Assalamu aleykum ikhwan I have a question I know that a lot of scholars said that it's allowed to marry off your little daughter without her consent but is it allowed that the girl when she becomes an adult to cancel that marriage what does the ijma of the scholars say about it?

Scholars state that an apostate is defined as one who has left Islam and adopted a different religion, and that such a person is to executed, even if he does not fight against the Muslims. I have a question about how this law on apostasy is reconciled with the following ahadith: > لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله إلا بإحدى ثلاث رجل زنى بعد إحصان فإنه يرجم ورجل خرج محاربا لله ورسوله فإنه يقتل أو يصلب أو ينفى من الأرض أو يقتل نفسا فيقتل بها > > “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; **one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle**, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.” > > [Sunan Abi Dawud 4353. Grade: Sahih Al-Albani](https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4353) > لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا بإحدى ثلاث خصال زان محصن يرجم أو رجل قتل رجلا متعمدا فيقتل أو رجل يخرج من الإسلام يحارب الله عز وجل ورسوله فيقتل أو يصلب أو ينفى من الأرض > > The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: "It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: An adulterer who had been married, who should be stoned to death; a man who killed another man intentionally, who should be killed; and **a man who left Islam and waged war against Allah, the Might and Sublime, and His Messenger**, who should be killed, or crucified, or banished from the land." > > [Sunan an-Nasa'i 4048. Grade: Sahih Darussalam](https://sunnah.com/nasai:4048) Specifically I would like the following points to be addressed: - The first hadith states that there are only 3 reasons for which a Muslim can be killed, it does not mention apostasy rather it only mentions adultery, murder and one who "fights with Allah and His Apostle". The third one might be understood to mean one who fights against the Muslims. So how can it be considered permissible to execute apostates who abstain from fighting, since they are not among the three exceptions? - The second hadith mentions leaving Islam but pairs it with "waging war against Allah and His Messenger" so it might be argued that a person can only be killed if he leaves Islam *and also* fights against Muslims. - The ahadith also mentions that one who fights against Allah and His Apostle can be exiled or banished instead of being executed. But an apostate is not exiled according to Shariah law, rather he must be executed. - It could be that apostasy was understood back then to mean military treason, or that leaving Islam or changing one's religion was considered synonymous with fighting against the Muslims. My question is: **How do those who believe that any apostasy is punishable by death reconcile their belief with the above ahadith?**

It's clearly proved from hadith of bukhari that not all companions have Ijma to caliphate of Abu bakr when he delivered the sermon after becoming caliph. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240 Imam Shafaee said all scholars need to agree for ijma. Sk. Utheymeen has similar view. > Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said: In linguistic terms, ijmaa‘ means resolve and agreement. In shar‘i terms, it means the agreement of the mujtahids of this ummah after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on a shar‘i ruling. By saying “agreement” we exclude differences of opinion; if there is a difference of opinion, even from one person, then we cannot say that there is ijmaa‘. Source : https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/201682 I see contradiction between election of Abu bakr and view of later scholars including imam ash shafaee. Hence the question is the consensus of all scholars a must condition for ijma

Salaam. I have a question about difference of opinions amongst scholars. Let's say the majority of scholar view a certain action as haram but a minority of scholars view that action as halal,and I find that the arguments of minority are stronger. Would it then be permissible for me to follow the minority opinion? In addition, if it turns out that the minority view is incorrect, would the sin be held against me? Jazakhallah.

I've read these questions and their answers on consensus (*ijma*), forming a consensus through *ijtehad*, and opinion: - https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/12254/15498 - https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/427/15498 - https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/101/15498 I'm wondering about when there is no ijma among scholars but there are a majority of scholars who, given some hadith, think the ruling should be X and a minority who believe it should be Y, but there is still *some* agreement. To come up with a silly example (because I've seen this several times on different topics and don't want to get answeres sidetracked by a particular topic), the scholars find a hadith that you should eat baked beans on toast on a Sunday. The majority say it means you must only eat baked beans on toast on a Sunday and *only* on Sunday but the minority think it's good but not obligatory on the Sunday bit but say you can also eat it on other days too. What is the responsibility of the non-scholar who follows their madhhab? - Should they go with the majority? - Should they pick from the opinion they think is best? - Should they avoid following either opinion? (if possible) Perhaps there's a mechanism for this I'm unaware of, like the madhhab giving out different levels of advice? Any insight on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Is it haram to follow the fatwas of contexualist/modernist scholars? Is contexualisation allowed when interpreting verses? One example is Khaled Abou El Fadl who issued a fatwa some years ago saying that Muslim women in the West do not have to wear the hijab. Is he being sinful, or can you follow this? If you follow this, are you being sinful? But would you regard him as a scholar, does he have the ability to say stuff like this? I've seen stuff that mentions contexualisation. Like the Sword Verse (9:5). Groups like ISIS take the literal meaning to commit such acts, but we know that this is meant for the Arabs at the time? There also have been fatwas issued for European Muslims during Ramadan when the number of fasting hours have been quite long, that they may break their fast earlier. But some people within these communities disagree and fast for the all of the long hours. I am asking whether or not it is haram to follow such fatwas, as I am unsure about the validity of such things. Some scholars agree, lots of scholars disagree. As normal people we don't have the ability to interpret these kind of things correctly, so when two different groups of 'scholars' issue fatwas that are contradictory, it leads to a state of confusion. They can both be compelling but which one is correct? This is why I'm asking the question.

It was reported in fatawa collection of Taymiyyah , that Abu-al-Hussain Ahmed ibn Jaafar ibn al-Munady said that there is a consensus about the sphericity of earth; fatawa collection (25/195). He also said in another fatwa that Ibn-Hazm , and Ibn al-Jawzi said that there is a consensus too; fatawa collection (6/586). About what Ibn Hazm said, that there is a consensus is reliable, because he mentioned that in one of his book (Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nihal 2/78 "الفصل في الملل والأهواء والنحل") Could this be considered an Islamic consensus, or some level of consensus? The full article with sources is on Islam Q&A .

New and complicated problems arise every now and then. They are almost bound with the time. In case an issue arises, Is there any Muslim body/school who can resolve the issue, by offering their own ruling? How well their ruling is accepted across different countries and among Muslims? I would like to know Sunni School of thought as well Shia schools of thoughts.

In the context of Muslims touching pork, an IslamWeb fatwa writes: > Scholars of Islam (Ulamah ) state that touching impurities directly is unlawful except for a necessity. I was unsuccessful at finding another, more reliable reference for this. **Question**: Is there a scholarly consensus that "touching impurities directly is unlawful except for a necessity"? The obvious searches site:islamqa.org touching impurities ; site:islamweb.net touching impurities ; site:islamqa.info touching impurities didn't allow me to verify the consensus. Although the fatawa it comes back with talk about what to do when one touches a wet dog, thereby becoming impure, but without forbidding touching a wet dog, which makes me doubt the IslamWeb claim.

This Q came up as I learnt about Sheikh Mustapha Rashid’s fatwa about hijab not being compulsory going against current Sunni consensus. Since Ijma is a core Sunni principle, I wonder if there is any precedence in Sunni Islam about fringe ideas gaining eventual acceptance despite initial controversy. I already understood that Quran & Sunnah is the highest authority. What I am specifically wondering about is in matters where they are vague, thus having to resort to Ijma. I am also not looking for trivial khilaf fiqh issues such as prohibition against owning dogs or Qunut prayers, but rather on major tenets of Sunni Islam, especially those that differentiates it from other sects it deems to be outside of AhlulSunnah wa Jamaah, e.g. ahmadiyyah, baha’i, shiah. For example, i understood there are disagreements between Ibn Sina vs Imam Ghazali vs Ibn Rushd. Was any of them backed by the majority consensus at that time? Did the views of Imam Ash-Shaari and Imam Al-Maturidi begin as a fringe idea contested by most of their contemporaries? How dominant was mu’tazila among scholars during their political supremacy?

What is the difference between *Ijma' on the transmission* (الإجماع على النقل) and *Ijma' on the opinion*? (إجماع في الرأي). Apparently, they are sub-categories of Ijma (الإجماع) but what is the precise difference between the two? **Update:** This is where I found the following text > أما **الإجماع في الرأي** فليس بحجة عند أكثر الأصوليين، وعند طائفة كبيرة من > المالكية > ... > أما **الإجماع على النقل**، فهو ليس بحجة عند غير المالكية، واتفق المالكيون > على حجيته > ... Translation: > "As far as **the ijma' on opinion** is concerned, it is not a *hujjah* > according to the majority of the scholars of *Usul* and a considerable > group among Malikites...whereas **the ijma' on transmission** is not a > *hujjah* according to non-malikites and there is a consensus among malikites on it being the *hujjah* ..."

I have heard Ijma & Qias are applicable if there is nothing specific in The Quran or Hadith. Is that true?? So my question is what are Ijma and qiyaas, and when are they applicable?