Analyzing the Nature and Foundations of Collective Ijtihad from the Perspective of Both Islamic Schools

Abstract

Ijtihad, as one of the fundamental foundations for deriving Islamic legal rulings, has historically been practiced predominantly in an individual manner. However, with the expansion of novel issues and the increasing social and legal complexities of the modern era, the need to employ collective and consultative methods of legal derivation has gained growing attention. Collective (or consultative) ijtihad -meaning the participation of a group of jurists and scholars in the process of deriving rulings-can enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of opinions, reduce individual bias and error, and function more effectively in addressing contemporary issues. This study, using a comparative approach, examines the perspectives of both Sunni and Shia (Imami) schools regarding the authority and status of collective ijtihad. Sunni scholars, through the establishment of institutions such as fiqh academies, have effectively recognized collective ijtihad and regard it as a practical tool for confronting modern challenges. In contrast, although Imami jurisprudence is fundamentally grounded in individual ijtihad, its principles and methodological foundations nonetheless provide the capacity to accommodate collective ijtihad.The findings of the research indicate that collective ijtihad in both traditions has the potential to serve as a credible model for legal derivation; the key difference lies in the fact that Sunnis have institutionalized and systematically implemented it, whereas within the Imami tradition, such institutional structures have not been developed and the discourse remains largely at the level of theoretical exploration. Ultimately, strengthening collective ijtihad can contribute to greater intellectual and practical convergence among Islamic schools of thought and foster more effective responses to the needs of the contemporary world.