Ijma (4)

What is the scope of Ijma when the ijma' is on slightly different topics?

1. If the rulings of the scholars are different e.g. some are general, and others are specific, there can still be ijma’ on that which is agreed upon by both

2. If the ijma’ is on a specific ruling, it is much harder to use the tools of إطلاق (this is when each word is taken and all implications of the word are included in the rule e.g. “take the apple” = in any way, take any type of apple in any situation [using إطلاق]; this is (in essence) because Allah would have restricted this law if he had wanted (either in this narration or in another one)); here, because it there is consensus on what the Imams did/said but not by the word they used, we cannot use إطلاق.

There are two types of Ijma’:

1. The simple Ijma’ – which is where all the scholars agree on a specific ruling
2. The composite Ijma’ – this is where some scholars agree on something being Mustahab, and others believe it to be Wajib;


This can be thought of in two ways:
1. The composite Ijma’ could be thought of as a simple Ijma’: that the action is not haram.
2. Alternatively, the scholars who believe that the action is Wajib (/mustahab), may only believe the action is not Haram IF their assumption of Wujub (mustahab) is correct


Regardless, the composite Ijma’ cannot be considered as a proof in itself, because the basis of Ijma’ is on the probability of it being from the Imam/Prophet, and if there are two different opinions, this probability is no longer present.



This is the end of the discussion about Ijma' (in that section by Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr). I have done some work finding out all the terminology used with regards to Ijma', which may be useful if you ever read any work on Ijma' (from "Usuli terminology" by Ayatullah Mirza Ali Mishkini) but I doubt it is of interest to most....

In the next blogs, we will look at gambling without tools of gambling e.g. playing cards...etc., and how Ayatullah Saanei derives his view that it is not haram.