each of them spoke according to the knowledge he possessed. Whoever discerned evidence in the Book cited it, and whoever discerned evidence in the Balance cited it. Sound proofs do not contradict one another, but some scholars may fail to perceive how they agree, or fail to recognize the weakness of one of them.

The Companions had an understanding of the Quran that eludes most later scholars, just as they knew aspects of the Sunnah and the Messenger’s circumstances that most later scholars do not know. They witnessed the Messenger and the revelation, saw him firsthand, and knew things about his words, deeds, and circumstances from which they could establish their conclusions—things unknown to most later scholars. Lacking that knowledge, these later scholars sought rulings through what they regarded as consensus or analogy.

Any later scholar who says, “Consensus is the basis of most of the Sharia,” is merely describing his own situation: his deficient knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah has made him dependent on it. This resembles their statement, “Most cases require analogy because the scriptural texts provide no indication of their rulings.” Such a statement comes only from someone unfamiliar with the Book and the Sunnah and how they indicate rulings.

Imam Ahmad—may Allah be pleased with him—said that there is no question that the Companions did not address, either directly or through a comparable case. When lands were conquered and Islam spread, every category of human activity presented itself, and they addressed these matters on the basis of the Book and the Sunnah. Only in a few questions did some of them speak on the basis of reasoned opinion. Most of them did not invoke consensus as evidence, nor did they need it, for they themselves were the people whose agreement constituted consensus; there was no consensus before them. But when the Successors came, ʿUmar wrote to Shurayh: “Judge according to what is in the Book of