Ijma’ as-Sahabah: The Third Source of Law After the Qur’an and the Sunnah
Imagine you are standing at a crossroads in the darkness of night. There is no map, no signs, and voices from various directions give contradictory instructions. Some shout to the right, others insist to the left. One wrong step will plunge you into a deep ravine. In such confusion, what will you hold on to? Surely you will look for the one most authoritative voice, the most trustworthy, and the one impossible to mislead you.
In navigating the ocean of this life, the Muslim ummah is constantly faced with legal crossroads no less intricate. Halal or haram? Obligatory or merely recommended? To answer these questions concerning the fate of this world and the Hereafter, we must not grope in the darkness of speculation. We need a certain compass, a source of reference that cannot be penetrated by doubt.
The majority of the Muslim ummah is familiar with the classical formulation that the sources of Islamic law are four: the Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma’, and Qiyas. However, when we begin to seriously delve into the word “Ijma’,” we will find a sea of very fierce debate among scholars of Ushul Fiqh. Whose consensus is recognized? Can the consensus of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) in the modern era be called Ijma’? Can the consensus of the residents of a certain city or the consensus of the entire Muslim ummah at a certain time become binding evidence?
Hizbut Tahrir, through the monumental work of Sheikh Taqiyuddin an-Nabhani in Syakhshiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 3, offers a very sharp, precise, and methodologically sound formulation that protects the purity of this religion from the interference of limited human reason. That formulation states firmly: The only Ijma’ that is valid as binding shari’ evidence is Ijma’ as-Sahabah — the consensus of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.
Let us brew our scholarly tea again, calm our minds, and let us dissect one by one the rational reasons and shari’ evidences behind this extraordinarily brilliant determination.
1. Introduction: Tracing the Root of the Debate on Ijma’
Why is the debate on Ijma’ among scholars of Ushul Fiqh so long and never-ending? The answer lies in the starting point of discussion that is often overlooked.
Most classical scholars begin the discussion of Ijma’ with the question: “Can the ummah or the scholars agree on misguidance?” They then debate the status of the hadith “My ummah will not agree on misguidance,” the meaning of “ummah,” who is included among the “scholars,” and so on. When we try to build a source of law on top of an uncertain foundation of debate, then the entire legal structure above it will be shaky.
Sheikh Taqiyuddin an-Nabhani realized this methodological deadlock. He did not begin from the question of the possibility of error or correctness, but from a far more fundamental question: What is the function of Ijma’ itself in the structure of the sources of law? Does Ijma’ create a new law, or is Ijma’ merely uncovering a law that already exists but is hidden from our view?
By changing this starting point of thought, a problem that appears extremely tangled for centuries becomes very clear and easy to understand. Ijma’ is not a lawmaker. Ijma’ is a law uncoverer. And only one generation has the capacity to uncover the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ that is not written: the generation that lived with the Prophet ﷺ, that witnessed revelation descend with their own eyes, namely the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
2. Understanding the Meaning of Ijma’: From Language to the Terminology of Ushul Fiqh
Before we debate who has the right to perform Ijma’, we must first understand what exactly the object we are discussing is.
In terms of language (etymology), the word Ijma’ (الإجماع) comes from the word ajma’a - yujmi’u, which in Arabic has two complementary meanings. The first meaning is Al-‘Azm, that is, resolute determination or intention. Like a person’s statement, “I have done Ijma’ (made a firm resolution) to travel tomorrow.” The second meaning is Al-Ittifaq, that is, agreement. Like the statement, “Society has done Ijma’ (agreed) on a matter.”
However, in the discipline of Ushul Fiqh — which is the epistemology of Islamic law — this linguistic meaning undergoes a very strict narrowing and specification. According to Hizbut Tahrir as explained in Syakhshiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 3, Ijma’ as-Sahabah in terminological definition is: The agreement of all the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at a certain time on a shari’ ruling, where that agreement uncovers (reveals) the existence of evidence from the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ that was not narrated to us in wording (text), but was inherited in the form of their consensual practice.
Observe the definition above carefully. There is a phrase that becomes the key to this entire discussion: uncovering the existence of evidence. This phrase is what distinguishes the methodology of Hizbut Tahrir from some other groups. We will dissect the meaning of this phrase in depth in the next section, because this is where lies the very fundamental difference.
Table 1: Difference in the Meaning of Ijma’ between Language and the Terminology of HT’s Ushul Fiqh
| Aspect | Linguistic Meaning (Lughawi) | Terminological Meaning (HT’s Ushul Fiqh) |
|---|---|---|
| Subject of Agreement | Anyone (society, groups, nations). | Only the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. |
| Object of Agreement | Anything (worldly, technical, political, etc.). | Only Shari’ Rulings (Halal, Haram, Wajib, etc.). |
| Nature of Agreement | Can change according to the times and conditions. | Binding absolutely until the Day of Judgment. |
| Main Function | Solving practical problems in society. | Uncovering the existence of the Prophet’s Sunnah that is not written. |
3. Why Must It Be the Companions? (The Privilege of the Generation That Witnessed Revelation)
The most logical question often asked by modern thinkers is: “Why must it be the Companions? Aren’t scholars today smarter, have read more books, have access to digital libraries, and have technology to conduct in-depth research? Why can’t the consensus of 21st-century scholars be called binding Ijma’?”
To answer this question fairly and objectively, we must understand the unique position of the Companions — may Allah be pleased with them all — in the history of the descent of revelation from the sky to the earth.
The Companions are not merely people who happened to live in the past. They are eyewitnesses to a cosmic event that will never be repeated throughout the history of mankind: the descent of Revelation from the Sky to the Earth through the intermediary of the Angel Jibril ﷺ to the Prophet ﷺ. They lived with the Lawgiver. They saw directly how the Prophet ﷺ prayed, how he traded, how he led wars, and how he passed judgment. They asked the Prophet ﷺ directly if there was something they did not understand. They knew the Asbabun Nuzul — when, where, and why a verse of the Qur’an was revealed. They understood the context (qarinah) of every saying of the Prophet ﷺ in a way that cannot be replicated by any generation after them.
In addition, they mastered pure Arabic in its most authentic form. The language of the Qur’an was their mother tongue, before it was mixed with foreign languages (‘Ajam) due to the expansion of Islam to Persia, Rome, and Egypt.
Allah ﷻ Himself gave an eternal stamp of pleasure to this generation in His words:
وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct — Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.” (QS. At-Tawbah: 100)
This privilege — direct access to the Prophet ﷺ, mastery of the context of revelation, and purity of language — makes their consensus have an epistemological weight completely different from the consensus of any generation after them.
4. The Impossibility of Agreeing on Misguidance: An Irrefutable Rational Argument
Let us use our common sense to dissect a very concrete historical scenario.
After the death of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, the Muslim ummah was faced with many new problems that had never happened before. Imagine if all the Companions — whose numbers were in the thousands, who were scattered in Madinah, Makkah, Yemen, Syria, and various corners of the Arabian Peninsula, who had an extraordinary level of piety, who were willing to sacrifice their wealth, lives, and children to defend the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ — suddenly agreed to do a certain deed or establish a certain religious law. Is it possible that they were fabricating the law themselves? Is it possible that they collectively agreed on something that contradicted what the Prophet ﷺ had taught?
In terms of custom and reason — common sense used by normal humans in daily life — the answer is impossible!
It is impossible for Abu Bakr ash-Shiddiq, Umar bin Khattab, Uthman bin Affan, Ali bin Abi Thalib, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, and thousands of other Companions to conspire or remain silent seeing a lie attributed to the religion of Allah ﷻ. If there was even a single Companion who felt that a certain deed contradicted what he had heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, he would definitely stand up and protest loudly. The character of the Companions is a character that never remains silent seeing deviation in religion. They were educated directly by the Prophet ﷺ to enjoin good and forbid evil. If they were all silent, that is very strong proof that the deed was indeed correct and based on the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.
Therefore, when all the Companions agree on a shari’ ruling and not a single one denies it — either orally or through their silence — then our common sense concludes with near-absolute certainty that: They must have had a basis (evidence) from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that they knew together.
Table 2: Rational Analysis of the Impossibility of Collective Falsehood
| Historical Scenario | Probability According to Common Sense | Legal Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| One Companion narrates a Hadith (Khabar Ahad). | Possibly true, but there is a small chance he forgot or misunderstood. | Must be practiced (Zhanni), but not for establishing Aqidah. |
| Some Companions agree, some reject. | Occurrence of ijtihad difference (Ikhtilaf). Both have evidence. | Not Ijma’. The ummah may choose the stronger opinion. |
| ALL Companions agree without anyone rejecting. | Impossible to conspire to make a fake shari’ah. | Must be based on the Prophet’s Sunnah. Valid as Ijma’. |
5. Ijma’ as-Sahabah is Not a Lawmaker, But a Law Uncoverer
This is the most fundamental point in Hizbut Tahrir’s methodology that is most often misunderstood — even by some researchers of Islamic law who have spent years delving into Ushul Fiqh.
Hizbut Tahrir asserts very clearly: Ijma’ is not an independent source of law (standing on its own) created by the intellect of the Companions.
Only Allah ﷻ has the right to make law (Al-Hakim). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ is the conveyor of that law to mankind. Not a single person — not a Companion, not a Prophet, not an Angel — has the right to create shari’ law from himself. So what is the function of Ijma’ as-Sahabah in the structure of the sources of law?
Ijma’ as-Sahabah functions as Kashif — an Arabic word meaning “uncoverer” or “revealer.” Ijma’ uncovers the existence of the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ that did not reach us in the form of a hadith text (lafazh), but was inherited in the form of consensual practice by all the Companions.
Let us use an analogy to understand this concept more clearly. Imagine there is a very important secret document — let us call it the “Sunnah of the Prophet” — stored in a locked steel safe. We, as a generation living centuries after the death of the Prophet ﷺ, do not have the key to open that safe and cannot read the text of the document inside directly. However, we see all the best locksmiths in the world (the Companions) simultaneously nodding their heads and performing the same action after they looked inside that safe.
Their simultaneous action (Ijma’) is revealing evidence for us about what is inside that safe, even though we do not read the text directly. We do not know exactly the words written inside the document, but we know for certain the content of the document from the simultaneous reaction of the experts who have seen it.
So, when we use Ijma’ as-Sahabah as evidence, in essence we are using evidence from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ expressed through the consensual practice of the Companions. This is why Ijma’ as-Sahabah has a very high and binding position, because it is not a product of human thought — it is a direct reflection of the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ witnessed by the best generation.
6. Rejecting Ijma’ of the Scholars and Ijma’ of the Ummah: Why Can They Not Be Generalized?
If we have understood that Ijma’ as-Sahabah is valid as evidence because it uncovers the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ that they witnessed directly, then by itself the claim of the validity of Ijma’ of the Scholars in the generations after the Companions collapses.
Hizbut Tahrir firmly rejects two forms of Ijma’ claimed by some classical scholars:
First, Ijma’ of the Scholars or Ijma’ of the Mujtahids, that is, the consensus of mujtahid scholars at a certain time — for example, the consensus of scholars in the fifth century Hijri, or the consensus of scholars in the world today.
Second, Ijma’ of the Ummah, that is, the consensus of the entire Muslim ummah at a certain time.
Why are these two forms of Ijma’ rejected? The reason is very scientific and based on very strict epistemological analysis.
Scholars in the fifth century or in the twenty-first century never met the Prophet ﷺ. They never heard revelation descend with their own ears. They never saw the Prophet ﷺ act with their own eyes. If all the scholars of the world today agree on a certain ruling — for example, regarding the ruling of test-tube babies or the ruling of cryptocurrency — their agreement is the result of the Ijtihad of Reason of theirs against the texts (Qur’an and Hadith) that reached them through the chain of narration.
And this is where the problem lies: The ijtihad of a scholar can be wrong. If a thousand scholars perform ijtihad and happen to get the same result, a collection of a thousand possibilities of error still does not produce certainty. A collection of presumptions (zhann) cannot turn into certainty (qath’i). A thousand presumptions gathered remain presumptions, not certain knowledge.
In addition, there is not a single verse of the Qur’an or Mutawatir Hadith that gives the authority of “infallibility” (preservation from error) to a group of scholars or a council of scholars. There is no evidence stating that if a thousand scholars gather and agree, then their agreement is automatically correct and binding on the entire ummah.
What About the Hadith “My Ummah Will Not Agree on Misguidance”?
Proponents of Ijma’ of the Scholars often present the following hadith as their main weapon:
لَا تَجْتَمِعُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ضَلَالَةٍ
“My ummah will not agree on misguidance.” (HR. Ibnu Majah, Tirmidzi)
Hizbut Tahrir in Syakhshiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 3 dissects this hadith with very precision through two perspectives.
First, this hadith has the status of Khabar Ahad — narrated by a small number of narrators, not by a very large number so that it is impossible for them to agree on a lie. As discussed in the article on Khabar Ahad in Aqidah, Khabar Ahad is Zhanni (strong presumption). Something Zhanni cannot be used to establish a Primary Source of Law (Ushul) from which thousands of branches of law will be born. A source of law must be established with Qath’i (certain) evidence, not with Zhanni evidence.
Second, the meaning of this hadith is not to give authority to scholars to “create” new shari’ law. The correct meaning is that the Muslim ummah as a whole will never apostatize entirely, nor will they ever agree to abandon this religion totally. There will always be a Thaifah Manshurah — a group helped by Allah — that maintains the truth until the Day of Judgment. This hadith is good news about the survival of the religion, not a legal mandate to create a new shari’ah.
Table 3: Comparison Between Ijma’ as-Sahabah and Ijma’ of Modern Scholars
| Aspect | Ijma’ as-Sahabah | Ijma’ of Modern Scholars / Mujtahids |
|---|---|---|
| Access to the Source of Revelation | Direct — lived with the Prophet ﷺ, witnessed revelation descend. | Indirect — through narrated texts and books. |
| Nature of Agreement | Kashif — uncovering the Prophet’s Sunnah that is hidden. | Ijtihadi — the result of intellectual processing of existing texts. |
| Possibility of Error | Impossible — because they are eyewitnesses to revelation. | Very possible — because ijtihad can be right and can be wrong. |
| Status as Evidence | Valid and binding absolutely. | Rejected as an independent source of law. |
7. Rejecting Ijma’ Ahlul Madinah and Ijma’ Ahlul Bait
In addition to rejecting Ijma’ of the Scholars, the methodology of HT’s Ushul Fiqh also rejects claims of Ijma’ coming from certain groups who claim special authority.
Ijma’ Ahlul Madinah — the consensus of the residents of the city of Madinah — is often used as evidence by the Maliki School. Their reason is that Madinah was the city where the Prophet ﷺ settled during the last ten years of his life, so the practice of its residents must be a direct legacy from the Prophet ﷺ. However, Hizbut Tahrir’s refutation of this claim is very strong. After the Prophet ﷺ passed away, the great Companions spread to various regions such as Makkah, Kufah, Basrah, Syria, and Yemen, bringing knowledge and the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ with them. The Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ was not monopolized by the residents of Madinah. Therefore, the consensus of the residents of Madinah alone — without involving the Companions in other regions — cannot be claimed as the Ijma’ of all the Companions.
Ijma’ Ahlul Bait — the consensus of the family of the Prophet ﷺ — is made a source of infallible law by the Shi’ah group. They claim that the descendants of the Prophet ﷺ possess legal authority preserved from error. Hizbut Tahrir refutes this claim firmly: there is not a single shari’ evidence — neither from the Qur’an nor from Mutawatir Hadith — that specifically limits infallibility or legal authority only to the descendants of the Prophet ﷺ. Islamic shari’ah was revealed for all mankind, and the Companions — both from the family of the Prophet ﷺ and not — have the same position in narrating and preserving the purity of this religion.
8. Conditions for the Occurrence of Ijma’ as-Sahabah: Understanding Ijma’ Sukuti
So, how can we know that the Companions have reached Ijma’? Did they ever hold a congress or conference attended by all the Companions and then sign an agreement document? Of course not. At that time there were no conference halls, no ballots, and no meeting minutes.
Ijma’ as-Sahabah usually occurs naturally through what is called Ijma’ Sukuti — consensus through the silence of the Companions.
The mechanism of Ijma’ Sukuti runs organically. An event occurs or a law is established in the presence of some Companions. News of that event spreads widely (masyhur) until it is known by the Companions in various regions — Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Makkah, and Madinah. Sufficient time passes for the Companions to think about and study that event. And if after all that, there is not a single Companion who protests, opposes, or denies it, then their silence is considered as agreement.
Why is “silence” considered agreement? Because the character of the Companions is the character of heroes of truth. They were educated directly by the Prophet ﷺ to never remain silent seeing evil or deviation in religion. If something is wrong, their swords and tongues will immediately move to correct it. If they are all silent, that is qath’i proof that the deed is correct and based on the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.
For Ijma’ Sukuti to be considered valid, there are several conditions that must be met. The event must occur in the time of the Companions — that is, before the death of the last Companion. The event must be masyhur, meaning it is generally known by the Companions in various lands, not a secret case known only to a handful of people. There must be sufficient time for the news to spread and be analyzed, so that their silence is not due to shock or not yet knowing. And the most crucial: there must not be a single Companion who openly rejects it. If there is one Companion who rejects it, the status is void as Ijma’ and changes into Ikhtilaf (difference of opinion).
Table 4: Conditions for the Validity of Ijma’ Sukuti of the Companions
| Condition | Explanation | Purpose of the Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Publicity (Masyhur) | The case must be widely known by the Companions in various lands. | Ensuring it is not a secret case unknown to people. |
| Sufficient Time | There is a reasonable time gap for the news to spread and be analyzed. | Ensuring their silence is not due to shock or not yet knowing. |
| Character of the Companions | The Companions never remain silent seeing evil (Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil). | Guaranteeing that “silence” truly means “agreement.” |
| Absolute Consensus | There must not be a single Companion who openly rejects it. | If there is one who rejects, the status is void as Ijma’ (becomes Ikhtilaf). |
9. Factual Examples: The Khilafah, the Compilation of the Qur’an, and the Ruling on Khamr
To understand how tremendous the power of Ijma’ as-Sahabah is as shari’ evidence, let us look at several of the most magnificent legal products produced from this evidence.
The Obligation of Appointing a Khalifah is the most monumental example. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away on Monday, the Companions were faced with a very urgent fardhu kifayah: taking care of the Prophet’s body — washing, shrouding, praying over, and burying. In terms of shari’ah, delaying the handling of a body without a shari’ excuse is haram. However, what did the great Companions do — Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaidah, and the Ansar leaders? They actually gathered at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah to deliberate on choosing a Khalifah, a Head of State to succeed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in governmental affairs.
They delayed the burial of the most noble human being on the face of the earth for three days and two nights, in order to prioritize the appointment of a Khalifah. And the most extraordinary thing: not a single Companion protested this delay. Ali bin Abi Thalib, Abbas, and the family of the Prophet ﷺ who were at the funeral house also did not protest Abu Bakr and Umar who were busy at Saqifah. The silence of all the Companions regarding the delay of the obligation to take care of the body in order to appoint a Khalifah is a very qath’i Ijma’ as-Sahabah. This uncovers a very firm Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ: that appointing a Khalifah to lead the Muslim ummah is the most glorious obligation — Taajul Furudh (the crown of obligations) — that must be prioritized above all other obligations, even above the obligation to take care of the body of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself.
The Compilation of the Qur’an into One Mushaf is the second example. During the life of the Prophet ﷺ, the Qur’an was written on palm fronds, stones, and bones, but had not yet been compiled into one neatly bound book. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr ash-Shiddiq, at the suggestion of Umar bin Khattab, the Qur’an was compiled into one Mushaf. At first Abu Bakr hesitated and said, “How can I do something that was never done by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?” But Umar convinced him that this was goodness for the sake of preserving the religion. Finally Abu Bakr agreed, and this project was carried out by Zaid bin Thabit. All the Companions approved and no one protested. This Ijma’ as-Sahabah is the evidence for the permissibility — even the obligation — of codifying the Qur’an, without which perhaps we would not be holding a complete Mushaf of the Qur’an as we hold today.
The punishment for drinking Khamr (80 lashes) is the third example. During the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and Abu Bakr, the punishment for drinking khamr was carried out by hitting with palm fronds or sandals, without a definite limit on the number of hits — sometimes around forty. During the caliphate of Umar bin Khattab, people began to drink khamr more frequently as the territory expanded. Umar gathered the Companions to ask for their opinions. Ali bin Abi Thalib said with very logical reasoning: “If a person drinks khamr, he will get drunk. If he gets drunk, he will babble. If he babbles, he will accuse others of fornication (Qadhf). So impose upon him the punishment of the false accuser of fornication, which is eighty lashes.” Umar approved Ali’s proposal, and all the Companions agreed without anyone denying it. Since then, Ijma’ as-Sahabah has established that the Hadd (definite punishment) for drinking khamr is eighty lashes.
Table 5: Examples of Legal Products Based on Ijma’ as-Sahabah
| Legal Case | Historical Event | Legal Conclusion from Ijma’ |
|---|---|---|
| System of Government | Delaying the burial of the Prophet ﷺ for deliberation at Saqifah. | The obligation of appointing a Khalifah is the most urgent obligation (Taajul Furudh). |
| Preservation of the Qur’an | Compiling the sheets of revelation into one Mushaf during the time of Abu Bakr. | Permissible and obligatory to codify the Qur’an even though not directly exemplified by the Prophet ﷺ. |
| Criminal Law (Uqubat) | Establishment of 80 lashes for drinking khamr during the time of Umar. | The Hadd for drinking khamr is 80 lashes (analogized with the punishment for Qadhf). |
10. Conclusion: The Impact of Understanding Ijma’ as-Sahabah on Islamic Personality
Understanding the position of Ijma’ as-Sahabah in the methodology of HT’s Ushul Fiqh is not merely an intellectual exercise floating in the classroom. This is an extraordinarily strong intellectual fortress, capable of shaping an Islamic personality (Syakhshiyyah Islamiyah) that is resilient and not easily shaken by misleading currents of thought.
When a Muslim truly understands and embeds this understanding in his heart, fundamental attitudes toward the sources of Islamic law will be born.
First, he becomes very selective toward claims of “Ijma’” that are often thrown around in the modern era. He will not be easily deceived when a group of scholars or a fatwa council claims that their decision is “Ijma’ of the Scholars” that binds the entire ummah. He knows with certainty that the agreement of scholars today is merely a collection of ijtihad that can be right and can be wrong, and is absolutely not binding shari’ evidence. He will not submit to fatwas that claim Ijma’ to legalize riba on the grounds of “modern economic needs,” or to abolish the Islamic law of inheritance on the grounds of “gender equality.”
Second, he has a very deep sense of respect for the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. He understands that this golden generation is not merely historical figures whose names are listed in books. They are eyewitnesses to revelation, guardians of the purity of the religion, and the only generation whose consensus has the authority to uncover the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ that is not written. He will not dare to insult or doubt their agreement, because doubting Ijma’ as-Sahabah is tantamount to doubting the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ itself.
Third, he understands that the door of the shari’ah has been closed since the death of the last Companion. There is no more “Ijma’” that can create a new law after the generation of the Companions. What exists is only Ijtihad — the effort to understand and apply existing laws — which can be right and can be wrong. This understanding protects the ummah from claims of “renewal” that are actually the surrender of legal authority to limited human reason.
Fourth, he is able to distinguish between Qath’i (certain) evidence and Zhanni (strong presumption) evidence. Ijma’ as-Sahabah is Qath’i evidence because it uncovers the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. The fatwa of modern scholars is Zhanni evidence because it is the result of ijtihad that can be wrong. With this ability to distinguish, a Muslim will not mix up absolutely binding laws with opinions that can be chosen or left.
Fifth, he has a solid foundation to struggle for the upholding of Islamic law in its entirety. When he understands that the obligation of appointing a Khalifah is a Qath’i Ijma’ as-Sahabah — not merely the opinion of one school — then he knows that struggling for the Khilafah is not an ideological choice, but a shari’ obligation that cannot be bargained.
This is the clarity of the methodology of HT’s Ushul Fiqh. A methodology that limits Ijma’ only to the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ has tightly closed the doors of entry for “new shari’ah” fabricated by humans, while simultaneously opening wide the doors of correct understanding toward the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The only consensus that is sacred, that is infallible, and that uncovers the will of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is the consensus of the best generation that has been pleased by Allah ﷻ from above the seventh heaven: the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلَامِ ۚ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلُ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ
“So whoever Allah wants to guide — He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide — He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe.” (QS. Al-An’am: 125)
Related Material: