a basis for invalidating the words of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. All of this is self-evidently false.

If it is said, “It may only be cited as evidence once consensus is known to exist,” then the texts’ force as evidence becomes dependent upon consensus, which itself contradicts consensus. The texts would then cease to have any force as evidence, since consensus alone would count, while the text would have no effect.

If it is said, “It may be cited as evidence when no disagreement is known,” then the opinion of a single member of the Muslim community would invalidate the text’s force as evidence. This too contradicts consensus, and its falsity is a matter of self-evident knowledge in Islam.

(Fifth:

Either the text’s applicability is conditional upon the entire Muslim community believing the act to be forbidden, or the belief of the scholars is sufficient. If the former is intended, one could not cite hadiths containing threats of punishment as evidence that an act is forbidden until one knew that the entire Muslim community—including those growing up in remote desert regions and those who had only recently embraced Islam—believed it to be forbidden. No Muslim, indeed no rational person, would say this, for it is impossible to ascertain that this condition has been fulfilled.

If it is said, “The belief of all the scholars is sufficient,” the response is: You have only stipulated scholarly consensus to avoid having the threat of punishment encompass any scholar qualified to exercise independent judgment, even if he is mistaken. Yet precisely the same consideration applies to a layperson who has not heard the evidence that the act is forbidden. For