Ruling on creating a third or more saying in matters of consensus, and the impact of disagreement on it in the branches of jurisprudence )Aplied Fundamental Study(

Abstract

SummaryThis research relates to an important fundamental issue, which is: The creation of a third saying after the unanimity has occurred in one of the issues, so is the creation of a third saying after the unanimity is a violation of the consensus, and a departure from it?And the fundamentalists, after they agreed that it is not permissible to violate the firm and definitive consensus that settled on one saying, they differed about the consensus that settled on two opinions, and the forerunners differed in it on two opinions, and this dispute resulted in three doctrines, and some of them made them four, but I went with the division of the most fundamentalists, which are As follows:First: It is not permissible to create a third saying at all.Second: It is permissible to create a third saying at all.The third: It is the doctrine of detail, and they said: If the creation of the third saying raises something that was agreed upon from the previous two sayings, it is not permissible to create a third saying, and if it does not raise it, it is permissible.After presenting and discussing the evidence, it apears that the most correct opinion in the matter is: the third opinion, and according to it most of the scholars of the fundamentalists, then conclude the research with some aplications of the issue on some branches of jurisprudence, and I ask God for success and payment