Ijma?

Why do we:

1) accept ijma 
2) only accept the ijma of the progeny 

I understand the textual evidence that could be used to back up the 2nd point but how can fallibles when put together all give an infallible opinion if they agree? Does this not seem tribalist as there is little difference between a sayyid and non sayyid today? Also, is this ijma only referring the imams of obedience? or is it scholars in general?

What about the idea of imams of obligatory obedience ? Having one fallible individual solely leading militarily, politically, and religiously seems like a recipe for disaster.

Historically what is the legacy of previous Zaydi imamates? As I have heard they were oppressive in a way they could likely be justified by religion.

as-salamu alaikum,

the proof for the evidence of ijmaa are the verses of al-Baqarah 143, al-Nisa 59 and the ahadith where it is stated that the Ummah will not agree on falsehood and that we have to stick to the ahl al bayt which indicates the generality of them so in essence their ijmaa.

as for the imam who is righteous, we have to obey him as long as he is on the path of truth. That doesnt mean that the fiqhi opinions of the imams of the past are lifted. So there is no unconditional obedience to anyone besides Allah and his Prophet salallahu alayhi wa salam.

As for having one person as a ruler and that this would lead to disaster that is the claim of people of falsehood, the problem is not if one person is ruling over all the people, the problem of society is if someone who is not fit for the position to rule over the people. thats why you can see that even in democratic societies there are many problems (by unfit people) which arent solved. And because the majority sunni muslims abandoned the path of imamah they became very very weak, even despite the fact that their concept of imamah is wrong it was at least trying to emulate the true imamah. now they are left headless without any guidance. as for us zaydis we never abandoned the imamah even if we dont have a present imam, the imamah is a core principle of our school.

as for the problem of corruption and abuse of the position (in any leadership where one person rules), we zaydis established clear rules for the acceptance of the imamah. if any imam abandons the way of quran, ahl al-bayt, sunna and justice he automatically loses the authority (which is bestowed upon him by Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala) and we zaydis will be the first to rebell against him alongside a righteous son of Fatima alayha al salam.

There are many claims from the opponents of the Ahl al Bayt, that they have been oppressive and dictators, but claims dont make anything true and the opponent of any political position will always claim that the their opponents are oppressive and inhuman, thats the nature of people. Amir al-Mumineen Ali alayhi al-salam was attacked the most despite beeing the best person after Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa salam. He was cursed, attacked, lied upon, disliked, sometimes treated below his right position, despite all of this he was after our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa salam the best example of a Mumin. Or in Sufi terms: Insan al-Kamil.

wa salam

how many scholars must agree for ijma? As the zaydiyah we are a minority within a minority could this not be used against us if the ummah does not agree on falsehood?

As-salamu alaikum,

Ijmaa is a Concept of Usul al Fiqh. It is a accepted method of arriving at the truth and only very few were ever against this concept.

As mentioned the proofs from the quran and the sunnah are clear and the Ummah accepted this since the early days.

As for the finer details of the concept there is much disagreement among the Usulis (the scholars of usul al-fiqh). So there are many opinions among the different madhahib and the ulama on who is included in the ijmaa or what about the scope in terms of timeframe.

About the Zaydi view:

In the book of al-Kashif which is an Sharh to the famous al-Kafil on usul al fiqh it is stated that the definition of Ijmaa is:

„The agreement of the righteous mujtahideen of the ummah of Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam in any age on a any issue.“

Umma is excluding all non muslims.
Mujtahideen is excluding all non scholars.
Righteous is excluding all sinners.
Any Asr (Age) – is including all times.
Any Issue – is including all issue.

And it is added:

„And the choosen position is that is not stipulated that the age is over for it to take place.“

Meaning that in the moment the mujtahideen of a time have arrived at the same opinion it becomes a proof and no one after can change the ruling for it is established and will not change anymore. Even if some of the same mujtahideen were to take back their very opinion after that.

So there is neither a timeframe, nor a certain number for the scholars.

As for your second question what do you mean with that exactly?

Wa salamu alaikum

-An argument that is sometimes used by the sunnis is this in combination with the "73 sects" Hadith, that because we are a minority it does not make sense that Allah (swt) would allow a majority of the ummah to be misguided

- correct me if im wrong, this may clear some things up for me; Ijma is in terms of fiqh issues not aqeedah?

-Does Zaydi governance believe in a majlis al shura?