ووافق أكثرُ العلماءِ والفقهاءِ على أنّ الإجماعَ قد انعقدَ في زمنِ الصحابةِ رضوانُ اللهِ عليهم، وذلك لإمكانِ حصرِ عددِ فقهائهم بدقةٍ وتحديدِهم، ومعرفةِ أهلِ الذكرِ منهم وأهلِ الحلِّ والعقدِ، فضلاً عن العلمِ بإمكانيةِ حصولِ الإجماعِ بينهم.

Most of the ‘Ulamaa and Fuqahaa have agreed that the Ijmaa’ had been convened in the time and era of the Sahaabah (rah) and that was due to being able to put a finger on and clearly ascertain the number of their Fuqahaa and knowledge of the people of mention (dhikr) and Ahl ul-Hall Wa-l-‘Aqd among them, in addition to being aware of the possibility of the occurrence of Ijmaa’ (consensus) amongst them.

إنّ اتفاق الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم على ما اتفقوا عليه في الأحكام يُعدّ إجماعًا بكل ما يتضمنه لفظ الإجماع، وذلك لأنه لم يبلغنا أن أحدًا ممن كان غائبًا عن المدينة المنورة عاصمةِ الخلافة خالف حكمًا من الأحكام التي أُجمع عليها بعد علمه بالحكم، ولو حدث مثل هذا لبلغنا كما بلغنا اعتراض المخالفين لعمرَ بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه في قسمة أرض العراق، أو كما بلغنا اعتراض المرأة على تحديد المهر. كما أنه من المعلوم أن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم لم يكونوا ممن يسكتون على خطأ أو على باطل، لأنهم كانوا يرون أن الإنكار على الخطأ ومواجهة الباطل والظلم واجبٌ شرعيٌّ وأمانةٌ في أعناقهم، فإذا سكتوا عن حكمٍ كان سكوتهم إشارةً وعلامةً على رضاهم به، وهذا بمنزلة التصريح بالقبول في القوة.

The agreement of the Sahaabah upon what they agreed upon in respect to Ahkaam is regarded as an Ijmaa’ with all that is contained within the word of Ijmaa’. That is because it has not reached our knowledge that anyone from amongst those who were absent from Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, the capital of the Khilafah, had opposed a Hukm from amongst the Ahkaam that had been agreed upon after being made aware of the Hukm. If something like this had happened it would have reached us just like the opposition of those who disagreed with ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) about the division of the land of Iraq reached us or like the opposition of the woman to a limit being placed upon the women’s Mahr (dowry) having reached us. It is also because it is well known that the Sahaabah (rah) were not from those who would remain silent over a mistake or over falsehood. That is because they viewed opposition to the mistake or confronting Baatil and oppression to represent a Shar’iy obligation and an Amaanah (trust) upon their necks. Therefore, if they remained silent over a Hukm, their silence would represent a signal and sign of their approval of it and this is equivalent to the strength of being explicit in respect to it.