Scholars are well aware that within the Ummah there exist certain individuals and groups who, in their claim of “love for the Companions,” have gone so far as to stand at the very door of “enmity toward the Household (Ahl al-Bayt).” Consequently, in the view of such people, neither the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt is considered authoritative, nor is their statement regarded as a criterion of religion; whereas, in contrast, the individual opinion of every Companion—even an obscure one—is deemed by them to be a “decisive proof.”
A clear example of this can be found in the book al-Muhadhdhab fī ʿIlm Uṣūl al-Fiqh al-Muqāran by a teacher at the well-known Salafi institution, Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh.
The author presents several theoretical issues (hypothetical questions) and then records the positions of the various schools.
Consider the following:
Issue Four: Is the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Prophet’s progeny (ʿitrah) a proof?
He then writes in response:
On this issue there are two positions. One position is that of all Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah (Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafiʿi, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal).
The second position is that of the Shiʿa.
He records the Sunni position as follows:
The first position: That their consensus is not a proof.
That is, he states that, according to them, the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) is categorically not a binding proof.
He then adds:
“This is the position of the majority of scholars, and it is the correct position.”
Thereafter, regarding the other party, he writes:
The second position: That their consensus is a proof.
This is the position of Shiʿi scholars concerning the Household of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): they hold that the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger (ﷺ) is authoritative.
He further explains:
“This is the view adopted by the Imami and Zaydi Shiʿa. By Ahl al-Bayt and the ʿitrah they mean: ʿAli ibn Abi Talib, his two sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and his wife Fatimah—may Allah be pleased with them all.”
Thus, according to them, the Shiʿa Imami and Zaydi schools regard the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt as a proof.
At this point, the reader may note that in the same book the author then raises another issue concerning the Companions: Is the statement of a Companion a proof? He answers as follows:
The first position: The statement of a Companion is an absolute proof—meaning, whether it conforms to analogical reasoning (qiyās) or does not conform to it; and whether the Companion is among the Rightly Guided Caliphs or among others besides them.
He then adds:
“This is the position of most of the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Hanbalis, and many of the Shafiʿis. It is also the position of Imam al-Shafiʿi in both his earlier and later views, as has been established.”
This is not merely my own opinion; rather, it is the view of most Hanafis, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and the majority of the Shafiʿis—whether from the earlier or later period.
Al-Muhadhdhab fī ʿIlm Uṣūl al-Fiqh al-Muqāran, vol. 1, pp. 953/972
