Author
ERDEM, Abdullah
Publication Place
Firat University -
Firat University
Subject
Fırat University Faculty of Theology journal, 2023-12, Vol.28 (2), p.105-118
Type
Book
Language
ara,tur
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Leitir Library
Library Asset ID
ISSN: 1304-639X, DOI: 10.58568/firatilahiyat.1328079
Record ID
cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_586ae12a7f0745cb96c7bef1d78e3e4c
Library Location
Open Access Resources_DOAJ
Notes
One of the evidences that express definitive knowledge in the method of fiqh is ijma. There are almost no scholars who do not accept the proof of ijma. It is reported that the first person to object to this was the Mu'tazili Ibrahim en-Nazzam. The group that does not accept it as a sect is the scholars belonging to Imamiyya. It is possible to say that mujtahid scholars have agreed on the proof of ijma since the early mujtahids, except for a few certain contradictory views. Although there is no significant disagreement about the validity of ijma, methodologists have disagreed on details such as the types of ijma, its conditions, evidence, and the number of people who will ijma. One of the issues discussed by the Usulists is the effect of one or more people dissenting in case the majority of mujtahids agree. While some of the proceduralists are of the opinion that the opposition of the minority against the alliance of the majority will not harm the ijma, the majority of them argue that all mujtahids must have the same opinion in order for the ijma to be formed. Although it can be said that these two approaches basically argue with each other, there are also proceduralists who approach the issue differently. Some proceduralists take into account the attitude of the majority towards an issue opposed by one or a few people. According to these scholars, if the majority does not oppose the opinion of the minority, then we cannot talk about ijma. Because this shows that the majority also respects the opinion opposing them. If the majority does not respect the opinion of the minority or even opposes it, then the agreement of the majority becomes ijma. The arguments generally used in these discussions are the same. Usulists defend their theses through the opposing views of some companions, especially Ibn Abbas (r.a.). Those who do not see the opposition of the minority as an obstacle to ijma argue that the scholars agree that although one or more companions have opposing views, the alliance of the other companions is ijma, as in the example of Ibn Abbas on riba and mut'a. Likewise, those who argue that this hinders the formation of ijma, just like Ibn Abbas's opposing view to the majority on the issue of avl, Ibn Abbas's opposing attitude on an issue on which the other companions agreed, hindered the formation of ijma. This study deals with the discussions mentioned and the arguments used by the parties. However, first, the informational value and conditions of ijma, which are thought to be closely related to these discussions, are briefly presented. In the study, the explanations of the methodologists belonging to different sects, who were not satisfied with the works of a certain school, were examined and tried to be evaluated. As a result, it should be noted that the dominant view is that the opposition of the minority against the majority will prevent the formation of ijma, based on the conditions put forward for ijma to be definitive evidence. However, it has been concluded that whether or not the opposing opinion of the minority is taken into consideration by other proceduralists is effective in the formation of ijma. One of the proofs expressing certain knowledge in fiqh method is ijma. There are hardly any scholars who do not accept that ijma is evidence. It is reported that the first person who objected to this was Mu'tazilî İbrahim en-Nazam. The group that does not accept it as a sect are the scholars who belong to the Imamiyya. It is possible to say that mujtahid scholars have been unanimous since the first period mujtahids on the fact that ijmā is evidence, with a few exceptions. Although there is no significant disagreement about the fact that ijma is evidence, the scholars differed on the details of ijma's types, conditions, evidence, and the number of people who would agree on ijma. One of the issues discussed by the scholars of the methodology is the effect of ijmaa when one or more people oppose the majority of the mujtahids. While some of the methodists think that the opposition of the minority against the alliance of the majority will not harm the ijma, the majority of them argue that all mujtahids must be of the same opinion in order for the ijma to be formed. Basically, it can be said that these two approaches argue with each other, but there are also proceduralists who deal with the issue differently. Some scholars take into account the attitude of the majority towards them in an issue opposed by one or a few people. According to these scholars, if the majority does not oppose the opinion of the minority, then ijma cannot be mentioned. Because this shows that the majority also respect the opposing view. If the majority does not respect or even oppose the opinion of the minority, then the consensus of the majority becomes ijma. The arguments generally used in these discussions are the same. Usulists defend their theses based on the opposing views of some of the Companions, especially Ibn Abbas. Those who do not see the opposition of the minority as an obstacle to ijma, argue that although one or more of the Companions had dissenting views, as in the example of Ibn Abbas on riba and mut'a, the consensus of the other Companions is the ijma of the scholars. Likewise, those who argue that this is an obstacle to ijma, as well as Ibn 'Abbas's opposition to the opinion of the populace on awl, was an obstacle to the formation of ijma on an issue agreed by the other Companions. This study deals with the discussions and the arguments used by the parties. However, firstly, the information value and conditions of ijma, which is thought to be closely related to these discussions, are briefly presented. In the study, the explanations of the scholars of different sects, who were not content with the works of a certain school, were examined and tried to be evaluated. As a result, it should be noted that it is the prevailing view that the opposition of the minority against the majority will prevent the formation of ijma, based on the conditions put forward in order for ijma to be conclusive evidence. However, it has come to the conclusion that whether the opposing view of the minority is taken into account by other scholars is effective in the formation of ijma.
Detaylı Başlık
Müçtehitlerin Çoğunluğunun İttifakına Karşılık Azınlığın Muhalefetinin İcmâın Oluşumuna Etkisi
