4. The fourth view: the death of the generation is required only if the number of those who remain still reaches the level of tawatur; should fewer than that survive, the remainder are not taken into account. In practical terms, if a group of them die while a number equal to tawatur remains and those survivors—or some of them—retract, the consensus is not deemed to have been established. If, however, fewer than the number required for tawatur remain and they—or some of them—retract, their retraction does not affect the consensus.

5. The fifth view: the passing of the generation is a condition for a consensus reached by the Companions but not for one reached by later scholars. Where the extinction of the generation is not required, the mere lapse of time likewise carries no weight; their agreement becomes evidence in and of itself. Thus, should some of them subsequently retract, their retraction is disregarded and is treated as a breach of the consensus; if a newcomer appears and dissents, his view is likewise ignored, for the consensus stands as proof against him. Even if every one of them were to discover a reason for retracting and they all did so, it would be impermissible; their original consensus would remain binding upon them and upon others—even were a later generation to reach a unanimous view opposed to it, that later consensus would still be inadmissible, for otherwise the two consensuses would collide. … End of citation.

Al-Ghazālī said in al-Mustasfā (p. 152), concerning the opinion that the extinction of the generation is a prerequisite: “This is unsound, for the authority lies in their agreement, not in their death. The agreement was already achieved before they died, and death adds nothing to its force.” End quote.

I say: That is a sound piece of reasoning.

Thirdly: Is binding authority confined to the consensus of the Companions, to the exclusion of those who came after them?

Al-Ghazālī stated in al-Mustasfā (p. 149): “Dāwūd and his literalist followers maintained that the consensus of anyone after the Companions carries no authority. This is invalid, for the three proofs that consensus is binding—the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and reason—make no distinction between one era and another. If the Successors reach unanimity, that is the consensus of the whole Ummah, and whoever opposes them has taken a path other than that of the believers.” End quote.

I say: The view that no consensus other than that of the Companions is to be considered has also been attributed to Aḥmad (may Allah have mercy on him). In al-Musawwada (2/616) it is recorded: “The Qāḍī said: Consensus is a definitive proof to which one must defer, and it is forbidden to oppose it; the Ummah cannot unanimously err. Aḥmad explicitly affirmed this in the narrations of ʿAbd Allāh and Abū al-Ḥārith: concerning the Companions—if they disagreed, one must not depart from their statements. He was asked: ‘Suppose they unanimously agreed…’”