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.

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.

And those who have said that there are other valid types of Ijmaa’ other than the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah did not deny the Ijmaa’ AsSahaabah. Rather they considered that their Ijmaa’ could possibly take place or be convened whilst the occurrence of other types of Ijmaa’ (held by others) was very difficult.