There is no disagreement about the Sunnah being one of the sources for Islamic legislation. It holds a position secondary to that of the Qur’ân in that the Qur’ân takes precedence in providing proof for legislation. When a jurist looks for a ruling on a certain matter, he looks to the Qur’ân first. If he finds the desired injunction therein, he applies it. If not, he takes recourse to the Sunnah. This order of precedence is indicated by the following discussion that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had with Mu`âdh:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked: “How will you judge if the position is given to you?”
Mu`âdh said: “I will judge according to the Book of Allah.”
He then asked: “And if you do not find it in the Book of Allah?”
Mu`âdh responded: “Then I will judge according to the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him).”
3. Juristic Consensus: This refers to the unanimous agreement of the jurists of a given era on a legal ruling. It makes no difference whether the jurists are from the era of the Companions after the death of the Messenger (peace be upon him) or any era thereafter.
Consensus is a very strong source of evidence for establishing the injunctions of Islamic Law. It comes after the Sunnah in rank. The proof for its validity is drawn from a number of verses and hadîth that show the unanimous statement of the people of knowledge is in itself a valid proof. The verdicts arrived at by consensus are, in and of themselves, always drawn from the Qur’ân and Sunnah, even though it is possible that the hadîth that formed the basis of the jurists’ consensus did not reach us. This is because it is inconceivable that the reliable scholars of Islam would ever come to agreement on an issue on the basis of personal inclination without there being a proof from the sacred texts establishing it. For this reasons, scholars of later generations, when investigating the possibility of consensus, look for the presence of the consensus and the reliability of how it has been reported without concerning themselves with the textual evidence behind it. If it were necessary to look for the textual proof for every case where consensus took pace, then juristic consensus would effectively cease to be a valid proof in and of itself.
