IjmaEdit

Ijma, Arabic for consensus, is a foundational concept in Islamic jurisprudence. It denotes the agreement of qualified jurists on a ruling after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, provided the issue in question is not settled explicitly in the Qur'an or the Sunnah. In traditional legal theory, ijma is one of the main sources of Sharia, ranking alongside the Qur'an and the Sunnah, with qiyas (analogical reasoning) playing a supporting role. The idea is that the community of learned scholars, acting through a careful, methodical process, can generate stable and tested conclusions that preserve doctrinal unity and public order. In practice, ijma is not a blanket permission for every new decree; it is a tightly bound mechanism that relies on the authority and integrity of those who participate in the consensus.

Across the major legal schools, ijma is treated as a limit and a guarantor of continuity. It is envisioned as a historical, social discipline: when the textual sources do not dictate a clear answer, the gathered scholarship of credible jurists helps define the community’s settled practice. This approach aims to prevent legal chaos while allowing legitimate development of law in response to changing circumstances. In some periods, ijma was invoked with sweeping force; in others, it functioned as a more modest sanction, guiding judicial reasoning within a tradition. The result is a system that balances reverence for revelation with rational discernment by learned interpreters.

Definition and scope

What counts as ijma: A binding consensus requires that a critical mass of qualified scholars within a recognized Islamic tradition agree on a ruling, and that there be no explicit textual ruling to the contrary in the Qur'an or the Sunnah (the practices and sayings of the Prophet). The precise criteria for who qualifies as a participant, and what constitutes true consensus, have varied across centuries and schools.
What does not count: A plurality of opinions among lay followers, or a decision reached by a small, unrepresentative body, does not constitute ijma. Likewise, personal opinions of eminent individuals, no matter how learned, do not become ijma unless they gain widespread acceptance within the scholarly community.
Relationship to other sources: Ijma sits between revelation and reason. It is invoked when direct textual guidance is absent or ambiguous, with the expectation that a considered scholarly consensus reflects the best available interpretation within the framework of the Qur'an and the Hadith tradition. The process often involves robust debate, criticism, and refinement among jurists before any consensus is declared.

History and development

Ijma arose and matured as Muslim communities confronted new legal questions in a world far from the Prophet’s Medina. In the early centuries, jurists in different cities and regions began to articulate what it would take to establish a binding consensus. The most influential medieval formulations emerged among the four canonical Sunni schools of law:

Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali scholars offered differing emphases on how consensus is formed and when it becomes binding, yet all treated ijma as a key mechanism to resolve issues not settled in primary texts.
The idea of ijma was often linked to the authority of the community of believers in a given era and to the activity of mujtahids—scholars capable of independent legal reasoning—who could articulate reasoned positions that, if adopted broadly, become binding.
In the Maliki school, for example, the practice of the people of Medina was historically considered a form of ijma, reflecting a locally grounded consensus that later generations could adopt as a general principle.
Over time, jurists like al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya discussed the conditions under which ijma is achieved and how it relates to opposing views, further refining the standard for legitimate consensus.

In Shia Islam, ijma has a distinct place. While Sunnis emphasize ijma as a binding source once a consensus of judges and scholars coalesces, Shia jurisprudence tends to place greater weight on the authority of the Imams and the guidance of qualified jurists within a lineage. Ijma is not rejected in Shia thought, but its role is typically more limited and contextual, reflecting different understandings of religious authority and transmission.

Different schools and perspectives

Sunni Islam: Ijma is regarded as a crucial source of law after the Qur'an and the Sunnah. When confronted with new questions with no explicit textual answer, the Sunni tradition looks to the consensus of the jurists of a generation or era. The acceptance of ijma depends on its being true consensus, not merely a majority opinion, and on the presence of credible, qualified scholars participating in the process.
Shia Islam: The concept exists but operates under a different framework. The authority of the Imams and subsequent marja’iyya (jurisconsults who issue legal rulings) shapes jurisprudence in ways that can diverge from the broader Sunni concept of ijma. In practice, social and political conditions, as well as the interpretation of scripture, influence the weight given to consensus in Shia communities.
Modern reform movements and institutions: In the contemporary world, formalized councils of scholars and fatwa institutions in some parts of the Islamic world have sought to rearticulate ijma for issues like finance, bioethics, and international relations. Critics within traditional circles sometimes worry that such bodies risk politicization or overreach, while reformists argue that structured, transparent consensus mechanisms are necessary to address complex modern questions.

Contemporary practice and debates

Ijma remains a live concept in modern jurisdictions and discourses. Proponents argue that a properly conducted ijma anchors law in a settled scholarly tradition, preventing precipitous changes driven by fleeting fashion or political pressure. In practice, this can translate into:

The emulation of established jurists and institutions: fatwa councils, universities, and recognized madhhabs can function as modern embodiments of ijma by consolidating credible scholarly positions on new issues.
Caution in change: because ijma is about settled understanding, changes typically proceed slowly, with ample room for debate, testing, and gradual adaptation.

Critics, including some reform-oriented thinkers, contend that rigid or outdated conceptions of ijma can impede needed reforms and retard the adaptation of law to modern social realities. From a right-leaning perspective, the argument often centers on the following points:

Legitimacy through tradition: Stable, well-justified consensus safeguards doctrinal integrity and protects religious communities from ad hoc rulings that might favor political power or short-term interests.
Authority and accountability: a transparent, credentialed process ensures that consensus is not fabricated by a single influential figure or a narrow circle, but reflects the considered judgment of a broad scholarly community.
Practical limits: in a global ummah, achieving universal consensus is difficult. Critics worry that insisting on ijma as a universal, binding norm could be used to block prudent reforms needed to address new technologies or ethical issues.

Woke criticisms sometimes describe ijma as a mechanism of gatekeeping that can be used to justify the status quo and suppress voices advocating for reform or minority rights. From a center-right vantage point, those criticisms are often overstated or misapplied. In practice, ijma is not a license to ignore revealed texts or to silence legitimate dissent within a tradition. Justice and fidelity to canonical sources remain the touchstones, and many scholars argue that a genuine ijma emerges only after rigorous textual and rational examination that upholds both tradition and fundamental moral considerations.

Ijma in practice today

Institutions: Across different Muslim societies, fatwa offices, universities, and scholarly bodies play a role in shaping what counts as accepted consensus on contemporary issues, ranging from financial contracts to medical ethics.
Interaction with other sources: Ijma does not trump the Qur'an or the Sunnah. When a new matter clearly conflicts with primary sources, it is argued that ijma cannot override those texts.
Regional variation: Because the scholarly ecosystem differs by region, the specific processes and standards for declaring ijma can vary. The key is that consensus rests on credible, well-educated jurists rather than political players.

See also the broader landscape of Islamic legal theory, which encompasses the relationships among sources, methods of deduction, and the social functions of law in Muslim societies.