a hadith, or over some scholarly question, the judge would not be entitled to rule against him, by consensus, for the two are adversaries in the matter they dispute. A judge may not rule against his own adversary, by consensus.

The eighteenth ground:

These questions are discussed in the books of scholars among the followers of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and others. Yet these men have ruled on them contrary to the positions of the four imams, without knowing the positions of their own imams or those of other imams and scholars, or what the Sunnah and transmitted reports indicate. It is well known that such a ruling is invalid by consensus. Whoever among them claims that his ruling represents the scholars’ position should put that claim in his own handwriting and set out what the scholars have stated concerning these questions—the points of consensus and disagreement, and the evidence for them—so that it may become clear that the position he advances in opposition to the mufti’s answer is invalid. Otherwise, it is known that they have ruled contrary to the truth, and this is invalid by consensus.

The nineteenth ground:

Even if one of them knew his own school’s position, he would not be entitled to impose it upon the scholars of the Muslims, nor to say, “You must issue fatwas according to my school, and any school that differs from mine is invalid,” without establishing his school’s position through evidence from the Book and the Sunnah.

Were he to say, “Whoever differs from my school, his position must be rejected, and anyone issuing fatwas according to it must be prohibited from doing so and imprisoned,” his claim would itself be rejected, and he would deserve punishment for it, by consensus. How much more so when his ruling does not represent the position of any of the four imams! Rather, the fatwa issued by the mufti accords with consensus, unlike the position of the one who rejected his statement and contravened consensus.