Özet:

Ijmā is ranked as the third shariah evidence after the Qur'an and Sunnah in the science of Uṣūl. Shafi was the first one who made Uṣūl which had been known and used by the Islamic scholars, into a written document and who asserted that Ijmā was the third of the shariah evidence. Kalām is one of the sciences in which Ijmā evidence is used. The scholars of Kalām used this evidence as far as the science of Uṣūl made it possible. They always used it without changing any basics of religious beliefs and acceptances. That the aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah has been supported with Ijmā which is regarded as one of naqly evidence, played an important role in eliminating suspicions which were tried to be aroused in momins' mind. In this article, the function and importance of Ijmā evidence, which is one of the primary sources of the science of Uṣūl, in the science of Kalām and Aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah has been studied. What the Qur'an demands from us is to emphasize the spirit of unity among the Ummah and to keep out the factors that could trigger separation and division. Indeed, Allah emphasizes in the following verses in the Qur'an on the protection of the unitary structure of the hope: "And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided" (Al-Imran 3/103) and "And do not be like those who became divided and divided after the clear proofs had come to them" (Al-Imran 3/105).  Allah has commanded the Ulul 'Azm Prophets to hold the religion upright and to avoid division. (Al-Shūrā 42 and 13) The command of holding the religion upright and not to be divided in this religion means to certify what needs to be confirmed in the religion of God and to obey those who must be obeyed. This is also the proclamation of the principle of religion that all the prophets have consensus on. Ahl al-Sunnah understanding of Islam is identical to the understanding of the Prophet and his companions. For this reason, Ahl al-Sunna is the school that represents the main backbone of Islam. In Ahl al-Sunna, in many subjects, be it usūlî / primary or furū'ī / secondary, there has been ijmā. These ijmās are Sahaba ijmās and deductive ijmās that come from mutakallimūn (theologians) ijtihāds. Therefore, ijmā and ijtihād are closely connected to each other. Ijmā is supported by ijtihād and ijtihād is also the source of ijmā. Thus, the issue is no longer just a pure ijtihād; it turns out to be a degree that gives a solid knowledge after it has risen to some degree just after the nass/texts. Ahl al-Sunnah theologians are talking about two kinds of ijmā. The first is “ijmā taṣdīqī” (approval consensus) which is the consensus based on Sahaba Ijmā. These are the ijmās that occur on the principles called ṭaruratal-diniya (necessities of the religion), and accepted as solid proofs in religion. Issues such as the principles of faith, obligation of prayer and fasting are the subjects that are determined by the solid/definite ijmā. Such claims are valid approvals on existing provisions. These ijmās based on solid nass (verses and hadiths). Such idmās do not give any new information. The existing information is strengthened by the Alliance of Muslims. In these areas, ijtihād cannot be done and Muslims do not need ijtihād on these issues. There is a consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah scholars about the unfaithfulness of the one who denies one or more of the principles that are accepted as the main mandatory principles in Islam. The other is the "deductive ijmā which the ijtihāds have roles over. This kind of ijmās, are formed as a result of mujtahids' consensus over the same opinion on the issue of theological secondary issues. The issues related to the secondary theological issues that were open to the ijtihāds and the different results obtained on matters are not accepted as the cause of takfīr. However, depending on the subject he/she can be a sinner. Istidlālī/deductive ijmās are not considered as an independent proofs in 'Ilm al-Kalām, rather a supportive ones and are considered as textual evidence. Since, texts that are accepted as sources give supposed information. In this regard, the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars accepted other members of the sect who have in secondary theological issues opposed the ijmā of the salaf / predecessor as Ahl al-Qibla, but named them as Ahl al-Bid (innovator in religion) because of their opposition to Salaf's Ijmās. Moreover, the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah did not see them appropriate to participate in the Ijmās, which could occur between the generations that come after Sahābas/companions. Not all disputes have been criticized in Islam. It is a blessing for the Ummah to claim different opinions on the issues subject to ijtihād. Since the Ummah, in this way, will bring new solutions to emerging issues and as a result, Islam will have a mechanism to produce a dynamic solution. This can only be possible through ijtihād. Dispute is to propose different views on a subject. If this view is not in the actual matters that could harm the unity of the Ummah, rather in the case of ijtihadi issues, this conflict could turn to be mercy. The reason why the methodists evaluate the ijmā within the scope of the authorized evidence is that because they think it is essential that the ijmā be based on a proof. From this point of view, the alliances that occurred in mental matters were not considered as ijmā. The theologians always tried to support their claims with nass/textual proofs. When the ijmā is realized, whether known or not, they have stated that there is a religious proof behind it. For the provisions that were reached through ijmā cannot be against the provisions of the Prophet. Many issues in Islamic Belief and Kalām works are supported by the mental and textual evidence as well as by deductive ijmā. However, many of the claims of Ijmās in these works reflect the inter-sect ijmās of the Ahl al-Sunnah. The sects outside the Ahl al-Sunnah were excluded. This attitude is, above all, the aim of ensuring the integrity within the sect, and trying to protect the Ahl al-Sunnah belief. Since the ijmā evidence has a function that prevents all kinds of arbitrary and divisive thoughts and turns the supposed knowledge into the qat'ī/certain one, it raises the provision to the next level just after the nass, rather than merely being a ijtihādi provision. In the case of the forerunner of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the Māturīdes and Ash'arites have not differed in understanding of ijmā in terms of methodology. Although they have different views on the definition and content of the ijmā, they have a common understanding of the alliances of Mujtahids on the same view. The mutakallims (theologians) of Māturīdī and Ash'arī schools have used the proof of ijmā as supportive evidence in the cases related to Kalām. Al-Ash'arī not only adopted the proof of ijmā but also used it in practice in. He did not make any distinction in proof of ijmā as practical, theological, methodological or sub-divisional; he used it freely in every field.  Māturīdī and Ash'arī scholars decided that the ijmā could occur in religious matters and that there would be evidence when it was formed; In the case of mental issues, they have required the knowledge to be based on solid information. In the case of ijmā in purely mental issues, they have disputed over the issue. While some Ahl al-Sunnah scholars stated that since purely mental matters were certain knowledge and therefore don't need ijmā, they also ruled that because the mujtahids could get this knowledge from religious texts, therefore ijmā could occur in mental matters as well.

Anahtar Kelimeler: