Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/263)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

Thus, since Allah has guaranteed to safeguard the community, the community as a whole cannot fall into error or oversight. If the judge finds no consensus concerning the case before him, he should rule according to the conclusion reached through reasoning and independent legal judgment, drawing analogies from the foundational principles, after consulting the scholars. If they agree on a position, he should adopt it. If they differ, he should consider which of their opinions he finds strongest. If he reaches a conclusion contrary to theirs, he may rule accordingly, provided he is their peer. If he is not their peer, he may not do so. This was stated by Ibn Habīb, but it is a view open to objection.

The correct view is that, if he is qualified to exercise independent legal judgment, he may rule according to his own conclusion even if they are more learned than he is. For there is consensus that a scholar qualified to exercise independent legal judgment may not follow another scholar’s opinion when he considers it mistaken. According to those who permit such reliance, he may follow another scholar only so long as no ruling concerning the case has become clear to him. The disagreement, then, concerns whether a scholar qualified to exercise independent legal judgment may forgo his own examination and judgment and follow someone who has already examined the matter and exercised independent legal judgment. There are three views:

The first is that he may do so.

The second is that he may not.

The third is that he may not unless he fears losing the opportunity to decide the case.

If, however, he is not qualified to exercise independent legal judgment, his duty is to consult scholars and follow their opinions. If the scholars give him differing opinions, he should rule according to the opinion of the most learned among them. It has also been said that he should follow the opinion held by the greatest number of them, as indicated by the account concerning the Seven Jurists in al-Mudawwanah. The first view is more correct. Another view is that he may rule according to the opinion of whichever of them he chooses, provided that he thereby seeks what is correct and does not seek to follow his own inclinations. He may also suffice with consulting a single scholar. If he does so, it is preferable to consult the most learned among them. However, if he consults someone less learned and adopts his opinion, this is permissible, provided that the scholar consulted is qualified to undertake legal reasoning and exercise independent legal judgment.

فإذا تضمن الله حفظ الجماعة، لم يجز عليها الغلط والسهو، فإن لم يجد في النازلة إجماعا، قضى فيها بما يؤديه النظر والاجتهاد في القياس على الأصول بعد مشورة أهل العلم، فإن اجتمعوا على شيء، أخذ به، وإن اختلفوا نظر إلى أحسن أقوالهم عنده، وإن رأى خلاف رأيهم قضى بما رأى، إذا كان نظيرا لهم، وإن لم يكن من نظرائهم، فليس له ذلك، قاله ابن حبيب، وهو قول فيه اعتراض. والصحيح أنه إذا كان من أهل الاجتهاد، فله أن يقضي بما رأى، وإن كانوا أعلم منه؛ لأن التقليد لا يصح للمجتهد فيما يرى خلافه بإجماع، وإنما يصح له التقليد على مذهب من يرى التقليد ويقول به ما لم يتبين له في النازلة حكم، فإنما الخلاف هل للمجتهد أن يترك النظر والاجتهاد، ويقلد من قد نظر واجتهد أم لا على ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها: أن ذلك له. والثاني: أن ذلك ليس له. والثالث: أن ذلك ليس له إلا أن يخاف فوات النازلة، وأما إن لم يكن من أهل الاجتهاد ففرضه المشورة والتقليد، فإن اختلف عليه العلماء، قضى بقول أعلمهم، وقيل بقول أكثرهم على ما وقع في المدونة في الحكاية عن الفقهاء السبعة، والأول أصح. وقيل: إن له أن يحكم بقول من شاء منهم، إذا تحرى الصواب بذلك ولم يقصد الهوى، وله أن يكتفي بمشورة واحد من العلماء، فإن فعل ذلك فالاختيار أن يشاور أعلمهم، فإن شاور من دونه في العلم وأخذ بقوله، فذلك جائز إذا كان المشاور أهل النظر والاجتهاد.