contains a stern denunciation of the act, a denunciation that is supposed to tell us the act is forbidden; yet that conclusion is categorically false.

Fourth: This assumption also entails that none of these hadiths may be cited as proof until one first knows that the entire ummah has unanimously agreed on the particular case in question. Consequently, the earliest generation itself would have had no right to use them as evidence; indeed, even the very person who heard the hadith from the Prophet’s own lips—peace and blessings be upon him—would not have been allowed to rely on it. If someone were to hear such a hadith, observe that many scholars act on it, and find no opposing report, he would still be obliged to refrain from acting upon it until he searched the farthest reaches of the earth to see whether anyone disagreed with it—just as he is not permitted to claim consensus on any issue without first conducting an exhaustive investigation.

On this view, the mere presence of a single dissenting mujtahid would invalidate the appeal to a hadith of the Messenger of Allah, so that one person’s statement could nullify the Prophet’s words while his agreement would ratify them. And if that lone individual were in error, his very mistake would still cancel out the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—something that is patently impossible.

For if someone were to say, “The hadith may only be used as evidence after we have verified that there is consensus,” then