Authority, Ranks and Composite Forms of Ijma

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• What is essential for legally authoritative ijma?
• Why is consensus defined after the Prophet’s death?
• Why do lay opinions not independently determine technical ijma?
• Which form consists of explicit Companion agreement?
• What does “like a verse” indicate for the first rank?
• Some Companions state a ruling and others remain silent. Which form is it?
• When can silence reasonably suggest assent?
• Which evidentiary category is compared with tacit Companion consensus?
• What characterizes the third form?
• How is the third form ranked?
• How does the fourth form arise?
• What is the analogy for the fourth form?
• What identifies composite consensus?
• Why is vomiting plus contact a composite-consensus example?
• What happens if one grounding rationale fails in composite consensus?
• Why can witnesses’ retraction affect a judicial ruling?
• What does the historical muallafat al-qulub example illustrate?
• What is the key distinction in the vinegar example?
• What must be checked in a no-distinction argument?
• Which no-distinction form is authoritative?
• What links a vow to fast on Eid and a defective sale?
• What is the sound distinction between legal constitution and permissibility?
• Why does non-nullification by vomiting not prove nullification by contact?
• Why distinguish the four ranks of ijma?
• How should a common result based on distinct causes be assessed?
• Later jurists agree on one of several earlier positions. Which form is this?
• All four forms of ijma have the same evidentiary rank.
• Composite consensus can contain agreement on a result despite disagreement over its cause.
• A lack of recorded objections always establishes tacit consensus.
• If two cases have different underlying grounds, a no-distinction argument cannot validly transfer the ruling.