Understanding and comparison of consensus in classical and modern period procedural writing

Icma(consensus) which is considered as the third evidence after the Quran and the Sunnah is among the basic religious evidence.Icma which is so important, has been subjected to different evaluations by the scholars of Usul(method). In order to make a correct evaluation about Icma, it is necessary to comprehend how icma has been understood from the past to the present. In this study, we have tried to determine the understanding of icma of the classical and modern period usul scholars and tried to convey the concept of icma from the past to the present by comparing them with each other. The study consists of two main sections. In the first section, By analyzing highly representative examples selected from the fundamental works of classical-period Usul literature, the understandings of consensus (Ijma) as presented by Pezdevî, Gazzâlî, İbn Kudâme, Karâfî, Şevkanî, es-Sübkî, and Bihârî's understandings of ijma were examined and compared with each other. In the second part, by taking into consideration of the works selected from the usul literature of the modern period, the ijma understandings of Abdülvehhab Hallâf, Muhammed Ebû Zehre, Abdülkerîm Zeydân and Zekiyüddin Şâban were compared with each other.Then, by revealing the similarities and differences between the classical and modern periods, it was determined how the understanding of ijma was handled throughout the historical process. As a result of the study, the following conclusion was reached: In the classical period, the general opinion was that ijma was a proof and that it was realized in every period. In the modern period, while there was no disagreement about ijma being a religious evidence, the general opinion was that it was not possible to realize ijma after the time of the companions. Shawkani, on the other hand, displayed a different attitude from everyone else and stated that ijma was not even a proof. It is observed that there are some differences in the perceptions of ijma among the authors who are the subjects of the research. As a matter of fact, there are many disputes about the details of the conditions and pillars of ijma. This situation leads to the conclusion that ijma has the function of protecting the fundamental issues of religion, and that the ideal realization of ijma on issues other than the fundamental issues of religion is open to debate.