Bu, to'plangan kishilar muayyan voqelikka nisbatan, voqeliklar orasidan, o'z fikrlarini aniq bayon etganlarida va so'ng shu voqelik uchun Hukm Ash-Shar'iy ni ifodalovchi konsensusga kelganlarida yuz beradigan holatdir.

This is when those gathered express or present their opinions explicitly in respect to a given reality from amongst the realities and then they hold a consensus upon which represents the Hukm AshShar’iy for this reality.

Ijmoʼ ahlining bir joyda to‘planib, yagona fikrga kelgan vaqtidagi bu haqiqatga misol shunday: sahobalar Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ning dafn etilishini kechiktirib, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dan keyingi xalifani (vorisni) tayinlash uchun yig‘ilganlaridek. Ularning aksariyati Madinada, hatto Payg‘ambar ﷺ jasadiga yaqin joyda, Bani Saoida Saqifasida bo‘lgan edilar.

An example of this reality is when the people of Ijmaa’ are gathered in a single place and agree upon a single opinion. This is like what happened with the Sahaabah in respect to the delay of burying the Messenger of Allah (saw) so that they could select a Khalifah (successor) to the Messenger of Allah (saw). Most of them (the Sahaabah) were in Al-Madinah and indeed close to the body of the Messenger (saw) and in the Saqeefah of Bani Saa’idah.

Yoki ularni tarqatib yuborish mumkin, so'ngra ularga bir-bir qilib masala (Mas’alah) taqdim etiladi, va ularning har biri roziligini bildiradi, shunda ularning barcha fikrlari yagona bir fikrda birlashadi.

Or they could be dispersed and then an issue (Mas’alah) is presented to them one at a time each providing their agreement so that all of their opinions are in agreement upon one single opinion.

Yoki ulardan biri muayyan bir masalada (masala) hukm chiqarishi va bu hukm boshqalarga yetib borishi, so'ngra ular og'zaki bayon, fatvo yoki hukm chiqarilishi orqali o'z roziligini aniq ifodalashi ham mumkin.

Or it could be when one of them passes a judgement in a particular Mas’alah (issue) and that Hukm reaches the others and they then clearly express their agreement either by way of a statement, a verdict or judgment being passed.

Bu ijmoʻning bir kishisi masalalardan birida, u shar’iy hukm ekani asosida rayini bildiradi va unga hech kim qarshi chiqmaydi yoki uni rad etmaydi.

This is when one of the people of Ijmaa’ provides an opinion in a Mas’alah (issue) from amongst the Masaa’il (issues), on the basis of it being a Hukm Shar’iy, and no one renounces or disclaims it.

Ash-Shofiʼiy Ijmoʼ as-sukutiy ni, boshqa koʼplab fuqahoʼlar singari, qabul qilmagan. Ulardan baʼzilari uni ijmoʼ deb hisoblagan, lekin ijmoʼ as-sarihdan kuchsizroq deb bilgan. Boshqa bir fikrga koʼra, u hujjat (haqiqiy huquqiy dalil) hisoblanadi, ammo ijmoʼ deb tasniflanmaydi.

Ash-Shaafi’iy did not adopt Ijmaa’ As-Sukootiy in addition to many of the Fuqahaa whilst some of them considered it as an Ijmaa’ but of a lesser strength as compared to the Ijmaa’ As-Sareeh. In another opinion it was considered to represent a Hujjah (valid legal proof) but not classified as Ijmaa’.

Sahobalar bilan bog'liq ijmoi' sukutiy shunday yuz beradi: sahobalardan biri biror fikrni bildiradi yoki aytadi, sahobalar bu fikrdan xabardor bo'lishadi, va ularning hech biri uni inkor etmaydi yoki rad qilmaydi. Quyidagi shartlar amalga oshirilgan va bajarilgan taqdirda, bu (to'g'ri) ijmo' (konsensus) hisoblanadi:

The Ijmaa’ As-Sukootiy in respect to the Sahaabah occurred when one of the Sahaabah held or stated an opinion which the Sahaabah were aware about about and then none of them denounced or denied it. This is considered to (validly) represent an Ijmaa’ (consensus) if the following conditions are realised and met:

1 – Shar'iy hukm munkar (ya'ni, inkor etilishi va rad qilinishi kerak bo'lgan narsalar) jumlasidan bo'lganida, sahobalar bunga jim qolmas edi, chunki ular munkar ustida jim tura olmasligi mumkin emas edi. Bunga misol qilib, Bilol al-Muzaniy yerini olgan Umar ibn al-Xattob (roziyalloxu anhu) voqeasini keltirish mumkin. U yerni Rasululloh ﷺ unga bo'lib bergan edilar, ammo Bilol uch yildan ortiq vaqt davomida uni ishlamay qoldirgan edi.

1 – That the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy was from that which would (normally) be denounced and the Sahaabah would not remain silent over it because of the impossibility of them remaining silent over a Munkar (a matter that must be denounced and denied). This is like what happened in respect to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) when he took the land of Bilaal Al-Muzniy, which the Messenger of Allah (saw) has apportioned to him, after he left it unworked on for more than three years.

2 – Bu hukmning mashhur bo‘lgani va sahobalarning uni bilgani hamda xabardor bo‘lgani, chunki ular xabardor bo‘lmagan holda yoki bilmagan holda jim turishlari roziligi yoki ijmo’ deb hisoblanmaydi.

Ba'zilar ijmo'i sarīhni qat'iy, ijmo'i sukūtiyni esa zanniy deb hisoblaganlar.

- Some considered the Ijmaa’ As-Sareeh to be Qat’iy and the Ijmaa’ As-Sukootiy to be Zhanniy.

To'g'ri qarash shundaki, Ijmo' as-Sahoba hujjatligi, uning daleel ijmoliy ekanligi va Ahkom ash-shar'iyya manbalaridan biri ekanligi jihatidan, qat'iy bo'lishi kerak, va bu faqat Ijmo' as-Sahobada amalga oshadi.

The correct view is that the Hujjiyah of Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah in respect to it being a Daleel Ijmaaliy and a source from the sources of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah must be Qat’iy and that this is not fulfilled except in Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah.

Ijmo’ manbaidan chiqqan hukmlar Sunnatga o‘xshash tarzda qaraladi. U mutavotir bo‘lishi mumkin, bunda sahobalar unga kelishib, ijmo’ qilgan deb hisoblanadi va u Qat’iy as-Subut bo‘ladi; yoki u Ahod axborotlaridan bo‘lishi mumkin, bunda u Zanniy as-Subut bo‘ladi.

As for the Ahkaam derived from the source of Al-Ijmaa’ then they are treated like the Sunnah. It can either be Mutawaatirah in which case it would be Qat’iy Ath-Thuboot in respect to the Sahaabah having agreed and held a consensus upon it, or it can be from the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad in which case it would be Zhanniy Ath-Thuboot.

Ijmoʻga amal qilish va unga boʻysunish, u qat’iy sobit yoki zaniy sobit boʻlishidan qat’i nazar, vojibdir. Chunki Ijmoʻi-sahoba, yuqorida aytib oʻtganimizdek, bizgacha toʻgʻridan-toʻgʻri yetib kelmagan bir shariy dalilni ochib beradi va oshkor qiladi; bizga yetib kelgan narsa esa ijmoʻi-sahoba orqali yetib kelgan, oʻsha dalilga asoslangan hukmdir.

Working with and acting by the Ijmaa’ is Waajib (obligatory) whether it was Qat’iy Ath-Thuboot or Zhanniy Ath-Thuboot. This is because the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah, as we have mentioned, reveals and discloses a Daleel Shar’iy that did not reach us (directly) but rather the Hukm that was based on a Daleel reached us by way of Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah.

Ulamo va fuqaho al-ijmo' (konsensus) ahli kimlar ekani haqida ixtilof qilganlar va ixtilof qilganlar. Shu sababli ular al-ijmo' ahlidan hisoblanishi kerak bo'lgan kishilarga nisbatan shartlar belgilab berganlar. Quyida bu bilan bog'liq ba'zi tafsilotlar keltirilgan:

The ‘Ulamaa and Fuqahaa have differed and disagreed in regards to who the people of Al-Ijmaa’ (consensus) are. They therefore set down conditions in respect to who is to be considered to be from the people of Al-Ijmaa’. The following represents some of the details related to this: