Islam

Yes, in Shakespearean times, 'Moor" referred to any non-white Muslim of any origin.

_______________________________

Moors are nomadic people of the northern shores of Africa, originally the inhabitants of Mauretania. They were chiefly of Berber and Arab descent. Most of them are Muslims.

Another answer from our community:

No, they are not the Israelites are so the people in Israel are. No, they are not in bible times; God's chosen people are the Israelites or the people of Israel.

Answer 1

Islam was spread through trading and Muslim travels from one place to another. Non Muslims in other areas felt Islam truthfulness and its good morals and conducts. People converted, and still are converting to Islam, because:

• It is a true God religion
• It calls for justice
• It respects the woman and human rights
• It defends good morals
• It honors human free will of choice and thinking
• It is against racism and discrimination based on color, culture, gender, or anything else except piety.
• It is the religion and mission of all God prophets to humanity since Adam, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Them All), that calls for worship Allah (God in English) as the one and only one God with no partner, no son, no companion, and no associate.

Islam spread was not spread by war or by sword as some claim. Refer to question below for more information.

Answer 2

Islam was both a religion and a political entity. While the religion was not often spread by "Convert or Die" pronouncements (such as was the case in Christendom), Islam as a political entity was spread by armies and warfare. In general, the following reasons account for the spread of Islam both politically and religiously.

1) Arabia - What's that?: Prior to Mohammed, Arabia had been seen as a cultural and political backwater barely worth notice and therefore Mohammed's consolidation of the Arab Tribes was not seriously considered by the Byzantine and Sassanian Empires. This lead to a very porous southern defense and miscalculation of the Islamic Armies.

2) Byzantine-Sassanian Wars: Since the Byzantines and Sassanians considered each other the only real civilizations in the region, they fought each other numerous times in the early 600s C.E. over control of what is today East Turkey and Iraq. These were intense religious wars (Christian vs. Zoroastrian) and greatly weakened both empires at just the wrong time.

3) Tribal Command Structure: Arab Tribes and warriors owed their loyalty to their Sheikhs and leaders without fault because the Sheikh provided each person with all of the amenities and protection necessary to live a full life. Whenever the Arabs went to war, the Sheikhs could count on the ability to muster their tribesmen as soldiers without issue.

4) Support of the Locals: Since the Byzantine Empire and Sassanian Empire were engaged in religious zealotry, it stands to reason that they did not tolerate their religious minorities very well. The Muslims professed to (and did) treat minorities far better than either of these Empires. This led to religious minorities (especially Jews) from within the conquered territories helping Muslims to secure outposts and positions, freeing the Muslims to continue to spread the religion.

5) Citizenship by Conversion: The Islamic Empire was interesting in that being the leader or a person of import in the Empire was not contingent on ethnicity or place of birth as was the case of most prior empires. All a person had to do to gain power and prestige was to convert to Islam. This simple integration mechanism resulted in massive number of Persians, Berbers, and Turks converting to Islam. In fact, the furthest expansions of Islam (Spain, India, West China, South Russia, the Balkans) were all accomplished by non-Arabs (respectively Berbers, Persians/Mughals, Turkmen, Azeris, and Ottomans).

6) Warfare: The leaders charged with expanding the influence of Islam were thoughtful and diligent military leaders. Caliph 'Omar, who conquered much of the Levant, Egypt, Persia, and Iraq was well-known as a strategist and a fighter. It was this knowledge of warfare that allowed Muslim forces to expand the territory's influence.

7) Universality: Islam, as a religion, claims salvation for all people in all places, making the religion very attractive, especially to people born into low castes and bad economic positions.

8) Commerce: Islam, like most religions, spread also through peaceful means of commerce and education whereby non-Muslims learned of the faith and adopted as their own amidst business dealings with Muslims.

It entirely depends on the situation. Muslim-Jewish Interactions changed in a fundamental way with the advent of modernity. As a result, this answer is split into Muhammad's Life, Medieval, and Modern History Sections.

Muhammad's Life (570-633 C.E.)

While Muhammad was alive, there was a very interesting and constantly changing relationship n the city of Medina between Muhammad and the Muslim Community on the one-hand and the Jewish Tribes of Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayza, and Banu Qaynuqa on the other-hand. According to the Sirat an-Nabi, the Islam's Biography of Muhammad's Life, Muhammad wrote the "Constitution of Medina". This document made Muhammad Chief Arbitrator of the city but reserved a number of rights to the Jewish and Polytheist Tribes in Medina. As time progressed, Muhammad and the Muslims became more central to Medina and consolidated their power. This created unease between the Muslims and the Jewish Tribes which increased to the point where Muhammad ordered the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa and slaughtered all of the males of Banu Qurayza in retaliation for perceived grievances. Conversely, there are also stories from the Sirat an-Nabi and the Hadiths that demonstrate Muhammad's respect for Jews and interaction with them. While it would be improper to say that the Jews and Muslims were equals during Muhammad's Life, the Jews of Arabia had much more control over their own destiny than Jews would have again until the Modern Period.

Medieval Period (633-1850 C.E.)

Throughout the entire medieval period, there was never a situation where Jews were equal to or superior to Muslims. There were occasions where Jews were charged as Prime Ministers to Muslim Kings, but those were always temporary assignments conditioned on good behavior. In the Medieval Period, in almost all cases where Jews and Muslims interacted, Muslims were politically superior to Jews. This usually manifested in the Dhimmi System, but, on rare occasions, would blossom into regimes that focused attention on exterminating Jews.

(1) Dhimmi System

For most of Islamic History, relations between Jews and Muslims were determined by the Dhimmi System. Under this system, there was a clear inequality between religious groups that would today be considered a form of apartheid. The Dhimmi, or non-Muslim under Muslim occupation, (of which Jews were a sub-group) was required by the Pact of Omar to pay a number of taxes that were connected with his Dhimmi status. The most famous was the jizya, which was a tax that Dhimmi had to pay for Muslims for the right to not be killed where they stood for not acknowledging Mohammed's Prophecy; it was a form of humiliation. Additional taxes included the kharaj, which was a tax on non-Muslim land-holdings in the Muslim World. While the kharaj was also charged to Muslims, the rate on Dhimmis was much higher and so untenable that most Dhimmi were forced to live in the cities where the tax would not be applicable. On paper, a Christian or Jew could testify against a Muslim, but in reality, such testimony was not acceptable and the attempt to defame a Muslim would receive retribution, creating a thoroughly unjust system. Christians and Jews were not allowed to build new houses of worship, restore old houses of worship, proselytize in any way (this included religious debate or dialogue), or allow wine or pigs to be shown in public. Dhimmi were also prohibited from serving in the government (except for certain particular positions) and were denied the ability to serve in the military or maintain weapons for self-defense. An additional, unique part of the Ottoman System that was different from the Dhimmi System elsewhere was the practice of devşirme whereby Christian young boys and girls would be taken from their families to be converted to Islam and raised in the palace with the Sultan in Istanbul. The men would become soldiers (Janissaries) and ministers in the government. The women would join his harem.

(2) Jewish Extermination Regimes

While the Dhimmi System was the prevailing form of Jewish-Muslim interaction, there were several Muslim Empires that actively targeted the Jews for extermination. The most famous of these empires was the Almohad Empire of Morocco and Spain. The Almohads conducted several campaigns throughout Morocco and Spain to slaughter various communities of Jews. The Almohads killed 120,000 Jews in Marrakesh, 100,000 in Fez, and liquidated a number of smaller communities throughout their territories.

Modern Period (1850-Present)

The Modern Period changed the dynamic between Jews and Muslims one more time. With the advent of new concepts of citizenship based on nationality extrinsic of religion, Jews and Muslims began to be able to see each other as equals in some place. In other places, the failure of the medieval Islamic societal structure to survive modernity led to numerous different splinterings of modern Islamic political thought, all of which had vastly different implications for Jewish-Muslim relations.

(1) Ottomanism

In the mid-1800s, Ottomanism, the movement to modernize and Westernize the Ottoman Empire began. The Tanzimat Reforms, as these changes were collectively known, had implications for Jewish-Muslim Relations. In 1839, Caliph Abdülmecid I issued the Hatt-ı Şerif of the Gülhane. In this document the equality of rights was generally recognized. Later in the Islahat Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856, Abdülmecid I, reaffirmed and clarified the guarantees of the equality to all subjects regardless of religion. This was supposed to create relative equality between Muslims and Non-Muslims. While it was not successful in that endeavor, it did abolish jizya and Dhimmi System up to the present day. While it created legal equality for the Jews within the Ottoman Empire, the first time that Jews and Muslims had true legal equality under an Islamic government, it did not create de facto equality as these laws did not change the man-on-the-street's view of a former Dhimmi person.

(2) Secular Nationalism

Albania has been majority-Muslim since the mid-1700s, but there is no difference in legal or social rights between Muslims and the small Jewish community. Even though Albania is a member of the OIC, there is no official religion in Albania. There have been no recorded serious violations of religious rights in Albania by other religious groups. Some have credited this to the nearly fifty years of Communist Rule during which religion was banned, but others credit it to the historical lack of animosity in Albania between religious groups during both the Ottoman and independent Albanian period.

(3) Arab Nationalism

Arab Nationalism made a link between Arab Identity and Muslim Practice. Jews and other religious minorities in the Arab World were branded by this system to be "the Other" and were regarded as traitors, spies, thieves, and fifth columns, leading to increasingly negative treatment and views of Jews. This alienated the minority religions, especially the Jews, from really participating. The anti-Semitic nature of Arab Nationalism was only increased when Nazism became prominent in Europe (1933-1945). Arab Nationalists opposed British and French Imperialism and saw the Nazis (who also opposed British and French interests) as an ally and ideological equivalent. As a result of the increasing Anti-Semitism, many Jews in the Arab World felt uncomfortable and a small wealthy minority of them were bullied, stolen from, and executed.

(4) Jewish Nationalism or Zionism

Jewish Nationalism or Zionism saw a reversal in the historic Jewish-Muslim relations because it created an ascendant Jewish State where Muslims were the minority. Naturally, during the 1920s and 1930s, as Zionism was gaining traction, Muslims became more violent towards the nascent Jewish communities. However, during the latter part of 1948, when a newly-independent Israel was making key advances in the heavily Muslim Galilee region, Muslims became willing to submit to a Jewish authority, at least temporarily. A number of Muslim groups were willing to accept citizenship as Israeli Arabs, either begrudgingly (like most of the ethnic Palestinians) or patriotically (like most of the Bedouins and Circassians). Because of the Jewish ascendance in Israel, Muslims give Jews a wider berth in Israel and their behavior is reminiscent of other ethnic groups in primarily lower classes, such as Hispanics in the United States.

(5) Islamism

Islamism has vile and violent hatred towards Jews, so there is no surprise that, with the exception of Iran, no Islamist regime has any Jewish population. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and other Islamist groups have declared their intentions to commit a second mass genocide of the Jews. The unique case of Iran is only special in that it has chosen to revile and permit violence against "Zionists", but not "Jews", although it is unclear what the difference is between one and the other. Iranian politics creates an unnatural divide between being a Jew and wanting a country to represent that uniqueness. The Iranian government makes impossible for Iranian Jews, if they wished, to advocate on Israel's behalf. Additionally, the Iranian government requires every Jewish school to have a Muslim principal. This way they can control what Judaism looks like. That is not religious freedom or acceptance.

(6) In Foreign Lands:

A result of modernity is that Jews and Muslims now can also interact under Non-Jewish and Non-Muslim sovereigns, such as Anglo-America, Latin America, Europe, and East Asia. There seems to be good relations between Jews and Muslims in these countries whenever the Muslim population is small and/or feels primary loyalty to the local state as opposed to various forms of Islamism. When the Muslim population gets larger, such as is the case in parts of France and Sweden, Jewish-Muslim relations can, at times become violent, with attacks on synagogues and Jewish persons in "retaliation" for Israeli foreign policy.

• call for worship of Allah (God), the one and only one God, with no partner and no companion and no son
• correcting previous faiths and previous holy book texts from alterations introduced by human
• describing ritual worships and relevant obligations
• setting God commands as for what to do and what not to do
• laying down basis for true faith and right path to God
• tales of old nations for gaining lessons for true faith and good life
• giving scientific statements that were only validated by current technologies and discoveries to provide evidences on the authenticity and miracle of Quran as god revelation and not human written text.
• reminding with the Day of Judgment to be prepared for it
• describing the 2nd life and the paradise and hell fire.
• setting the good morals and good conduct that Muslims should follow.

No, Neil Armstrong is not a Muslim. He did not convert to Islam as many rumors suggested. To put those rumors to rest, the following was sent by the U.S. State Department to all embassies and consulates in the Islamic world:

"P 04085 0Z MAR 83 ZEX FM SECSTATE WASHD C TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS PRIORITY BI UNCLAS STATE 056309

FOLLOWING REPEAT SENT ACTION ALL EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC DIPLOMATIC POSTS DTD MAR 02.

QUOTE: UNCLAS STATE 056309 E.O. 12356: N/A TAGS: PREL, PGOV, US, ID SUBJECT: ALLEGED CONVERSION OF NEIL ARMSTRONG TO ISLAM ---------------------------------------------

REF: JAKARTA 3281 AND 2374 (NOT ..)

1. FORMER ASTRONAUT NEIL ARMSTRONG, NOW IN PRIVATE BUSINESS, HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF PRESS REPORTS IN EGYPT, MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA (AND PERHAPS ELSEWHERE) ALLEGING HIS CONVERSION TO ISLAM DURING HIS LANDING ON THE MOON IN 1969. AS A RESULT OF SUCH REPORTS, ARMSTRONG HAS RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, AND A FEELER FROM AT LEAST ONE GOVERNMENT, ABOUT HIS POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION IN ISLAMIC ACTIVITIES.

2. WHILE STRESSING HIS STRONG DESIRE NOT TO OFFEND ANYONE OR SHOW DISRESPECT FOR ANY RELIGION, ARMSTRONG HAS ADVISED DEPARTMENT THAT REPORTS OF HIS CONVERSION TO ISLAM ARE INACCURATE.

3. IF POST RECEIVE QUERIES ON THIS MATTER, ARMSTRONG REQUESTS THAT THEY POLITELY BUT FIRMLY INFORM QUERYING PARTY THAT HE HAS NOT CONVERTED TO ISLAM AND HAS NO CURRENT PLANS OR DESIRE TO TRAVEL OVERSEAS TO PARTICIPATE IN ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES."

No, he is not a Muslim. It was a rumor that he converted.

The Meaning of Ijma

IJMA' means consensus, that is, acceptance of a matter by a specified group of people. In Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) the matter on which ijma' is of interest is understood in one of the two following ways:

1. Any matter related to Shari'ah

2. Any matter (of interest to Muslims)

The group involved in the consensus is understood in the following ways, in which an exception is made for children and those who suffer from mental disorder:

1. All Muslims of all times

2. All Muslims of a particular time

3. All mujtahidin who are just, righteous and who avoid bid'a (innovation)

4. All mujtahidin who avoid innovation including those who may not be muttaqin (righteous and God-fearing)

5. Majority of all mujtahidin

6. All mu'minin

7. All companions of the Prophet

8. Mujtahidin of Makka and Madina (or Kufa and Basra)

9. Mujtahidin of Madina

10. The first four khulafa or the first two khulafa

The last three opinions are not strictly speaking definitional, that is, ijma' is not defined as agreement, say, between the first two khulafa but rather that such an agreement realizes ijma'.

Types of ijma

§ Explicit (ijma' 'azima or ijma' qawli). This type of ijma' takes place as follows: A question arises and people express their different views. Then there is discussion on these views and finally a common position is agreed upon.

§ Silent (ijma' rukhsat or ijma' sakuti). If an opinion is expressed by some and their contemporaries, after learning about it, have made no comments either in favor or against, then we have what is known as silent ijma'.

§ Unknown opposition ('Adam al-ilm bi al-mukhalif). This situation occurs when a view generally held but it is not known whether or not there are experts who disagree with it.

§ Absolute (ijma' qat'i). This is ijma' on a matter in which there never has been any sustained difference (ikhtilaf mustaqar) and which is established with tawatur (continuity), that is, we can show that all generations of Muslims or Muslim mujtahidin agreed on the matter.

The authority of ijma

The following opinions exist among jurists about the type of authority possessed by ijma':

i. Ijma' provides a conclusive proof for a view.

ii. Ijma' is only an argument for a view but not a conclusive proof.

iii. Only ijma' of the companions (suhaba) provides conclusive proof.

iv. Silent ijma' is not a conclusive proof.

v. Silent ijma' is not a conclusive proof except in case of the suhaba or in case it remains in place for a period of timeor in case circumstances establish that silence meant approval.

vi. Ijma' established by an absence of knowledge of opposition is not conclusive.

Other issues connected with ijma

Is it possible for ijma' to take place without basis (sanad) from the Qur'an, Hadith or Qiyas (analogy)? The following views exist among jurists:

a. It is not possible for the Muslim Ummah or the jurists to agree on a position without sanad from the Qur'an, Hadith or qiyas.

b. It is not possible for ijma' to take place without sanad from the Qur'an or Hadith. (Qiyas cannot be a basis for ijma'.)

c. It is not possible for ijma' to have validity unless it is on the basis of qiyas.

d. It is possible for ijma' to take place without any sanad from the Qur'an, Hadith, or qiyas.

In the books of fiqh there are many rulings for which no sanad is found anywhere. Those who believe that ijma' is possible withsanad explain this by saying that isnad for these rulings once existed but are now lost.

Another issue raised in connection with ijma' is as follows:

If in an age jurists held one or the other of two (ijma' ala qawlayn) or more views, it is permissible to hold a view different from these two or more views. For example, if a man leaves only a grandfather and a brother as his inheritors, then there are found only two opinions concerning their shares. First, the two will share inheritance equally. Second, all inheritance will go to the grandfather. Is it possible to have a third opinion?

According to al-Amdi the answer is negative for a majority of jurists and positive for some shi'a, some Hanafi jurists and some ahl al-zahir (people who reject qiyas).

According to Sadr al-Shari'ah hanafi jurists agree that ijma' of suhaba on two or more views on a matter binds us to stay within those views but they disagree concerning the ages after the suhaba.

Refusal to accept ijma

If a ruling is reached by a form of ijma' considered conclusive by some scholars, then in the eyes of those scholars that ruling must be obeyed and the failure to do so after knowing about it is haram. But what if a person refuses to accept that ruling all together? Will he be committing kufr?

Even when scholars consider a form of ijma' conclusive and binding, they do not necessarily regard the rejection of a ruling reached by it as kufr. They are in general far more cautious in declaring refusal to reject the result of ijma' on a matter as kufr than in declaring a particular type of ijma' as conclusive and binding.

Almost all jurists agree that refusal to accept an ijma' other than an ijma of suhaba or an ijma established with continuity, tawatur, in all the previous generations of Muslims (ijma' qat'i), like the Qur'anic verses, is not kufr. In case of ijma' suhaba and ijma' qat'itwo cases are distinguished:

1. Ijma' on matters related to the fundamentals of din whose comprehension is needed by all Muslims, e.g. the belief in the oneness of God and in prophet hood, the obligatory character of the five "pillars" of Islam, facing the Ka'bah while praying, the number of rak'at in each prayer, the times for hajj and fasting, prohibition of adultery, alcoholic drinks, stealing and usury.

2. Ijma' on matters whose knowledge is expected only from "specialists" (khawas), e.g. marrying at the same time a woman and her paternal aunt or a murderer being cut off from inheritance.

There seems to be a general agreement that refusal to accept ijma' suhaba or ijma qat'i on matters of the first category is kufr but opinions differ as to whether a refusal to accept ijma' suhaba or ijma qat'i on matters of the second category is also kufr.

Imam al-Harmayn (Diya al-Din 'Abd al-Malik al-Juwayni) says that refusing to accept a method of deriving rules of shari'ah is notkufr. Therefore, a person does not accept the principle of ijma' as a valid source of rules is not a kafir. Only a person who accepts the principle of ijma' and also recognizes that a certain ruling is based on ijma' and then refuses to accept it can be declared as committing kufr.

Justifying the binding authority of ijma

Is the principle that in some form ijma' provides conclusive argument and has binding authority taught in the Qur'an and Hadith?

There is no agreement among jurists as to which statements in the Qur'an and Hadith, if any, provide justification for the principle of ijma'. Generally the jurists see a justification for the principle in the Qur'anic verses: 2:143, 3:103, 3:110, 4:59 and 4:115. But Sadr al-Shari'ah (33) finds nothing in 2:143, 3:110, and 4:115. Instead he uses 3:105, 98:4, 9:122, 4:59, 91:7, 16:43, and 9:115. Allama al-Taftazani (34) however, rejects all the arguments by Sadr al-Shari'ah.

There are also some ahadith that are used in support of the principle of ijma'. Al-Ghazali says that of these ahadith the strongest support for the principle of ijma' is provided by: lan tajtami'u ummati 'ala al-dalala (My Ummah cannot get together on the wrong way). But Shah Wali Allah says that this Hadith "does not mean that ijma' is hujja (proof)."

The truth is that there is no argument supporting ijma' on the basis of the Qur'an and Hadith for which reputed jurists have not raised a whole series of objections. And we even have reputed jurists like Imam al-Harmayn al-Juwayni who "recognized that in the received teachings there is no proof that ijma' has binding authority (wajib al-ittiba') and the final resort is to "reason" and that "the arguments on the basis of reason are very weak."

The difficulty of supporting ijma' on the basis of revelation is illustrated by a report about Imam Shafi'i. It is related by Muhammad Yahya ibn Shaykh Aman that the Imam was asked about a proof for ijma' from the Qur'an. The Imam went into seclusion (ihtikaf) in his house for three days and each day read the whole Qur'an in search of a proof. Finally he came up with the verse 4:115. As we have already noted this verse is not enough for Sadr al-Shari'ah and Imam al-Harmayn.

Although it would be unacceptable to establish ijma' by the use of ijma' but it is interesting to note that ijma' is not proved even byijma' itself. To see this let us distinguish between two definitions of ijma':

1. As the majority view

2. As the unanimous view

Now the majority of jurists do not agree that the majority view constitutes ijma' with binding authority. Hence under the first definition ijma' is not proved by ijma'. Take now the second definition. We have seen above there is no view of ijma' on which jurists unanimously agree except possibly ijma' suhaba and ijma' qat'i. We cannot, however, demonstrate that the suhaba believed that their ijma' or ijma' qat'i has binding authority, while such a demonstration would obviously be necessary to prove ijma' on the basis of ijma'.

Two genuine Islamic concerns

Whatever the definition and authority of ijma' may be, there is no denying the fact that the principle of ijma'addresses two genuine and very important Islamic concerns:

1. The need of the Muslims to know what the Islamic teachings on various matters are.

2. The need to form an Islamic society capable of taking unified action when such action is required.

Now basic Islamic teachings can be known easily from the Qur'an and Hadith, especially if a person is endowed with iman. The Qur'an says:

"We have made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember, so is there any to pay heed." (54:17)

However, in some details uncertainty can arise due to the following factors:

i. Like most statements, no matter how clear, the verses of the Qur'an and ahadith of the Prophet can be often understood in more than one way.

ii. It may not be possible to uniquely determine which Qur'anic verses and prophetic ahadith are applicable to a given question and in which order.

iii. It may not be certain whether some applicable ahadith are authentic or not.

iv. The Qur'an and Hadith may not contain answers to questions faced a long period after the revelation and so people come up with their own different answers by qiyas (analogy) or by other less than completely objective approaches.

Now, as far as individuals are concerned, they can still lead righteous lives despite different possible answers to some questions of detail, as indeed Muslims have done throughout history. The Qur'an guarantees that everyone who has ikhlas(sincerity, honesty) and strives in the way of God (which includes controlling one's desires, obeying the clear commandments and practicingdhikr and fikr, that is, remembrance of God and thinking and reflecting) will be protected from the devil, that is, going astray and will be shown the path of God:

"And (the devil) said: By Your honor (O Lord) I will lead them all astray except such among Your servants as are sincere." (38:83)

"And those who exert effort in Our way we show them Our paths and God is surely with the good." (29:69)

So, individuals will be able to find the way of God despite differences in matters of detail. However, often a need is felt by Muslims for collective, united, action and in such cases differences in views can be crippling. This is why the establishment of Islamic states in Muslim countries has been found very difficult. In fact, it can be said without hesitation that after the time of four rightly guided khulafa Islam has largely existed as a way of life of individuals and not of societies. Yet it is clearly an intention of Islam to shape both individuals and societies according to its principles.

One of the purposes of ijma' is to limit differences and to prevent them from disintegrating the Muslim society. This role of ijma' is comparable to the role of the Pope in Catholicism. But ijma' has not been as effective in ensuring cohesion of the society and in providing answers to new questions. This is because ijma' is itself subject to differences of views, as we have seen above. Furthermore, it is often extremely difficult to know whether or not ijma' on a matter has taken place, so much so that Imam Ahmad bin Hambal reportedly used to say that anyone claiming ijma' (after the age of suhaba) is a liar. In other words, we do not know exactly what ijma' is or what it is saying. In contrast, those who believe in papacy can know both who the Pope is and what he is saying.

This, of course, does not mean that Muslims should adopt something like the institution of papacy. The idea of a priestly hierarchy having an exclusive right to define religious doctrines and rules and given obedience as infallible is totally against the grain of Islam and is apparently condemned as shirk in the Qur'an:

"And (Jews and Christians) take their ahbar (priests) and ruhban (monks, saints) as lords besides God" (9:31)

Indeed, history shows that an institution like that of papacy can, along with cohesion and continuity in the life of a group, cause untold repression and plunge a society in the uttermost depths of darkness.

So, how can we achieve maximum enlightenment and freedom of thought and conscience along with cohesion and continuity? By following four well-known Islamic principles:

1. Khilafa, institution of an Islamic government

2. Shura, government by consultation

3. Sawad al-a'zam, rule by majority

4. Amr bi al-ma'ruf WA nahi 'an al-mukar, enjoining right and forbidding wrong.

These four principles require the following mode for the functioning of a suhaba on "decisions". These always concerned legal rulings, state policies, strategies for war, etc. In the interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith we can encounter purely theological questions (e.g. whether the ascension of Jesus was physical or spiritual). On such questions ijma' of suhaba has been seldom demonstrated, if at all.

Whatever has been said above about ijma' suhaba also applies to ijma' qat'i.

No other type of ijma' by itself constitutes a conclusive historical argument that a certain position is Islamic. Most ijma'at do carry weight but how much weight will depend on direct evidence from Qur'an and Hadith and other relevant considerations.