Home Current Archive Editorial board
About us
Focus and Scope OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION About us
News Contact
×
Home Current Archive Editorial board

Focus and Scope OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION About us
News Contact
Review paper
Published: 01.12.2010.
<< Prev | Next >>
PDF
https://doi.org/10.51728/issn.2637-1480.2011.61

POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE ON CONSENSUS (IJMĀ’) OF ISLAMIC SCHOLARS IN THE CONTEMPORARY AGE

By
Šurkija Ramić
Šurkija Ramić

Islamic pedagogical faculty in Zenica

View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar

Abstract

This paper presents the author’s ideas about a possibility of questioning consensus (ijmā’) of Islamic scholars, validity of those consensuses and authenticity of statements found in Islamic writings. In that sense, broad guidelines are presented at the end of the paper. Those guidelines can be of great help to contemporary Islamic scholars for building their relationship with the third source of Shari´ah and for using that source in a quality manner for argumentation and solving contemporary legal issues. Keywords: consensus (ijmā’), Shari’ah, ijtihād

References

1.
Iršād el-fuhūl ilā tahqīqi ’ilmi-l-usūl.
2.
Nudžejm I. Zejnuddīn (bez godine izdanja.
3.
4.
5.
El-Qurtubī. Ebū El-Velīd Muhammed ibn Ahmed ibn Muhammed ibn Rušd (1982) Bidājetu-l-mudžtehid ve nihājetu-l-muqtesid.

Citation

Copyright

Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

{{ submission.title }}
Issue image
Vol 9, Issue 1, 2011
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR A RIGHT ATTITUDE TOWARDS WESTERN THOUGHT THE BOSNIAKS AND HADITH STUDIES IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE ON CONSENSUS (IJMĀ’) OF ISLAMIC SCHOLARS IN THE CONTEMPORARY AGE PRESENCE OF KIRA’AT IN HANDŽIĆ’S ANNOTATION OF THE QUR’AN THE PROBLEM OF ADDICTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF QUR`ANIC ANTROPOLOGY See full issue

Citations

Crossref Logo

0

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.