the Muslims would not have acquiesced in his doing so; for that would mean acquiescing in one of the gravest wrongs, and the Muslim community is protected from unanimously agreeing upon such a thing.

It has been reported from a group—including Īsā ibn Abān and other proponents of speculative theology and juristic reasoning among the Mu‘tazilah and the followers of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik—that consensus may abrogate the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. We used to interpret their statements as meaning that consensus indicates the existence of an abrogating scriptural text. But we then found someone reporting that they regarded consensus itself as the abrogating authority. If that is what they meant, this position permits Muslims to alter their religion after their Prophet, just as Christians claim that the Messiah authorized their religious scholars to prohibit whatever they considered beneficial to prohibit, and to permit whatever they considered beneficial to permit. This is not the religion of the Muslims, nor did the Companions consider themselves entitled to do such a thing. Anyone who believes that the Companions regarded this as lawful must be called upon to repent, as must others who hold similar views. A judge or mufti may, however, exercise independent legal judgment: if he is correct, he receives two rewards; if he errs, he receives one reward.

Whatever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prescribed as “legislation contingent upon a particular cause” is prescribed only when that cause exists. An example is giving to those whose hearts are to be reconciled, which is established by the Quran and Sunnah. Some people thought this had been abrogated because of the report that ‘Umar stated that Allah had made it unnecessary to win people over: whoever wished could believe, and whoever wished could disbelieve. This assumption is mistaken. Rather, in his time ‘Umar had no need to give to those whose hearts were to be reconciled, so he ceased doing so because there was no need for it, not because it had been abrogated. This is comparable to supposing that, at certain times, there were no wayfarers, debtors, or others in similar categories.