Introduction
Consensus (ijma) has long been recognised as a fundamental source of Islamic legal norms (Zaman, 2006:153). However, there is no universal agreement on how consensus should be reached and whether it is the consensus of legal scholars or that of the whole community that should be pursued (ibid.). Muhammad Qasim Zaman (ibid.) argues that the doctrine of consensus has been severely challenged in modern times; indeed, one could wonder whether it is at all possible to reach a substantive consensus with regards to the content of the norms that should regulate religious belief and practice (henceforth ‘religious norms’) in a way conducive to order and, simultaneously, to Muslim flourishing.
In this essay I am going to argue that it is possible to reach such consensus, but only within a specific community at a specific time and in a specific place. I am going to maintain that there can be no (spatially and temporally) universal consensus regarding religious norms, but that, on the contrary, any community where such a consensus exists must be …show more content…
The first perspective sees the sources of Islam as presenting humans with a single Truth from which clear and uncontroversial norms can be inferred, which form the basis of societal (if not universal) consensus. The second perspective, on the contrary, maintains that no clear norms of behaviour emerge from the Islamic sources, and that religious norms must be established through individual interpretation of the sources. Therefore, the possibility of reaching consensus on religious norms is limited to sub-societal groups coexisting in a multi-consensual society. Finally, the third perspective posits a commitment to constantly reviewing and changing the societal consensus on religious norms as the very foundation of such consensus, which can thus be seen as a single ever-changing
Consensus (ijma) has long been recognised as a fundamental source of Islamic legal norms (Zaman, 2006:153). However, there is no universal agreement on how consensus should be reached and whether it is the consensus of legal scholars or that of the whole community that should be pursued (ibid.). Muhammad Qasim Zaman (ibid.) argues that the doctrine of consensus has been severely challenged in modern times; indeed, one could wonder whether it is at all possible to reach a substantive consensus with regards to the content of the norms that should regulate religious belief and practice (henceforth ‘religious norms’) in a way conducive to order and, simultaneously, to Muslim flourishing.
In this essay I am going to argue that it is possible to reach such consensus, but only within a specific community at a specific time and in a specific place. I am going to maintain that there can be no (spatially and temporally) universal consensus regarding religious norms, but that, on the contrary, any community where such a consensus exists must be …show more content…
The first perspective sees the sources of Islam as presenting humans with a single Truth from which clear and uncontroversial norms can be inferred, which form the basis of societal (if not universal) consensus. The second perspective, on the contrary, maintains that no clear norms of behaviour emerge from the Islamic sources, and that religious norms must be established through individual interpretation of the sources. Therefore, the possibility of reaching consensus on religious norms is limited to sub-societal groups coexisting in a multi-consensual society. Finally, the third perspective posits a commitment to constantly reviewing and changing the societal consensus on religious norms as the very foundation of such consensus, which can thus be seen as a single ever-changing