This source of law active when the Quran and traditions (Sunnah) could not supply any rule of law for a new problem. Persons having knowledge of the law were called Mujtahids (Jurists). The Jurists used to agree unanimously and gave their common opinion over that point and their unanimous opinion is known as Ijma. It is the third primary and important source of Islamic law.
Ijma:
When a number of persons who are learned in the Muslim law and have attained the rank of jurists of some sort, agree on a particular legal question, their opinion is binding and has the force of law. The classical view is that while individual jurists are liable to err, the community as a whole cannot fall into error. In fact, there is a well- known tradition of the Prophet to the effect that “my people will not agree in an error.” According to Abdur Rahim, Ijma may be defined as the agreement of the jurists among the followers of the Prophet Mohammad in a particular age on a particular question.
This source of Muslim law has a very important role in the subsequent development of Muhammadan law because; through Ijma it was possible to lay down new principles in accordance with the changing needs of the Islamic society. Ijmaa must also be carefully distinguished from bidat, i.e., mere hearsay or novelty, and from raj, i.e., free opinion.
Formation of Ijma (Ijtihad):
The process of formulating a law through the consensus of the jurists was called Ijtihad which means a process of one’s own reasoning to deduce a new rule of law. When a new principle of law was required, the jurists (Mujtahids) used to give their concurrent opinion and a new law was laid down. The jurists were not free to give decisions without any basis. They had to justify their opinions in the light of some well-settled principles already given in the Quran or the traditions (Sunnah). Public policy. Besides they had to consider the equity and the interest of the community.
Every Muslim was not competent to participate in the formation of Ijma. Only Mujtahids could take part in it. Persons having knowledge of the law were called Mujtahids (Jurists). Qualification for being a Mujtahid was that he must be a Muslim having adequate knowledge of the law and was also competent to give independent judgments. The Jurists used to agree unanimously and gave their common opinion over that point and their unanimous opinion.
Importance of Ijma:
- The Quran and Sunnah were adequate only for the past and not for the future society. The major portion of the positive Muslim law (fiqh) came through Ijma.
- Explanation and clarification of the Quran and Sunnah were possible through consensus opinions of the jurists. The new principles of law, not found in the Quran or the Sunnah were also formulated according to the changing needs of society.
- The Quran and Sunnah being rigid, no change was possible in their words. Ijmaa had opened the doors for new interpretations of Islamic legal rules. Ijmaa is flexible and not rigid like the Quran or Sunnah.
- Reform in Muslim personal law is possible even today in the same manner as Ijmaa was being formed in the past.
Conditions for the Validity of Ijma:
- The agreement must take place among mujtahids.
- The agreement must be unanimous.
- The mujtahids must belong to the Islamic community.
- The agreement of mujtahids must be held after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
- The agreement must be among the mujtahids of one period, even though some mujtahids of subsequent periods may differ from them.
- The agreement should be held on a rule of Islamic law (in a legal matter).
- The mujtahids should have relied upon a sanad for deriving their opinion. Sanad is the evidence (proof) upon which the mujtahids rely on, for arriving upon an agreement.
Authority of Ijma:
Authority of Ijma depended upon the merit of the participator in its formation. There were different categories of jurists. Better was the category of jurists, greater is the value of their opinions.
Rules deduced on the basis of Ijmaa have varying degrees of binding authority in different schools. If all schools have consensus on particular Ijmaa, there can be no disagreement thereafter. In other words, Ijmaa once established cannot be questioned.
Kinds of Ijma on the Basis of Expression:
Explicit ijmaa(ijma sarih):
The Ijmma which is the legal opinions of all the mujtahids of one period converge in relation to the legal issue, and each one of them states his opinion explicitly is called explicit Ijmaa. Generally it is realized by their meeting in one place and examining an issue in question and finally, they express a unanimous opinion. It may also take place when an issue occurred and every mujtahids give the same legal opinion.
Silent or tacit ijma (ijma sukuti):
It takes place when some mujtahid, one or more, give a legal opinion with regard to a specific rule about a particular legal issue, then the rest of them are informed of this Position of Ijmaa as a Source of Islamic Law.
Position of express ijma:
The majority of Muslim jurists, particularly the jurists of four well-known schools of law, are in agreement that expresses Ijmaa is an authoritative
source of Islamic law. It is incumbent on the Muslim to follow the legal rule of the Islamic law that derived from Ijmaa as similar to the rule established by the text of the Quran and the Sunnah. The legal rule based on Ijmaa is definitive and it is not permitted to oppose it. In addition, the mujtahids are not allowed to exercise ijtihad on the legal issue that has been settled through Ijmaa.
Kinds of Ijma on the Basis of Authority:
From the point of view of authority and importance, there are three kinds of Ijma:
Ijma of the Companions:
These people were treated as the most reliable because they were such Muslims who lived during the lifetime of the Prophet and had the privilege of being in his close contact. It was presumed that the Companions were the best persons to act as jurists. Hence the concurrent opinions of the Companions of the Prophet were taken to be most valuable and reliable. Such Ijma, being most authoritative, could not be overruled or modified by any subsequent Ijma. Hanbalis recognize only this kind of Ijma.
Ijma of the Jurists:
Ijma of jurists was the unanimous decision of the jurists (other than Companions) over a point of law in a particular age. When the Quran and traditions (Sunnah) could not supply any rule of law for a new problem and there is no Ijmaa of companions, then it was natural that the opinion of other learned scholars of any age was taken to be the law. A great mass of Hanafi rules of law has been formulated through this kind of Ijma.
Ijma of the People:
The third category of Ijma is the opinions of the majority of Muslims. As it was not possible to have a concurrent opinion or even the absolute majority of the community at large and every Muslim cannot be supposed to be a learned scholar, this kind of Ijma has little value because of two reasons.
Drawbacks of Ijma:
- The consensus of opinion of the jurists was based on several grounds, such as Quran, traditions, custom, public policy, equity, etc. This led to differences in the approach of scholars in arriving at a decision. The result was that different schools and sub-schools were formed and law became complicated.
- It was doubted after some time whether the consensus or unanimity in the opinions, was at all necessary. According to some jurists, opinions of the majority were sufficient to constitute the Ijma.
- Except for the Ijma of the Companions, the other two kinds of Ijma could be modified or overruled by a subsequent Ijma. But the mujtahids are not allowed to exercise ijtihad on the legal issue that has been settled through Ijmaa.
- In a very short period, Islam spread to distant places, hence it became practically difficult to consult all the jurists and obtain their opinions.
Conclusion:
Ijma as a source of law active when the Quran and traditions (Sunnah) could not supply any rule of law for a new problem. When a new principle of law was required, the jurists (Mujtahids) used to give their concurrent opinion and a new law was laid down. The jurists were not free to give decisions without any basis. They had to justify their opinions in the light of some well-settled principles already given in the Quran or the traditions (Sunnah). Besides they had to consider the equity and the interest of the community. Authority of Ijma depended upon the merit of the participator in its formation. There were different categories of jurists. Better was the category of jurists, greater is the value of their opinions. Ijma cannot be confined to any particular period or country. It is completed when the jurists, after due deliberation, come to a finding .it cannot be questioned or challenged by any individual jurist. Ijma of one age may be reversed or modified by the ijma of the same or subsequent age