Jump to content

Draft:Ijmaʿ Manqūl

Add links
From wikishia

Al-Ijmaʿ al-Manqūl (Arabic: الإجماع المنقول) refers to a type of consensus in which a Mujtahid has not personally verified the consensus by examining the opinions of other jurists, but rather has received the report of such consensus from another jurist. Ijma' manqul is a subject of study in the science of principles. It is distinguished from acquired consensus (ijma' muhassal) and is generally considered to possess a lower degree of validity.

In the terminology of the science of principles, ijma' manqul typically denotes a consensus transmitted via a "solitary report" (khabar al-wahid). The authority (hujjiyya) of such a report is a subject of scholarly debate. Some scholars affirm its validity by invoking the proofs established for the authority of solitary reports.

Factors that support the authority of a transmitted consensus include the strength of the phrasing used to describe the consensus, the transmitter's level of research and scholarly precision, and the clarity and fame of the issue in question.

Conceptual Analysis

Transmitted consensus is a form of consensus wherein the Mujtahid does not personally witness the agreement[1] or derive it firsthand. Instead, he quotes it from others[2] or receives the report from another jurist, either directly or through an intermediary.[3] For instance, if Shaykh al-Tusi reports a consensus on a specific issue,[4] this consensus is classified as an acquired consensus for Shaykh al-Tusi himself. However, for those who receive the report from him, it constitutes a transmitted consensus.[5]

A group of researchers maintains that transmitted consensus was not prevalent among early jurists due to their primary reliance on acquired consensus; consequently, they did not utilize it to argue various issues of jurisprudence.[6]

This type of consensus is addressed in the science of principles[7] following the discussion on the authority of solitary reports[8] and within the section on proofs and indicators (amarat).[9] In certain instances, transmitted consensus is exempted from the general prohibition against acting upon conjecture (zann).[10] It stands in contrast to acquired consensus[11] and holds a lower rank in terms of validity.[12]

Categories

Transmitted consensus is categorized into two types based on the mode of transmission: that which is transmitted via tawatur (mass transmission) and that which is transmitted via a solitary report:

Mutawatir Transmitted Consensus

If a multitude of scholars claim consensus on an issue and transmit it to other jurists[13] in a manner that yields certainty regarding its conformity with the pronouncement of the Infallible (a), it is termed a mutawatir transmitted consensus. The majority of scholars consider such a consensus to be authoritative, similar to acquired consensus.[14]

Transmitted Consensus via Solitary Report

If a limited number of scholars transmit a consensus to others[15] such that it generates a conjecture (zann) regarding the existence of the consensus, it is known as a transmitted consensus via solitary report.[16]

When the term is used without qualification in the debates of the science of principles, it refers to the consensus transmitted via solitary report,[17] as this is the form that stands in contrast to acquired consensus.[18]

Authority of Transmitted Consensus

If a transmitted consensus reaches the level of tawatur, it attains the same status as acquired consensus and a mutawatir report, thereby rendering it authoritative.[19] Muhammad Rida al-Muzaffar argues that the authority of such a consensus must be universally accepted, as the transmitter reports from the Infallible (a) without an intermediary—even if the Infallible is not personally recognized[20]—much in the same way a jurist would research opinions to obtain the consensus of jurists firsthand.[21] However, during the time of Occultation, no such transmission has occurred, nor has any scholar made such a claim.[22]

Conversely, if the consensus is transmitted via a solitary report, there is disagreement among jurists regarding its authority.[23] Indeed, the controversy surrounding transmitted consensus is limited solely to this category.[24] Jurists who reject the authority of solitary reports naturally reject the authority of transmitted consensus as well. Those who accept solitary reports have proposed various theories:

  • Some scholars maintain that there is no distinction between a solitary hadith report and a consensus transmitted via a solitary report; both are considered valid and indicative of the Infallible's (a) view. They cite the Verse of Naba' as Quranic evidence, utilizing the same proofs established for the authority of solitary reports.[25]
  • Another group excludes consensus transmitted via solitary report from the scope of proofs for solitary reports, arguing that such consensus is based on conjecture and surmise (hads). They regard the analogy (qiyas) between the two as flawed,[26] holding that such a consensus does not reliably disclose the statement of the Infallible (a).[27] It is noted that a significant number of scholars do not consider this type of consensus authoritative.[28]

Supporting Factors for Authority

Certain proponents of the authority of transmitted consensus have identified factors that enhance its probative value and its ability to disclose the Infallible's (a) statement. These factors include the strength of the phrasing used to denote the consensus, the transmitter's level of research and scientific accuracy, and the clarity and notoriety of the issue. If these supporting conditions are absent, the report of consensus remains incomplete and would necessitate examining the opinions of other scholars to uncover the Infallible's (a) view.[32]

See Also

Notes

  1. ↑ Muntaẓirī, Mabānī-yi fiqhī-yi ḥukūmat-i Islāmī, 1409 AH, vol. 8, p. 383.
  2. ↑ Muṭahharī, Majmūʿa-yi āthār, 1395 Sh, vol. 20, p. 51.
  3. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 114; Muḥammadī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i istinbāṭ, vol. 1, p. 382; Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 257; Shīrwānī, Taḥrīr-i uṣūl-i fiqh, 1385 Sh, p. 231.
  4. ↑ Muḥammadī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i istinbāṭ, vol. 1, p. 382.
  5. ↑ Muḥammadī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i fiqh, 1387 Sh, vol. 3, p. 189.
  6. ↑ Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), Qom, vol. 42, p. 189.
  7. ↑ Muḥammadī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i istinbāṭ, vol. 1, p. 26.
  8. ↑ Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), Qom, vol. 42, p. 190.
  9. ↑ Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 257.
  10. ↑ Samīʿī, Tarjuma-yi matn wa sharḥ-i kāmil-i Rasāʾil-i Shaykh Anṣārī, 1387 Sh, vol. 3, p. 6; Ḥaydarī, Uṣūl al-istinbāṭ, 1412 AH, p. 191.
  11. ↑ Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 257.
  12. ↑ Jannātī Shāhrūdī, Manābiʿ-i ijtihād, 1370 Sh, p. 214.
  13. ↑ Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 257.
  14. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 114; Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), vol. 42, p. 190.
  15. ↑ Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 257.
  16. ↑ Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), vol. 42, p. 190.
  17. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 114.
  18. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, ʿIlm-i uṣūl, 1379 Sh, p. 309; Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), vol. 42, p. 190.
  19. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 114; Shīrwānī, Taḥrīr-i uṣūl-i fiqh, 1385 Sh, p. 231; Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 257.
  20. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 114.
  21. ↑ Jannātī Shāhrūdī, Manābiʿ-i ijtihād, 1370 Sh, p. 214.
  22. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 114.
  23. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 115; Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), vol. 42, p. 190.
  24. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1375 Sh, vol. 2, p. 115.
  25. ↑ Dhihnī Ṭihrānī, Tashrīḥ al-maqāṣid, 1405 AH, vol. 2, p. 350.
  26. ↑ Jannātī Shāhrūdī, Manābiʿ-i ijtihād, 1370 Sh, p. 215.
  27. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, ʿIlm-i uṣūl, 1379 Sh, p. 310.
  28. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, ʿIlm-i uṣūl, 1379 Sh, p. 310.
  29. ↑ Shīrwānī, Taḥrīr-i uṣūl-i fiqh, 1385 Sh, p. 232.
  30. ↑ Muḥammadī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i istinbāṭ, vol. 1, p. 391.
  31. ↑ Ḥaydarī, Uṣūl al-istinbāṭ, 1412 AH, p. 194.
  32. ↑ Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), Qom, vol. 42, pp. 193–195.

References

  • Jamʿī az muʾallifān, Majalla-yi Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), Qom, Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī bar madhhab-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), n.d.
  • Jannātī Shāhrūdī, Muḥammad Ibrāhīm, Manābiʿ-i ijtihād az dīdgāh-i madhāhib-i Islāmī, Tehran, Kayhān, 1370 Sh.
  • Ḥaydarī, ʿAlī Naqī, Uṣūl al-istinbāṭ, Qom, Lajnat Idārat al-Ḥawza al-ʿIlmiyya, 1412 AH.
  • Dhihnī Ṭihrānī, Muḥammad Jawād, Tashrīḥ al-maqāṣid fī sharḥ al-farāʾid, Qom, Nashr-i Ḥādhiq, 1405 AH.
  • Samīʿī, Jamshīd, Tarjuma-yi matn wa sharḥ-i kāmil-i Rasāʾil-i Shaykh Anṣārī, Isfahan, 4th ed., 1387 Sh.
  • Shahābī, Maḥmūd, Taqrīrāt-i uṣūl, Tehran, Haj Muhammad Ali Elmi Press, 7th ed., 1321 Sh.
  • Shīrwānī, ʿAlī, Taḥrīr-i uṣūl-i fiqh, Qom, Dār al-ʿIlm, 2nd ed., 1385 Sh.
  • Muʾassasa-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh muṭābiq-i madhhab-i Ahl al-Bayt (a), under the supervision of Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, Qom, 1426 AH.
  • Muḥammadī, ʿAlī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i istinbāṭ, Qom, Dār al-Fikr, 3rd ed., n.d.
  • Muḥammadī, ʿAlī, Sharḥ-i uṣūl-i fiqh, Qom, Dār al-Fikr, 10th ed., 1387 Sh.
  • Muṭahharī, Murtaḍā, Majmūʿa-yi āthār (Fiqh wa ḥuqūq), Tehran, Ṣadrā, 1395 Sh.
  • Muẓaffar, Muḥammad Riḍā, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, Qom, Ismāʿīlīān, 5th ed., 1375 Sh.
  • Muntaẓirī, Ḥusayn ʿAlī, Mabānī-yi fiqhī-yi ḥukūmat-i Islāmī, translated by Mahmud Salavati, Qom, Kayhān, 1409 AH.
  • Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Muḥammad, ʿIlm-i uṣūl, Tehran, ʿUrūj, 1379 Sh.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikishia.net/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ijmaʿ_Manqūl&oldid=204839"