the view of one of them unless he first considers which position is closer to the Book and the Sunnah.”

I say: al-Shinqīṭī, in his Mudhakkirah (p. 183), maintains that their agreement is a proof but not a consensus, for consensus exists only when everyone concurs.

Al-ʿIlāʾī presents a forceful study in Ijmāl al-Iṣābah establishing that the concurrence of the Four Caliphs is a proof, not consensus, and he answers the objections of those who disagree. He writes (pp. 47–50):

“Likewise, what has been reported from Imām al-Shāfiʿī—both in his earlier works and in his later treatise on his disagreements with Mālik—shows that when the Companions’ opinions diverge he adopts the view of one of the Four Caliphs; therefore, relying on what all four agreed upon is even more fitting. Calling this a consensus equivalent to the unanimous agreement of the entire ummah, however, is far-fetched, because the textual and rational proofs cited to establish the authority of consensus pertain to the whole community, and it is plain that the Four Caliphs are not the whole community.

The leading scholars of legal theory relate that Abū Khāzim argued that their agreement constitutes consensus by citing the Prophet’s ﷺ statement, ‘You must follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Caliphs; hold fast to it with your molar teeth…,’ making adherence to their Sunnah obligatory just as adherence to his Sunnah is obligatory; thus, an opinion that opposes their Sunnah is disregarded just as an opinion that opposes his Sunnah ﷺ is disregarded. They answered this with two replies: first, the hadith is general, covering every rightly guided caliph, and offers no indication that it is confined to these four alone (may Allah be pleased with them); second, it is countered by the report in which he ﷺ said, ‘My Companions are like the stars; whichever of them you follow you will be guided.’ Accordingly, the Sunnah of the Four Caliphs mentioned in the first hadith is restricted to matters of the caliphate so as to reconcile the texts—especially since part of their Sunnah is to permit disagreement with them, as seen when a woman corrected ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) about excessive bridal gifts and in many other cases.

Furthermore, this would entail that the solitary opinion of any one of them would itself be binding proof, producing a clash whenever their views differ. The two Shaykhs (may Allah be pleased with them) disagreed over stipends: Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) held that all Companions should receive equal shares, whereas ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) favored allocating them according to precedence and closeness to the Prophet ﷺ. Acting upon both of their Sunnahs simultaneously would thus be impossible, and it must therefore be interpreted