Ijma
&
Taqlid

You know,

the Messenger used to send his Companions away to distant places,

to teach others what they knew,

and to try to show them how to live in the Deen.

And being so far away from the Messenger, much of the time

they had to rely on their own opinions as to what was right and wrong,

and how to define the rules of their local society.

And of course, we know that they based their opinions in the first instances

simply on the Qur'an, God's Message,

the expression in words of God's guidance for humankind,

relevant to all times and places.

But the Qur'an contains very few verses that required specific acts from people.

It is mainly a Book of Guidance. A Guidance for the God-aware.

So if there was no specific guidance from those parts of the Message that they knew

of what had been revealed at the time,

they based their decisions on what they had seen of the example of the Messenger,

an expression of human understanding of that Message

as it applied in the language,

culture, understanding, and personal lives

of the society into which it was revealed.

But the Sunnah,

the way of life lived by the Messenger as an example to his community,

much more than legal rulings

would be understood as a simple recollection of the Messenger's Way of Life,

his mercy, his forgiveness,

his way of approaching justice,

as that would surely be more useful in dealing with unfamiliar situations

for which there were no previous laws applicable.

So when new judgements and decisions had to be made,

those responsible would discuss things amongst themselves and their communities,

and try to come up with an agreed course of action.

That's what the Messenger would do if there was no Divine Guidance to follow,

he would consult with others,

recognising that what is agreed upon by all

is the correct way to act in such a situation.

And this understanding of the confidence that can be felt

in what the whole group can agree upon,

the coming together of the community in agreement,

is known in Arabic as Ijma

Now we know that just because everyone agrees on something

doesn't mean it's right.

Remember,

once upon a time people agreed with the ideas and understandings of the jahiliyya.

But the idea of ijma was based on the assumption

that for the sake of preserving a true and living understanding

of what was and wasn't Islamic,

God would never let the muslim community agree on an error.

And there are things about which the community has agreed,

altogether, from the beginning.

The Message gives no details as to how to make Sala,

but apart from a few minor differences

in ways of standing or sitting,

all the millions and millions of muslims in the world

make their sala in virtually identical ways.

The words and movements of a rakah,

the number of rakahs in each sala,

and the times of day that they are made.

All these have been handed down,

passed on from person to person, around the globe

and through 1400 years of history.

What we have here and now with the Sala

is guaranteed by all the muslim ummah

in agreement

to be a direct link to the way of prayer

that the Messenger shared with his companions.

But as far as I can tell,

apart from a very few things like that,

the muslim community has never managed to agree much about anything,

and that's any three muslims in a room,

let alone the muslim ummah as a whole.

The Qur'an encourages curiosity,

the exploration of difference,

and the gentle debate of Da'wa.

ikhtilaf, The ethics of disagreement, were written down

specifically to guide people in their way of arguing.

But apart from those foundations of muslim culture, such as the Sala

that are the bedrock of agreement in the ummah,

scholars and lawyers often held widely differing opinions,

and argued their different opinions with good grace,

respect, good manners

and loving kindness.

But no-one really thought that everyone's opinion was equal.

Some were so much more than equal in their knowledge and intellect

that schools of thought would cluster around their names.

And as the muslim ummah expanded around the globe,

the idea of just who was to be consulted

and who had to agree with whom,

was narrowed down considerably.

But the agreement of a group of scholars

is not like

the ijma of the ummah about sala.

Ijma, as part of the Shari'ah

involves a lot less people.

So now when we use the word ijma

we really have to think about exactly what we mean,

whether we see agreement

as just being good practice in the community,

or an agreement

giving some kind of religious authority,

some even saying Divine Authority.

And even given the assumption

that God wouldn't let the community

agree in something wrong,

we have to ask

'Are the same things always right and wrong

in different times and places?'.

In the absence of unanimity, is it not possible that ijma

only applies to those who agree to a decision?

In which case,

does agreement only apply locally in time and place?

Are agreements only relevant within their own political power context?

For those who want power have been known to try to control the law,

and even see themselves as above it.

But the Shari'ah can only have earthly authority

if our understanding of Shari'ah is associated with earthly power.

Because the Shari'ah that can exist within the minds of humankind

can never lay claim to knowing the Will of God,

which would be needed for Divine Authority.

So the authority of Shari'ah laws

comes from the link with earthly power,

not from the underlying requirement for Shari'ah

to which we voluntarily submit.

But as legal requirements became more complex,

with large numbers earning a living from the law,

jurists could easily come under the sway of power,

and be tempted to let it influence their decisions

one way or another,

from permissiveness to severity.

And over the years

jurists were seen to make decisions that

fluctuated between extreme leniency and extreme hardship,

until many in the community feared for the survival of the Deen,

and began to put their trust only in the scholars of old,

and reject all new opinions.

Until finally, 450 years after the death of the Messenger,

Imam al-Haramayn claimed that there was a consensus agreement amongst the scholars

that from then on all Sunni muslims had to follow one of the four classical Imams.

And about this time it was suggested

that it might be better to leave decision making in the hands of the qualified.

This was really the birth of what we now know as Taqlid.

Taqlid came to mean the appointment of people in office

to make decisions, based on tradition,

or the accepted way of doing things,

and also meaning the agreement of the public

to accept those decisions.

In religious matters

it is the opposite of ijtihad,

the pursuit of original answers to questions.

In law it is the reliance upon

the decisions and precedents set in the past.

And as it was now considered unneccessary

to go back to the original sources of the law,

with Ibn al-Salah even claiming

that the classical imams

were better equipped to make legal rulings

than the Companions themselves,

soon the intellectual aspirations of much of the muslim world

were reduced to little more than studying the works of previous jurists

and making comments in the margins.

But as it grew over the years, the structure of Shari'ah,

those comments in the margins, became so vast and complex

it required specialists to even find a way through it.

Only they were capable of accessing the knowledge.

Only they could understand God's Will,

and pass it on to those who followed,

obliged to accept their judgement,

bound to their decisions by Taqlid.

Once, sharia was taught by those who were also scientists,

doctors, geographers and historians,

as well as having knowledge of the law.

Nowadays the law would seem to be so vast

as to be overwhelming

and all consuming,

even as a full time job,

that scholars need to beware of getting lost amidst their law books

and losing touch with the world that unfolds around them every day.

And when the ways of forming moral judgements

are seen as beyond the reach of those to whom they apply,

do you not just end up with a kind of priesthood

telling people what God says they should do?

And experience suggests

you need to be extremely careful

when listening to people who are asking you to trust them

Especially when they say they are only telling you

what God is telling you to do?