independent source of the laws of Islām. It is essentially reasoning or exercise of judgment (Ijtihād), with this distinction that it is Ijtihād on which all or the majority of the jurists of a certain generation are agreed. It is even admitted that, barring the Ijmā‘ of the Companions, the Ijmā‘ of one generation of Muslims may be set aside by that of another. The fact, however, is that if Ijmā‘ is taken to mean the consensus of opinion of all the jurists of a certain generation of Muslims, it has never been practicable after perhaps the early days of the Companions. The Muslims having spread far and wide and living, as they did, in distant places, could not all be occupied with the discussion of a certain question at one and the same time. Even in one country the same question need not occupy the attention of all the jurists simultaneously. There is, however, no denying the fact, that if many of them are agreed on a certain question, their opinion would carry greater weight than that of a single one, but even the opinion of many, or of all, is not infallible. Ijmā‘, after all, is only Ijtihād on a wider basis, and like the latter it is always open to correction.

To differ with majority is no sin

It may be added here that the sense in which the word Ijmā‘ is commonly used nowadays is quite erroneous, for it is taken to mean the opinion of the majority, and it is generally thought that it is a sin on the part of a Muslim to differ with the views of the majority. But honest difference of opinion, instead of being a sin, is called a mercy by the Holy Prophet who is reported to have said: “The differences of my people are a mercy.”12 Difference of opinion is called a mercy because it is only through encouraging it that the reasoning faculty is developed, and the truth ultimately discovered. There were many differences of opinion among the Companions, and there were also matters on which a single man used to express boldly his dissent from all the rest. For example, Abū Dharr was alone in holding that to have wealth in one’s possession was a sin. His opinion was that no one should amass wealth, and that as soon as one came into possession of it, one must distribute it to the poor. All the other Companions were opposed to this view, yet the authority of the majority was never quoted against him, nor did anyone dare say that he deserved to be