Consensus (ijmā‘) is considered one of the primary epistemological sources among Sunni scholars and is frequently invoked in various theological discussions, including the Imamate. In the matter of the appointment of the Imam (naṣb al-imām), many Sunni theologians regard consensus as the primary evidence for the “Theory of Allegiance” (ikhtiyār). Nevertheless, an examination of various viewpoints reveals two distinct approaches within the Sunni perception of this consensus: one group maintains an absolute consensus on the appointment of the Imam, while another considers the appointment of the Imam by the duty-bound (mukallafūn) to be the unanimously agreed-upon (mujma‘ ‘alayh) position.
This research adopts an analytical-critical approach to investigate the validity and authority (hujjiyyah) of this consensus. The methodology involves a comparative analysis between the foundations and pillars of ijmā‘ and its specific application to the appointment of the Imam; through conceptual analysis, the evaluation of the evidence for its authority, and the application of the pillars and conditions of consensus, the research measures the degree of correspondence between these criteria and the claim of consensus in the Imam's appointment.
The research findings indicate that the claimed consensus cannot be established, neither in terms of the realization of the concept of consensus—due to the lack of agreement among jurists (mujtahids)—nor in terms of fulfilling the conditions of authority—due to disputes regarding its possibility, transmission, and the knowledge of the consensus—nor in terms of its various pillars and prerequisites. Consequently, the claim of consensus in the appointment of the Imam lacks validity. This result challenges the primary foundation of the "Theory of Election" in the appointment of the Imam from the Sunni perspective and undermines its efficacy.