and for this reason, their books and statements contain ignorance and falsehood concerning transmitted reports unmatched among the other groups. Likewise, in rational matters, those other groups employ forms of reasoning which, despite their weakness and unsoundness, are better than those of the Rāfidah.

We also point to (1) evidence demonstrating that consensus constitutes authoritative proof, with the argument set out at length elsewhere; each occasion calls for its own discussion.

We do not need this consensus to establish the caliphate of al-Siddīq—may Allah be pleased with him—or anyone else, nor do we make such consensus a condition for anyone’s caliphate. However, since he stated that Ahl al-Sunnah relied on consensus, we addressed that claim. We therefore indicate some of the evidence establishing the validity of consensus.

First, we say: There is no ruling on which the Muslim community has agreed (2) without a scriptural text indicating it. Consensus therefore points to an existing text known to the leading scholars, not one whose knowledge has been lost. Scholars have differed over whether consensus can arise from independent juristic reasoning. We allow that some of those participating in the consensus (3) may have expressed their view on that basis; however, the text cannot be unknown to all scholars qualified to exercise such reasoning. Whenever a ruling is known to be the subject of consensus, someone within the Muslim community knows of a text concerning it. Consensus is therefore evidence of that text.

For this reason, Allah Most High says:

“Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will leave him to what he has chosen.” [Surah al-Nisā’: 115]

Thus the threat of punishment was made contingent