him, religion is now derived only from these two. In addition to them, subordinately, if anything can serve as a means to discerning the will of God, it is ijtihad. Through it, together with many other matters, we seek to understand those rulings as well which are not stated directly in the textual sources, but which, by their very nature, are applications of those texts that have been left to people’s judgement and understanding. Qiyas is one type of this. In the Quran, the word used for it is istinbat. What comes into existence through this process is referred to as fiqh. Its beginning lies in the ijtihadat of the Messenger (PBUH) himself. A large portion of solitary reports (akhbar ahad) consists precisely of the record of this. After him, the Companions and Successors continued this tradition, but when the age of the jurists began, a fourth element was added to it: this is the consensus (ijma) of Muslims. From that time until now, it has generally been held that consensus is also one of the sources of Islamic Shariah.
This addition to the sources of religion is certainly a religious innovation (bidah). In the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, no basis can be found for it. If we examine its effects, it becomes evident that it has impaired the timelessness of Islamic Shariah and has made it difficult to establish its relevance to the modern age. The distinguished scholar and preacher of the subcontinent, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan, writes:
Generally, the jurists have regarded ijma (consensus) as an independent source of Shariah, but this is undoubtedly a baseless theory. An independent source of Shariah can only be a conclusive text (nass qatʿi). In the absence of a conclusive text, to regard anything as an independent source of Shariah is undoubtedly baseless. Consensus does, without doubt, have an importance, but that importance is only that, on a particular occasion, it constitutes a practical solution to an emergent issue. This solution is undoubtedly a temporary one, not an eternal source of Shariah. (Al-Risalah, 7/2011)
Anyone who wishes to understand the reality of the arguments by which jurists seek to establish the binding authority of ijma should consult Imam Shawkani’s work Irshad al-Fuhul. There it will become clear how meaningless and irrelevant these arguments are. There is, however, one verse of the Quran and one hadith on the basis of which some people may feel hesitation. We therefore clarify their reality here.
God, exalted is He, has said:
ٖوَمَنْ يُّشَاقِقِ الرَّسُوْلَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَہُ الْهُدٰی وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيْلِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ، نُوَلِّہ مَا تَوَلهی وَنُصْلِہٖ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَآءَ تْ مَصِيْرًا On the other hand, those who oppose the Messenger even after the path of guidance is fully evident to them, and leaving the path of those who have sincerely professed faith in you follow some other path, We shall make them follow the path they themselves have gone to and ultimately cast them into Hell. It is a very evil abode. (Surah al-Nisa 4:115)
The jurists’ line of reasoning is that adopting a way other than that of the believers incurs the threat of Hell in this verse. Its clear implication, they say, is that following their path is obligatory upon every person. Therefore, if the Muslims agree upon some opinion or point of view, it cannot be opposed; rather, it becomes obligatory for every believer to follow this consensus of theirs.
To see how baseless this argument is, one must read the verse in its context. Earlier, the secret whisperings of the hypocrites have been exposed; it is about these same people that it is now stated that those who wish to set up a separate party in opposition to the Prophet, and thus, instead of faith, are adopting the way of unbelief and hypocrisy, will be flung into Hell. The address is directed at those who, within the Muslim community, were trying to offer excuses on behalf of these hypocrites. They are warned that the “opposition” (mushaqqa) of those for whom they are pleading will lead them straight to Hell, because this is not the way of the people of faith. And those who, after guidance has become fully clear to them, choose the path of unbelief and hypocrisy, their abode can only be Hell. It is for this unbelief and hypocrisy that the words “ghayra sabil al-muminina” (“other than the path of the believers”) have been used in the verse. Here, “the believers” refers to the noble Companions, who, once they found the truth, never again adopted any attitude of disloyalty, unfaithfulness, opposition, or avoidance toward God’s Messenger (PBUH). Rather, they followed him with complete sincerity and continued to submit with full obedience to every command they were given. This very attitude of faith and sincerity, of following and obeying, of submission and yielding, is what the verse designates as “sabil al-muminina” – “the path of the believers”. Any way adopted in place of this is “ghayra sabil al-muminina” – “other than the path of the believers” – and it is those who choose this path who are threatened with Hell.
This by no means implies that one may not differ with the formulations, opinions, and ijtihadat of the believers, or that if they unanimously adopt some position and that position is then critically examined in the light of the Quran and Sunnah, the person doing so becomes deserving of Hell. In reality, this issue is nowhere under discussion in the verse at all. What is being asserted there is simply that once the way of guidance has become completely clear, if a person dares to oppose the divinely-sent guide and to set up a separate party in opposition to him, then this is outright unbelief, which is entirely incompatible with faith. Such people God abandons to the path they have chosen for themselves, and thus it is declared that whoever adopts this path should expect nothing but Hell.
The same is the case with the hadith. It has been attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) that he said: “inna allah la yajmau ummati ala dalalatin (God will not gather my community upon an error)”. This is, however, a weak report, and for this very reason it has not found any place in the principal hadith collections – Bukhari, Muslim, and the Muwattaʾ. Even so, let us suppose that the Messenger of God (PBUH) really did give his community this glad tiding. Do its implications, then, include that no error at all can ever occur on their part?
The truth is that there is a world of difference between error (khataʾ) and misguidance (dalalah), and the statement in the hadith relates to misguidance, not to error. It is impossible that the whole community should be united upon misguidance. The reason is that, in matters of religion, the distinction between guidance and misguidance has been made evident to the level of conclusive proof (itmam al-hujjah). Thus it is rationally inconceivable that all the scholars, jurists, and decision-makers of the community should, while regarding something as polytheism, nonetheless unite upon it; or that they should deny the status of prophethood of the Messenger of God; or that they should repudiate accountability in the Hereafter; or that they should turn away from such obligations as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, almsgiving, and sacrifice. Such matters are now among the self-evident truths (badihiyyat) for the community; there can be no consensus upon deviating from them.
By contrast, in those matters which are subject to reflection and ijtihad, mistakes in understanding can occur, and the entire community may come to share such a mistake. There is nothing in reason or revelation that would make this impossible. Therefore, even if we accept that the hadith is correctly attributed to the Messenger of God (PBUH), its wording makes clear that his glad tiding relates only to consensus upon misguidance. And with respect to misguidance, it can indeed be stated with certainty that Muslims will never be united upon it. It has nothing to do with consensus upon some error of thought, ijtihad, or understanding and reflection.
[2011]