I am confused regarding the ittifaaq/ijmaa’ of the majority of Ulama. The Ulama are saying that since the majority is of the view that stunning animals is permissible, this will be the official ruling of the Shariah. There are other similar issues of difference as well. They say that since the majority is of the view that digital pictures are permissible, therefore, this will be the fatwa of the Shariah. They compare their ittifaaq with the Ijmaa’ of the Fuqaha of former times. Please read the Fatwa of Darul Uloom Karachi. Please explain the issue of the ittifaaq (consensus) of the majority which I believe is being misinterpreted by the Ulama of the day.
ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):
1) The consensus (ittifaaq) of the majority of molvis on baatil, is the ittifaaq of the shayaateenul ins. It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the consensus of today’s ulama-e-soo’ with the Ittifaaq of the Jamhoor of the Mutaqaddimeen era.
Ittifaaq of the majority on an issue which is explicitly in conflict with the Nass of the Shariah, is ittifaaq on shaitaaniyat and baatil.
In the absence of a directive of the Shariah – in other words, if there is no Nass of the Mutaqaddimeen on an issue which is a recent development, then the issue will simply be referred to the principles of the Shariah. If it is found to be in conflict with these principles, the fatwa of impermissibility will be issued. If there is no conflict, then obviously it will be permissible.
On a new expediency of this nature, e.g., performing Salaat in a plane, so-called suicide bombing as a tactic of Jihad, printing the Qur’aan Majeed with machinery in which the ink used has alcohol, and no other ink is available, kangaroo meat, etc., etc., there is no Nass from the Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen. The Ulama will study such issues in the light of similar mansoos juziyaat and the usool of the Shariah, and issue their Fatwa.
In matters of this kind, there is bound to be ikhtilaaf-e-raai’ (difference of opinion). It is not permissible to be bigoted and dogmatic and to claim that only ‘my’ view is the Haqq and the view of the others is baatil. But on issues on which there exists explicit rulings of the Shariah which have been transmitted from the era of Khairul Quroon, the slightest divergence will be intolerable and unacceptable. Opinion and the consensus of the majority of donkey-molvis and sheikhs are the effluvium of the nafs and the stunt of Iblees.
Furthermore, the majority view in cases of this nature, i.e. new expediencies, being consensus of the jamhoor Ulama-e-Haqq of the time, will be acceptable while at the same time, this ittifaaq of the Jamhoor of the current era will not be binding on the dissenting Ulama. However, on issues where there exists Nass of the Shariah, any view which is in conflict, be it the opinion of the so-called jamhoor of the time, will be mardood and mal-oon, and those who follow such baatil ittifaaq will come within the scope of the Qur’aanic castigation: “They take their ahbaar and ruhbaan as gods besides Allah and also (they take as god) Maseeh, the son of Maryam.”
This type of baatil ittifaaq is on an issue such as stunning animals prior to Thabah. Thabah is Mansoos Alayh. The full tareeqah of Thabah, from beginning to end, is Mansoos. Changing any mas’alah in this system without valid Shar’i cause is baatil and haraam. It will be Tahreef-e-Shariah (interpolating and mutilating the Shariah). In terms of the Nass of the Shariah, inflicting injury on an animal prior to Thabah is haraam. The infliction of injury is of genus significance. It covers all forms of injury. Even the act of sharpening the knife in front of the animal which is to be slaughtered is prohibited. When such an indirect act which is not a physical act of injury is also prohibited, then to a far greater degree will the brutality of stunning be prohibited.
Now, since infliction of injury is haraam by the Nass of the Shariah, the ittifaaq of a whole world of moron molvis will be baatil, and it will be haraam for even the awaam (the masses) to submit and follow. They will come within the criticism stated in the aforementioned Qur’aanic aayat.
Ittifaaq of Jamhoor never means validity of an ittifaaq which is in conflict with any Nass of the Shariah or which abrogates a Shar’i hukm. Any ittifaaq of the jamhoor molvis of this era which gives precedence to a method or concept of the kuffaar over and above the method ordained by the Shariah, is kufr. Precisely for this reason has Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) said that approval of stunning is tantamount to kufr.
2) We have as yet not read the fatwa of Darul Uloom Karachi. However, we must say that the fatwas issued by this institution are not necessarily reliable. They condone sareeh (explicit) haraam practices, and they are adept in the art of ta’weel baatil. We have criticized Mufti Taqi on several issues.
The episodes which had transpired on the demise of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had spawned a sharp difference among the Sahaabah. Some tribes refused to pay Zakaat. The Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (Radhiyallahu anhu) resolved to wage war against them. In fact he declared kaafir those who differentiated between Salaat and Zakaat. Due to the extremely delicate situation and the fact that attacks on Madinah appeared to be imminent, there was Ittifaaq of all the Sahaabah including Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) on accepting the terms of deniers of Zakaat, and that jihad should not be waged against them.
Opposing this solid Ittifaaq of all the Sahaabah, was the solitary dissenting voice of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) who declared with an unseen and an unheard of vehemence and determination that he, alone would wage jihad against the deniers of Zakaat if the Sahaabah did not concur with him. Observing this wonderful state of determination, all the Sahaabah, abandoned their Ittifaaq and wholeheartedly accepted the view of the Khalifah.
The second episode pertains to the army of Hadhrat Usaamah Bin Zaid (Radhiyallahu anhu). During his maradhul maut (last illness), Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered the army under Hadhrat Usaamah (Radhiyallahu anhu) to wage jihad against the Romans. Whilst the army was on the outskirts of Madinah, the news of Rasulullah’s demise arrived. Thus, the army halted.
Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and all the elite Sahaabah of the Ansaar and Muhaajireen unanimously advised against this expedition. They said that with the departure of the army, Madinah surrounded by hostile, rebellious, murtaddeen tribes, would be exposed and defenceless. Again, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) rejected this Ittifaaq of the Sahaabah and ordered the army to march against the Romans. He declared with the greatest of confidence and vigour that under no circumstances whatsoever would he cancel the expedition.
These two episodes confirm that Ittifaaq of the Jamhoor is not in the same category as the Nass of the Qur’aan. When rejection of such a powerful Ittifaaq was valid, what does the intelligence and Imaan of the Mu’min dictate regarding the ittifaaq of a world full of moron mercenary molvis, sheikhs, cranks and quacks who betray Islam, Allah Ta’ala, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Ummah? The ittifaaq of such a stercoraceous ‘jamhoor’ is baatil effluvium manufactured for scuttling the Shariah. Allah Ta’ala has granted the Ulama-e-Haqq sound and nooraani intelligence, and such baseerat which enable them to understand and differentiate between Haqq and baatil. An ittifaaq of a jamhoor of morons will be rejected. It simply has no validity in the Shariah.