Is the Consensus of the Majority a Proof?
There are certain notions so devoid of merit that no serious and engaged individual would wish to waste time on them. One such notion has been circulating on social media for several years, claiming that “the consensus of the majority is a proof,” “opposing the majority is misguidance,” “truth is dependent on the majority’s opinion,” and “deviating from the majority’s path risks the loss of faith,” among other assertions. I have consistently dismissed this as unworthy of attention, considering it just another part of the flood of nonsense that social media often brings. However, today, a similar post was shared in a WhatsApp group, and as usual, I ignored it. Unexpectedly, a respected scholar addressed me regarding it. Given my current preoccupations, I am naturally averse to such trivialities. Yet, I pondered that if scholars begin to consider such fallacies worthy of attention, it becomes necessary to address them. Otherwise, a new innovation might take root in the religion. In Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, there is a narration from the Mother of the Believers, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever introduces into this matter of ours something that is not from it, it is rejected.” Fearing that this irrational notion might become part of the pure religion of Allah, I have decided to pen this article. May Allah grant us all the ability to follow the truth.
To fully answer the question posed in the title of this article, I will divide my discussion into three parts: the obligatory response, the cause of confusion, and the researched answer.
Obligatory Response:
Those who repeatedly raise this issue are generally adherents of one of the four schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali). In the Indian subcontinent, since the majority are Hanafi, examples will be given from the Hanafi school. The first question to these individuals is: if the consensus of the majority is indeed a proof, then what justifies following the Hanafi school? You should follow the opinion in every matter that aligns with the majority. According to Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), the time for Dhuhr prayer ends at the second shadow, whereas according to the majority of jurists and hadith scholars, it ends at the first shadow. If the consensus of the majority is truly a proof, then justice demands that you abandon Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion and follow the majority.
According to Imam Abu Hanifa, Witr is obligatory, while the majority of the Ummah considers it Sunnah. Hanafi books state that four non-emphasized Sunnah units of prayer before Isha are recommended, whereas no such practice is reported from the Companions, the Followers, or the four Imams. According to Imam Abu Hanifa, the opening Takbir can be performed with any phrase that glorifies God, while the majority of the Ummah disagrees. According to Imam Abu Hanifa, intention is not a condition for the validity of ablution, whereas the majority of the Ummah holds that ablution without intention is invalid. According to Imam Abu Hanifa, purification is obligatory for Tawaf, while the majority considers it a condition. According to Imam Abu Hanifa, a woman’s marriage without a guardian is valid, whereas the majority requires a guardian.
Every school of thought has hundreds of such issues where the majority’s opinion is disregarded. If the majority’s opinion were obligatory to follow, why do these schools persist in their own views?
Cause of Confusion:
One might ask, if this matter is so clear, how did some people become confused? The answer is that they did not understand the difference between narration and opinion. If a hadith is transmitted through a reliable chain of narrators, and another narration is also transmitted through a sound chain, which one should be preferred in case of disagreement? The consensus among scholars is that the narration from the chain with narrators who excel in precision and accuracy will be preferred. If the narrators of both chains are equal in precision and accuracy, then the chain with supporting evidence will be preferred. In such cases, preference is given based on the number of supporting chains. The preferred narration is termed as “preserved,” and the less preferred as “anomalous.” In the case of narration, sometimes the reason for preference can be the number of narrators.
The matter of opinion is different. In opinion, preference is based on the strength of evidence. The opinion with stronger evidence will be preferred, and the one with weaker evidence will be less preferred. Even if the entire world votes in favor of the less preferred opinion, it will remain less preferred and be termed as “anomalous.”
Critique of Majority Opinion in Islamic Jurisprudence
Investigative Response:
The investigative response is that the claim “the opinion of the majority is authoritative” is contrary to: 1) the Quran, 2) the Sunnah, 3) the consensus of the Ummah, 4) reason, and 5) the practice of the jurists of the Ummah across generations. Below is a brief explanation of these five points.
Firstly, numerous verses in the Holy Quran make it obligatory to obey God and His Messenger. For example, Surah An-Nisa, verse 59 states: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” Based on these verses, the consensus of the Ummah is that the first source of evidence is the Book of Allah, followed by the Sunnah of the Messenger. Obedience to those in authority is under the obedience to Allah and His Messenger. It is further stated, “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger,” meaning that when those in authority or the scholars of the Ummah have differing opinions on an issue, they should refer back to the Quran and Sunnah. The opinion that aligns with or is closest to the Quran and Sunnah will be considered the strongest. The Quran commands decisions to be made based on evidence, not on numbers. In fact, the Quran strongly indicates that if the majority’s opinion lacks evidence, it must be rejected, and following the majority without evidence is misguidance and deviation. The primary basis is evidence, not the number of proponents.
Secondly, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also emphasized referring first to the Quran and then to the Sunnah. In Sahih Muslim, Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “I have left among you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: the Book of Allah.” This hadith is also narrated in Mustadrak al-Hakim through Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), with the addition of the Sunnah of the Messenger. The hadith of Mu’adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) is well-known among jurists, which instructs to refer first to the Book of Allah, then to the Sunnah of the Messenger, and thereafter to analogy (Qiyas). Some narrations also instruct following the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. However, no hadith states that in case of disagreement, the majority’s opinion will be the strongest.
Thirdly, from the time of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) to the present, there is consensus among all jurists, hadith scholars, and general scholars that evidence is derived from the Quran and Sunnah. Apart from the Zahiris, general jurists also consider consensus (Ijma) and analogy (Qiyas) as evidence, but no jurist has considered the majority’s opinion as evidence. The foundational books of jurisprudence of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and other schools are available in hundreds, and they count consensus as evidence but do not consider the majority’s opinion as such.
Fourthly, reason dictates that the correct opinion is the one supported by evidence. An opinion without evidence, even if it is the consensus of the entire world, is weak and weightless. This is why democracy is not considered evidence. There is consensus among Muslim and non-Muslim scholars on this matter. Many ideas that were once universally accepted have been invalidated by scientific research. This is so evident that every member of the Tablighi Jamaat repeats it. When consultation occurs within the Tablighi Jamaat, it is always stated that the leader is not bound to decide based on the majority opinion.
Fifthly, the practice of jurists clearly shows that the majority’s opinion is not authoritative. If you examine the jurisprudential books and hadith commentaries of all schools, you will frequently find that a certain opinion is the majority’s view, yet no jurist considers the majority’s agreement as evidence. Instead, those whose opinions differ from the majority present evidence for their views, which clearly indicates that the essence of an opinion lies in its evidence, not in numbers. Otherwise, those who oppose the majority would be obliged to abandon their views, but no one has abandoned their opinion due to the majority. If the Hanafis were to start following the majority, the Hanafi school would cease to exist.
In conclusion, the call to follow the majority is an unscientific and irrational invitation. The call should always be to follow evidence. In this religion, the agreed-upon evidence is the Quran and Sunnah, and other disputed evidences include consensus and analogy. Whenever someone presents their opinion, it is obligatory for them to support it with these evidences. Merely chanting “majority, majority” instead of providing evidence is manifest misguidance and amounts to declaring the Companions, the Successors, the four Imams, and all jurists and hadith scholars (may Allah be pleased with them) as wrong.
