البصيرة (Jun 2024)
اجماع بطور ماخذ شرعی؛ فقہ حنفی اور فقہ جعفری کا تقابلی جائزہ
Abstract
Along-with the basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence the Quran and Sunnah, there are other legal supporting sources agreed upon by Muslims. Among these stands Ijma’ (Consensus legal Opinion) as the third primary source. This research studies the status of Ijma Fiqh Ja’fri and Fiqh Hanafi, by comparing the both schools, discussing the main concept of Ijma, its conditions, types and ways of implementations of its decisions. Both schools of thought have some commonalities and there are also some differences on its attainment. For example, in Jafari jurisprudence, it is not required that all jurists of the time must agree upon an opinion to be established. Instead, the important part of Ijma is the statement of an Imam. If the consensus includes a statement from one of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt or if it is generally known that the opinion of any Imam is included in the consensus, then it is considered an authority. On the other hand, in the Hanafi school of thought, the consensus of all jurists of the time is a prerequisite for Ijma. This article is an attempt to analyze perspectives of both schools of thought and present a comparative assessment of both theories comprehensively.
