Ahlul Bayt Path of Salvation

wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!

Thank you for your question! As for the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt, if it is established that Allah made their consensus an infallible hujjat to be followed, it would thereby follow that the access to that hujjat should be unambiguous and clear, right? Otherwise, it would be undue hardship on a person to impose something on them that cannot be done. It would also negate Allah's Justice, Wisdom and Knowledge if He imposed something that couldn't be followed.

Now that we have established that, the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt must be accessible. As for how we are to access it and find it, the same question was posed to one of our scholars, Allama Abdur-Rahman ash-Shaayim (ra). The questioner asked how is it possible to attain the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt when the descendants of Ahl al-Bayt are scattered throughout the world and adhere to various madhaahib. The sheikh answered the question with the following:

The answer—and upon Allah we rely—lies in returning from the branches to the roots and to look at the issue, not from the end or the middle, but from the first. So, the religion and statement after Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, is that which Ali b. Abi Talib, upon him be peace, followed as well as that which al-Hasan al-Mujtaba and Ali unanimously agreed upon. It is also the consensus of the Fatimi descendants and then the consensus of the martyr, al-Hussein, with Ali and al-Hasan along with the consensus of the Fatimi descendants. And then the consensus of Zayn al-Abidīn Ali b. al-Hussein with his fathers is the consensus of the descendants of Fatima. The unanimous consent of al-Hasan b. al-Hasan with his cousin, Zayn al-Abidīn, and the rest of their fathers is the consensus of the Fatimi descendants. And the consensus of al-Hussein b. Ali al-Fakhi and his cousin, Musa al-Kazim; Muhammad and his two sons, Jāfar Sadiq and Yahya; Idris and Suleiman, the two sons of Abdullah, the Pure; Ibrahim b. Ismā`īl at-Tabataba`i, and the rest of the people of their class as well as that which they unanimously agree upon with their brothers, cousins and fathers is the consensus of the descendants of Fatima. And the consensus of Ali b. Musa ar-Riža, Muhammad b. Ibrahim at-Tabataba`i, al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm ar-Rassi, Ahmed b. Isa b. Zayd b. Ali, Hassan b. Yahya b. Hussein b. Zayd b. Ali, Abdullah b. Musa b. Abdullah the Pure and the rest of the people of the class of the descendants of Fatima. It has been authentically attributed to al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm that he said: “I have met the elders of the Prophet’s progeny among the descendants of al-Hasan and al-Hussein and there were no disagreements that occurred between them.”

Al-Qāsim, upon him be peace, was a contemporary of the following elders and nobles from the Ahl al-Bayt: Yahya b. Abdullah the Pure; Idris b. Abdullah the Pure; Musa b. Abdullah the Pure; Al-Kazim Musa b. Ja’far; his [al-Qāsim’s] father, Ibrāhīm at-Tabataba`i; his brother, Muhammad b. Ibrāhīm at-Tabataba`i; Muhammad b. Ja’far as-Sādiq; Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Zayd b. Ali; Sayyida Nafīsa bt. Al-Hasan b. Zayd; Ali b. Ja’far as-Sādiq and Idris b. Idris b. Abdullah the Pure. Yes! These sheikhs among the sheikhs of Muhammad’s family unanimously agreed with their fathers, agreed on one position in the fundamentals of religion and the primary issues of jurisprudence, and they differed in their jurisprudence among themselves in other minor issues of jurisprudence. That which was unanimously agreed upon by these Fatimi nobles in the fundamentals and branches is the infallible source which is binding according to the Book that is to not be differed from. In that upon which they disagreed in independent judgement, one can follow whichever opinion that is sufficient after caution and consideration.

So we see from his statement that the consensus must return to the first statements of the Companions of the Cloak, upon them be peace. Then we see what their descendants taught on the authority of their ancestors. He goes on to say:

Yes! We return to the author and say: Let us look at the case of Fatima’s descendants who are not Zaydi scattered in the countries and those who are not bound by a certain madhhab. Have they disagreed in their doctrines from the doctrines of their fathers with whom we have agreed on their status and good religious standing? We have said that they will never separate except in one opinion in the fundamentals and on one manifestation of worship, especially the apparent ones such as prayers. If you say that they disagreed from their fathers, we say that this is our position. If you say that they didn’t disagree with their fathers, we ask: Did you falsely assume that their ancestors were Ja’faris, Ismailis, Asharis, Shāfis and Hanifis at one time? Or do you falsely assume that the earliest elders of the Fatimi descendants—our ancestors and the ancestors of those who are scattered throughout the world—did not have the same opinion in the religion? That would mean that Abdullah the Pure had a madhhab that differed from his cousin, Ja’far as-Sādiq, and [Muhammad] an-Nafs az-Zakiyya had a madhhab that was different from his pure father, and an-Nafs ar-Ražiyya had a madhhab that was different from his father and his brother and his cousins, and al-Kāzim differed in madhhab from as-Sādiq and his cousins and formulated a new doctrine. If you say this—and I forbid you—you will not have evidence, and those Fatimi descendants scattered throughout the lands will return to you. What is the right way then? The right way—May Allah have mercy on us and you!—is that these Fatimi predecessors had a unanimous position in the religion, and their children who came after them included people of knowledge and people of ignorance. They spread throughout the countries, but the scholars among them remained on the madhhab and consensus of their fathers; this was none other than the Zaydis. As for the people of ignorance, we say that the generality among them dispersed throughout of the lands and adopted the madhhab of the people of the lands. They had many children who became scholars and jurists, but their knowledge was based on the words of other men and not on the words of their forefathers. As for the scholars—including those who preserve the madhhab of the sons of Fatima that is agreed upon by our predecessors who are the choicest of the nobles of Ahl al-Bayt, their ancestors were dispersed from Medina and scattered throughout the lands while holding on to their covenant and remaining on such. You should consider the previous eras of the elders and of the Fatimi descendants. You will find some Zaydis among the people of Kufa. You will find among the people of the Hijaz those shareefs of Mecca who authorised the declaration of “Come to the best of deeds” in the call to prayer of the Holy Mosque of Mecca during the era of their elder, Qatada b. Idris; they were Zaydis. And you will find the people of Gilan and Daylam and Tabaristan followed the Zaydi madhhab, and you will find the people of Morocco followed the Zaydi madhhab, and you will find the people of Mikhlaf as-Suleimani followed the Zaydi madhhab, and you will find the people of Yemen followed the Zaydi madhhab. These people did not follow the Zaydi madhhab because of contemptible people but rather, because of their ancestors, virtuous ones and scholars.

Another thing to consider is the following; When you survey all of the various madhaahib that exist, which is the only one that makes the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt a hujjat? The Malikis make the opinions of Medinian scholars their hujjat, the Hanafis make the opinions of Kufan scholars their hujjat, the Shafi'is and Hanbalis make solitary narrations their hujjat, the Imamis make purported statements from their imams their hujjat, the Ibadhis make the statements of their elders a hujjat. However, it is only the Zaydis that make the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt their hujjat. That withstanding, would anyone deny that the scholars of the various madhaahib had access to or at least endeavoured to access that which they established as a principle? For example, I can't say that the Maliki ulema hadn't accessed the amal of the people of Medina. Similar is the case with the rest. Therefore, why would it be problematic to assume that the Zaydis don't have access to the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt? It is a central principle of the Zaydi madhhab--its raison d'etre, if I may.

Hopefully, I have answered your questions!

And Allah knows best!

IRS