Novelty’s Blindspots: Denying Ijma’
Since I accepted Islam, I have noticed a trend towards questioning Islam’s legal tradition, quickly dismissing long-held, rigorously debated, truths.
Rejecting Consensus
It seems quite popular, especially among some of today’s Islamic content providers and “religious” exhibitionists, to doubt the consensus of Islamic jurists as a valid evidence in Shariah law. This skepticism, while perhaps cool and appealing on the surface, overlooks the deep importance of Ijma (consensus) in Sunni Islam, which stands alongside Qiyas (analogical reasoning) as a cornerstone of faith and practice; as well as the fierce debates that scholars engages in over centuries.
You Need A Method To Be Peer Reviewed By Colleagues Not Your Followers
Those quick to write off Ijma often lack a solid basis-a merhod-for their arguments, revealed through their scattered thoughts and a failure to recognize the systematic approaches normative scholars have used to sift through ideas with precision. Ironically, not only do they fail to sift through the discussions on the issue, but outside of platitudes, they fail to produce any research or method-usul- for scholars to examine their ideas. Living in an era is not enough to discredit those who proceeded it.
A Classic Hot Debate, Not A Novel Idea
The necessity and authority of Ijma sparked intense discussions among early Sunni legal theorists, who largely agreed that when consensus is backed by a sanad (a chain of transmission), it’s to be dogma. This insight was something I learned from Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi years ago.
Two Opinions
Within the ancient sunni, scholarly works on Islamic legal theory, a key question has been whether this consensus necessarily requires a sanad. This debate, often missed by those dazzled by the new and the need to be revivee, fails to grasp the depth and complexity of the discussions held by scholars long ago. Ignoring these nuanced debates shows a gap in thorough critique—it’s far easier to remain quiet or admit one’s lack of knowledge, as it is to talk out the side of one’s mouth.
Some scholars, as noted by Al-Amidi, one half of the mutakalimin, argue that a sanad isn’t always needed, suggesting that divine inspiration can lead scholars to the right conclusions. They believe that if consensus required a sanad, then it would be the sanad itself providing the proof, not the consensus.
The majority view among usulis is that a reliable sanad is a condition. To claim ijma’ without it is seen as flawed, like talking about religious matters without fully understanding them or issuing a fatwa without it supported by evidence. This approach ensures the community is protected from error, with decisions based on either solid or more speculative, yet acceptable, evidence, keeping the faith grounded and informed.
There is a lot to say here, but moving forward, we should probably look back.
Suhaib Webb