IJMĀʿ (اجماع)
Definition and Etymology
IJMĀʿ (اجماع) is an Arabic term that derives from the root word “jama’a”, meaning to collect or assemble. In Islamic theology and jurisprudence, IJMĀʿ refers specifically to the unanimous consensus of Muslim scholars (Mujtahidūn) on a particular legal or theological issue.
Arabic and Turkish Translations
- Arabic: إجماع (Ijmāʿ)
- Turkish: İcma
Foundations of IJMĀʿ
IJMĀʿ, considered the third source of Islamic law after the Qurʾān and Sunnah, is foundational in establishing legal and theological norms. There are three recognized bases for IJMĀʿ:
- Ittifāq-i-Qaulī: Unanimous consent expressed through verbal declarations or written opinions.
- Ittifāq-i-Fiʿlī: Consensus expressed through unanimous practice or common customs.
- Ittifāq-i-Sakūtī: Consensus by tacit approval, where the majority of scholars silently agree with a minority opinion without objection.
Qualifications of Mujtahidūn
The scholars eligible to contribute to IJMĀʿ must be highly learned in Islamic law, exhibiting both knowledge and piety. They should not be heretical or lacking in judgment. This underscores the rigorous standards required for scholars to participate in the process of reaching a consensus.
Historical Differences in IJMĀʿ
There are various scholarly views on the historical periods during which IJMĀʿ can be considered valid:
- Some argue only the consensus of the Companions (Aṣḥāb) of the Prophet Muhammad is valid.
- Others extend this to include the descendants of the Prophet.
- Another view includes both the helpers (Anṣār) and the Emigrants (Muhājirūn) who lived in Medina with the Prophet.
- A majority of scholars believe that IJMĀʿ can be reached in every generation, although achieving consensus has become more challenging due to divisions within the Muslim community since the era of the Tabaʿu ʾt-Tābiʿīn (followers of the followers of the Companions).
Relative Value of IJMĀʿ
The value of IJMĀʿ decisions varies depending on their origins:
- Companions’ IJMĀʿ: Equivalent to Ḥadīth Mutawātir (consecutive reports).
- Post-Companions’ IJMĀʿ aligning with Companions’ views: Equal to Ḥadīth K͟habar-i-Mashhūr (widely known reports).
- Later Mujtahidūn’s decision in case of divergent views: Comparable to Ḥadīth K͟habar-i-Wāḥid (single-chain reports).
Sunni and Shia Interpretations
Among Sunni Muslims, IJMĀʿ is accepted differently within the four main schools of thought: Ḥanafī, Shāfiʿī, Malakī, and Ḥanbalī. Meanwhile, Shia Muslims have their own group of Mujtahidūn whose consensus is accepted within Shia jurisprudence. The Wahhabi sect, however, rejects any IJMĀʿ formed after the death of the Companions.
Impact on Islamic Sects
The divergence in acknowledging IJMĀʿ has contributed significantly to the formation of various Islamic sects, mirroring what Prophet Muhammad is reported to have foreseen regarding the multiplication of sects within his ummah (community).
Recommended Books for Further Studies
- “Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence” by Mohammad Hashim Kamali: An extensive exploration of the principles guiding Islamic legal theory and jurisprudence, including IJMĀʿ.
- “Sharī’a: Theory, Practice, Transformations” by Wael B. Hallaq: A comprehensive examination of Islamic law’s evolution and practice.
- “Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective” by C. G. Weeramantry: Offers comparative insights into Islamic and Western legal systems.
Takeaways and Conclusion
IJMĀʿ plays a crucial role in Islamic jurisprudence by representing the collective, scholarly agreement which helps in shaping and interpreting Islamic law beyond the foundational texts of the Qurʾān and Hadith. Understanding IJMĀʿ adds depth to recognizing the complex, nuanced processes that underpin Islamic legal and theological determinations.
In conclusion, the concept of IJMĀʿ emphasizes the communal and scholarly dimensions of Islamic jurisprudence, ensuring that the diverse interpretations within the Islamic tradition remain grounded in collective scholarly consensus.
