Hassan Ilyas Sahabs Post On Tawatur
Or was the status of the sacrifice also transmitted?
The books of ahadith also contain historical events but because of the single source of the info, ahadith are considered less reliable as compared to what we get thru ijma n tawatur. How can something less reliable correct something more reliable? This is where i am confused.
If we find that two major fuqha disagree on a certain practice, as is evident in our classical fiqh books, then we know that historically ummah was divided on that practice. This violates the condition of ijma and tawatur, hence the practice can’t be considered as a sunnah. Sunnah is transmitted in such a strong manner that there’s no room for any disagreements. We may still spot some individuals disagreeing here and there due to misunderstanding or lack of knowledge, but overall such a huge population of people agree on sunnah that their conspiring on any matter is practically inconceivable. Similarly, if we have an inclination that a certain practice was initiated at a later time, regardless of the source and reliability of our information, we can refer back to our books of fiqh to find out whether or not they mention that practice. If they don’t, then we have evidence that such practice was never a generally accepted practice among the ummah. While the books of fiqh discuss things from the perspective of jurisprudence, and we may agree or disagree with their stance on various things due to various reasons, they also serve as excellent comprehensive resources on the practices of the ummah. Fiqh is a discipline that takes practices already found in the ummah, analyzes those practices, and explains their legal aspects. Ijma and tawatur are the strongest means of transmission of any knowledge through history. The key point in this method of transmission is that at any point in time we can trace back any corruption that might have occurred along the way. My respectable teacher Sajid Hameed sahab often uses an example to explain the concept of ijma and tawatur. He says that if you want to try out breaking ijma and tawatur, you can run a simple experiment yourself by conspiring with your local masjid’s imam. For the sake of this experiment, you can ask the imam to start saying Allahu Akbar instead of Samiallah Holiman Hamidah when rising from ruku in a namaz. There’s absolutely no chance that this corruption will go unnoticed without correction by people praying behind the imam. If you can’t change such a small practice at a local masjid, there’s no way that a practice transmitted through ijma and tawatur can be corrupted in presence of millions of people all over the world. I hope that it helps.
I am aware of the history, but I think that you’re completely missing the point and looking at fiqh from the perspective of interpretation and application of laws. The cross check is only used to ascertain if a practice was accepted by all schools and the masses at the time. Do you really believe that if one faqeeh would insert a new practice into the religion, all other scholars would simply accept that practice as legitimate? That is inconceivable. I’m not saying that one would not be able to add an innovation, but another faqeeh would surely disagree, subsequently violating the conditions of ijma and tawatur.