Ijma (3)

So we now understand why Ijma' logically should be understood. However, one commenter requested some clarification about Ijma'. He was unsure about whether we could use consensus at our time (as the definition given was consensus at a time near the Prophet (SAW)). The main point to note here, is that to consider consensus as a definitive proof of the Prophet (and thus Allah's) desire at that time, there are limitations to consensus so far from that time. It thus has a lower value. Its value can be considered thus:

1. If consensus now uncovers consensus at that time, then it is useful
2. As a proof on its own - but this is not a proof in itself but may act as an indicator..


We do not discover this ارتكاز (action of the Prophet/Imam - not something that was written) unless the following conditions are met:

1. The Ijma’ is complete amongst the early jurists and it does not count if there is Ijma’ amongst the scholars of recent times, if this is in contrast to the scholars of the early times. This is because they were closer to the time of the Imams/their companions.

2. There is no riwaya/other reasoning which the scholars part of the ijma’ could be relying on (if there is a riwaya/other reasoning, then it is called اجماع مدركي). This is because the riwaya could be the basis of the ijma’. Therefore, the ijma’ does not discover the ارتكاز and is not a proof. We would then look at the riwaya itself. It is possible that the ijma’ gives us extra confidence that might make a weak riwaya seem stronger. In such a case, we might use the ijma’, but in addition to the riwaya, and not as a proof in itself.

3. There are no other factors that might indicate that the ijma’ is not discovering the ارتكاز e.g. a major scholar’s view might influence everyone else

4. The issue is not something that عقل works in e.g. the fact that preparation for Hajj (e.g. buying a ticket…etc.) is wajib because Hajj is wajib is a rational deduction. Ijma’ in this topic is not a proof.

5. The issue is not something that there is اطلاق or عموم about e.g. if it says pray with your hands down, then if there is ijma’ that this allows your fingers to be facing up or down, the ijma’ is not a proof, as it is clear from the rule of اطلاق.


There are many factors influencing the strength of the ijma:

1. The number of scholars who agree/disagree; Ijma’ would still apply if it was most (not all) scholars, although the value of the ijma’ would be less.

2. The quality of the scholars: if a major scholar (e.g. Shaykh Tusi/Mufid) disagrees, then the ijma’ would not be seen to be correct.

3. How far the consensus is ,from the time of the Prophet/Imam – the closer to that time, the more chance it has of being correct

The value of the Ijma’ cannot be as strong as tawatur for example for the following reasons:

1. Each scholar could have reached a ruling for a different reason using their own ijtihad, rather than getting it from the Imams

2. The scholars may have been influenced by a major scholar (so a mistake by this major scholar might have led to every scholar in that era agreeing – rather than the cause being the Imam/Prophet)

3. It is dependent on the scholars themselves and their capabilities/methods, which might be flawed i.e. all might be using the same usul al-fiqh tool; they might all be influenced by the same factors (social/gender…etc.)


This should give you a better way of understanding how consensus is limited. In the remaining blogs of Ijma', we will discuss further conditions, types of Ijma', and the main terminology used when discussing Ijma'.