Özet:

Ijma (consensus) is a concept expressing the alliance of mujtahids about the verdict of a Sharia issue in any period after the death of the Prophet. And as a term, abrogation refers to the removal of a judgment with a subsequent evidence. According to the theory of abrogation in Islamic law, any nass from the Qur’an and Sunnah can be abrogated only if a new nass comes after it. After the death of the Prophet, since there could not be a new nass revealed, the door of the abrogation of the Qur’an and Sunnah was closed. Because scholars cannot justify a judgment. They are only obliged to be subject to the judgment commanded in the Qur’an and Sunnah. In this context, there have been different opinions among the scholars on the issues of ijma’s abrogating other proofs and whether other evidences can abrogate it. The majority of scholars have adopted the view that neither of these were possible. Some scholars of different schools opposed the majority in this regard. From these, Hanafi scholar Pazdavi said that the ijma cannot abrogate the nass but the ijma of companions can abrogate the ijma of companions and every ijma other than their ijma can be abrogated with an equivalent ijma in every century. Babarti said that ijma can be abrogated with both absolute nass and absolute ijma. Some other scholars have argued that ijma can abrogate both another ijma and anology. According to the majority, it is not permissible for ijma to abrogate another ijma. Because such thing is not possible if the second ijma shows that the previous ijma is a superstition. If the previous ijma occurred as accurate at the time of its occurrence, but the second ijma was forbidden to be treated with, it is not permissible unless the first ijma is based on an evidence that remains hidden after the first scholar’s participating in the previous ijma. There is no such possibility. Because, the fact that all the first scholars are unaware of this evidence, requires their consensus on error. Scholars of the ummah do not make consensus on error. According to the majority, the abrogate of an ijma based on analogy is not permissible either. Because if the analogy is against ijma, then the condition of the act with analogy will disappear. When the condition disappears, its binding decision disappears, and it is not called abrogation. Likewise, according to the majority, it is not possible for the ijma to abrogate the analogy. Because the analogy against ijma is superstitious, it means that its provision was not fixed. It does not occur the abrogate about an evidence whose provision is not fixed. However, some Hanafi scholars including Isa b. Aban and some scholars belonging to Shafı’i, Mutazili and Zahiri schools said that it was permissible for ijma to abrogate nass and another ijma and to be abrogated with them. But there is no alliance of opinion between them. For example, Pazdavi said that the ijma could not abrogate the nass, but it could be abrogated with another ijma equivalent to the ijma. According to him, the consensus of the Companions can only be abrogated by the consensus of Companions and the consensus of the others that come after them can be abrogated with an equivalent ijma in each period. Likewise, an ijma, whose basis/sanad is a maslahat (common interest), may be abrogated with another ijma according to the change of maslahat in each period. Likewise, Babarti, who is one of the Hanafi scholars, had given permission to the abrogation of the absolute ijma both with the nass and with absolute ijma. Khatib al-Baghdadi from Shafı’i scholars and some of the Mu’tazili and Zahiri scholars have adopted the view that the ijma can abrogate the nass. Some scholars have adopted the view that ijma can abrogate ijma and analogy, although they do not accept the abrogation of the nass with ijma. It does not seem possible to agree with the opinions of these scholars for the above-mentioned reasons. Although the opinion of Pazdavi that the ijma based on maslahat can be abrogated with another ijma if the maslahat is changed was accurate, since the basis (sanad) of the first ijma will disappear and the maslahat has changed, a new consensus cannot be called as an abrogation. Because when the maslahat is eliminated, the provision of ijma is also eliminated. In this case, according to us, the opinion of the majority scholars stating that ijma cannot be abrogator or abrogated is correct.

Anahtar Kelimeler: