The second is to say, “A consensus has now been established against this view.” This rests on a well-known question in the principles of jurisprudence: if the Companions, for example, or the scholars of another generation differed over an issue, holding two positions, and then the Successors or the scholars of the following generation agreed upon one of them, does this constitute a consensus that supersedes the earlier disagreement?

There is a well-known disagreement on this question within the school of Ahmad and among other scholars. Anyone who holds that the consensus of the second generation makes it impermissible to adopt the other position, and also believes that the scholars of the age have reached such a consensus, bases his prohibition on these two beliefs. Whoever recognizes that the earlier disagreement retains its force—since opinions do not die with those who voiced them—considers it permissible for a scholar qualified to exercise independent legal reasoning to adopt the other position if his reasoning leads him to it. As for following a scholar’s legal authority, this depends on the question of following a deceased scholar, concerning which there are likewise two well-known positions within the schools of al-Shāfi‘ī, Ahmad, and others.

If, however, the position held by these imams or others is also held by some scholars whose schools remain in existence, then there is no doubt that their agreement supports and strengthens that position. One may cite their authority against those of their contemporaries who disagreed with them. Thus, one may cite al-Thawrī and al-Awzā‘ī against Abū Hanīfah and Mālik, for the Muslim community agrees that when Mālik