الإجتهاد الجماعي والإجماع الأصولي -دراسة مقارنة-

Abstract

The collective ijtihad (effort of understanding and interpretation) has become more than a necessity, because the individual ijtihad is no longer able to cope with contingencies and calamities. The collective ijtihad is to "make the effort of the mujtahids with their consultations to reach an agreement on the elaboration of a collegial legal decision and its implementation in reality with the help of specialists in the issues submitted to it", and consultation is the cornerstone, and this is what the Prophet - may God's prayers and peace be upon him - his companions, his disciples and their successors, i.e., the jurists and mujtahids used to do. On the other hand, although the collective ijtihâd has diminished in the era of tradition, it has again appeared in the hands of new jurists who have embodied the collective ijtihâd in the form of jurisprudential councils such as the Academy of Islamic Research, the Academy of Islamic Fiqh and others, and it is a binding argument for the Ummah if it is issued by the governor himself and his argument must be followed instead of following the individual ijtihâd. The fundamentalist consensus is: “The agreement of all the mujtahids among the Muslims in one era after the death of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, on a legal ruling.” This is a legal argument among the majority of Muslim scholars. They differed on the evidence on which consensus is based, so some of them said that it is permissible to hold it without a proof (document), and others said that it must be based on proof, which is the truth. The Muslim scholars divided the consensus into several sections, the most prominent of which are: the outright consensus, silent consensus, inductive consensus, as well as the complete consensus and incomplete consensus that is achieved by majority agreement. Comparing collective ijtihad with the fundamentalist consensus reveals that there is a big difference between them. Consensus is based on the agreement of all the mujtahids to become a binding argument, while collective ijtihad suffices the agreement of a group of mujtahids which is not a blunt argument. Otherwise, the collective ijtihad must be based on shura and this is not required in the fundamentalist consensus . Finally, it is possible to highlight some similarities between collective ijtihad and some presumptive types of consensus such as silent consensus and majority consensus. However, we think that the collective ijtihad is most similar to the silent consensus because the council’s decision is spread today in the media and communication, and a sufficient period of time passes for it to consider and reflect without showing a contravention of this decision. And on this agreement sometimes and the difference at other times, collective ijtihad took its place among the proof of rulings, and researchers classified it immediately after consensus.