cannot be cited as evidence. If someone finds neither the report affirming disagreement nor the report denying it more persuasive than the other, he likewise has no grounds to give the claimed consensus precedence over the scriptural text, or the text precedence over it. Rather, he must suspend judgment, since neither carries greater weight for him. If he finds the report affirming disagreement more persuasive, he considers it most likely that no consensus contradicts the text, and he acts upon that text.

In assessing this, he considers those reporting consensus and disagreement. Someone known frequently to claim consensus when the facts are otherwise is not on the same footing as someone who has never been known to affirm a consensus subsequently shown not to exist. Likewise, someone known to err only rarely when reporting disagreement is not on the same footing as someone known to make frequent mistakes.

When two people independently report disagreement, neither having taken his report from the other, their reports establish that disagreement exists. Claims of consensus are different: even if several people concur in reporting consensus, this establishes only that they know of no disagreement. This applies to those who affirm disagreement over combining the three and those who deny it. Moreover, most of those affirming disagreement cite an authentic report that cannot be dismissed, while those denying it have nothing that invalidates it.

Many later jurists—or most of them—say that they are unable to derive all the rulings of Islamic law from the Messenger’s teachings. They therefore treat their imams’ statements as equivalent to the Messenger’s statements and follow their authority. Undoubtedly, many people need to follow the authority of scholars concerning matters that arise which they cannot understand independently. Among those who follow the path of spiritual aspiration, worship, poverty, and Sufism are some who treat their shaykh