نوع المستند : مقاله پژوهشی
المؤلفون
1 أستاد مساعد وعضو الهیئة العلمیة في معهد دراسات الجنوب.
2 أستاذة مدرسة وعضو الهیئة العلمیة في معهد دراسات الجنوب.
المستخلص
الكلمات الرئيسية
عنوان المقالة [English]
المؤلفون [English]
One of the most important sources in the inference of Shariah rulings is Ijma (consensus), to the extent that it is considered to be more important and more valid than the Qur'an and the Sunnah in denoting the Shariah rulings, while the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah alone are sufficient and the most valid sources as arguments in Shariah rulings. This research examines and analyzes the various viewpoints and arguments that have been presented regarding the validity of consensus through a descriptive, analytical and critical method, because in order to prove it in Islamic Sharia and its validity, a definite argument is needed. The result of this research suggests that the arguments for the validity of the consensus, even though the book, the tradition, and the rational method were used, it does not fulfill the purpose, and in a way, the conflict between those who support it in citing these arguments reduces its credit value. As a result, it is not considered among the arguments of inferring rulings based on the "validity of previous existence". The novelty of this article is the critical study of consensus as an independent argument from the point of view of the Sunnis in inferencing rulings, respecting the authentic sources of the Sunnis and proving its invalidity in inferencing jurisprudential rulings.
الكلمات الرئيسية [English]
)