Wanazuoni wengi na wanafiqhi wengi wamekubaliana kwamba Ijmaa' ilifanyika katika zama za Maswahaba (radhi za Allah ziwe juu yao), na hilo lilitokana na kuweza kuwatambua kwa uhakika idadi ya wanafiqhi wao, na kuwajua watu wa kutajwa (dhikr) na Ahl ul-Hall Wa-l-'Aqd miongoni mwao, pamoja na kuwa na ufahamu wa uwezekano wa kutokea kwa Ijmaa' (makubaliano) miongoni mwao.

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.

Makubaliano ya Maswahabah juu ya yale waliyokubaliana kuhusu Ahkaam yanachukuliwa kuwa Ijmaa', pamoja na yote yaliyomo ndani ya neno Ijmaa'. Hii ni kwa sababu haijafika kwetu kwamba kuna yeyote miongoni mwa wale waliokuwa mbali na Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, mji mkuu wa Khilafah, aliyepinga Hukm miongoni mwa Ahkaam iliyokubaliwa baada ya kufahamishwa Hukm hiyo. Kama jambo kama hilo lingetokea, lingekuwa limetufikia, kama vile upinzani wa wale waliopingana na 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) kuhusu mgawanyo wa ardhi ya Iraq ulivyotufikia, au kama upinzani wa mwanamke dhidi ya kuwekwa kikomo kwa Mahr (mahari) ya wanawake ulivyotufikia. Pia ni kwa sababu inajulikana sana kwamba Maswahabah (rah) hawakuwa miongoni mwa wale ambao wangenyamaza kimya juu ya kosa au juu ya uongo. Hiyo ni kwa sababu waliona kupinga kosa au kukabiliana na Baatil na dhulma kuwa ni wajibu wa Kishari'a na Amana (amana) shingoni mwao. Kwa hiyo, kama wangenyamaza kimya juu ya Hukm, kimya chao kingewakilisha ishara na dalili ya kuridhia kwao, na hili ni sawa na nguvu ya kulitamka waziwazi.

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.

Na wale waliosema kwamba kuna aina nyingine halali za Ijmaa' mbali na Ijmaa' ya Sahaba hawakukana Ijmaa' ya Sahaba. Badala yake, walizingatia kwamba Ijmaa' yao inaweza kuwezekana au kukusanywa, wakati ambapo kutokea kwa aina nyingine za Ijmaa' (zinazoshikwa na wengine) kulikuwa ni vigumu sana.

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.