Consensus Claims, Problems in Theory and Implimenting, and Obstacles to Ijtihad and Renewing

Abstract

It is clear to islamic scholars that consensus (eijmaa) has an important place within the sources of islamic legislations, as our scholars counted it as one of the evidences which they agreed upon, and made it the third evidence after Quraan and the Sunna. So they talked about it in detail, especially in theoretical aspects of its definition and proves, its conditions, its types, the validity of each type, the judge on who violates the consensus, and so on.
 On the practical side, we find that the jurisprudential books are full of claims of its unanimity in hundreds of issues. While a professional reader and investigator of these issues finds it difficult to apply the theoretical conditions of consensus to the collected consensus issues. It is a must in its definition that the some of all scholars in one era have the same opinion, also scientifically known that the defined and its definition must be equal and neither of them must not be more specific or more general than the other, that is to say, it must be a collective interdiction, inclusive of all members of the defined. if we apply the fundamental definition of consensus to the codified collections of Islamic jurisprudence, we will see that there is inequality between the definition and the issues included in the true definition of consensus. The investigation reveals to us that hundreds of issues on which consensus is claimed are the opinion of most of the scholars and not everyone of them.
 Hence the idea of this research has developed to solve some issues including:
 - The distinction between fundamental consensus and jurisprudential consensus. With explaining of the proportion of righteousness in the consensuses that have been proven in the jurisprudential heritage.
 - Statement of the effects of excessive claims of consensus on the Islamic community. also clarifying the disadvantages of excess and neglection in these claims on Ijtihad and innovation, and thus on the flexibility of islamic legeslations (Shariaa) and its harmony with every time and place.
 - Statement of the problems related to practicing consensus according to the theory of islamic legeslations principles and to clarify that its impossible to practice these principles on consensus. also to propose alternatives to consensus, finally the most important results presented in the conclusion. only God is always the conciliator of righteousness.