Jimāʿ al-ʿIlm - Al-Shafi'i - (23)

Jimāʿ al-ʿIlmAl-Shafi'i

192 – He said, “This is the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the scholars, not of those without knowledge, and it must be followed, for they alone possess the learning that others lack and they are united upon it. When they are unanimous, their agreement is an authoritative proof against the uninformed; but when they disagree, no proof arises from them over anyone. In that case the disputed point must be referred back to analogy (qiyās) on the basis of what they had agreed upon. Whatever state I find them in tells me about those before them: if they are unanimous, I know that the scholars of every earlier generation were likewise unanimous, for they would not all concur today had their predecessors differed; and if they are divided, I know that those before them, in every generation, were divided as well. It makes no difference whether their unanimity rests on a report (khabar) they transmit or on some other evidentiary ground, for they only agree on the strength of a binding report. Likewise, when they disagree, whether they relay a report that supports some of them or do not relate one at all is the same to me, for I accept from their reports only what they all endorse. As for anything over which they differ in acceptance, error can enter into it, and no authoritative proof is established by something in which error is possible.

193 – I said to him, “This virtually nullifies the reports while establishing consensus, for you have claimed that their disagreement is no proof, whether a report exists on the matter or not.”

194 – I then asked, “And who are the scholars whose consensus, when they agree, constitutes a binding proof?”

195 – He answered, “They are whomever the people of any town appoint as a jurist—someone whose opinion they approve of and whose verdict they accept.”

196 – I said, “Take such jurists whose consensus is deemed authoritative: if they are ten in number and one is absent, or is present but remains silent, would you still consider the agreement of the remaining nine a proof?”

197 – He replied, “Then, if you say: No …”

١٩٢- قال: هذا إجماع العلماء دون من لا علم له يجب اتباعهم فيه لأنهم منفردون بالعلم دونهم مجتمعون عليه فإذا اجتمعوا قامت بهم الحجة على من لا علم له وإذا افترقوا لم يقم بهم على أحد حجة وكان الحق فيما تفرقوا فيه أن ترد إلى القياس على ما اجتمعوا عليه فأي حال وجدتهم بها دلتني على حال من قبلهم إن كانوا مجتمعين من جهة علمت أن من كان قبلهم من أهل العلم مجتمعون من كل قرن لأنهم لا يجتمعون من جهة فإن كانوا متفرقين علمت أن من كان قبلهم كانوا متفرقين من كل قرن. وسواء كان اجتماعهم من خبر يحكونه أو غير خبر للاستدلال أنهم لا يجمعون إلا بخبر لازم وسواء إذا تفرقوا حكوا خبرا بما وافق بعضهم أو لم يحكوه لأني لا أقبل من أخبارهم إلا ما أجمعوا على قوله فأما ما تفرقوا في قبوله فإن الغلط يمكن فيه فلم تقم حجة بأمر يمكن فيه الغلط. ١٩٣ - قال: فقلت: له هذا تجويز إبطال الأخبار وإثبات الإجماع لأنك زعمت أن افتراقهم غير حجة كان فيه خبر أو لم يكن فيه. ١٩٤ - وقلت: له ومن أهل العلم الذين إذا أجمعوا قامت بإجماعهم حجة؟. ١٩٥ - قال: هم من نصبه أهل بلد من البلدان فقيها رضوا قوله وقبلوا حكمه. ١٩٦ - قلت: فمثل الفقهاء الذين إذا أجمعوا كانوا حجة أرأيت إن كانوا عشرة فغاب واحد أو حضر ولم يتكلم أتجعل التسعة إذا اجتمعوا أن يكون قولهم حجة؟. ١٩٧ - قال: فإن قلت: لا.