If the nation disagrees on the ruling of an action to more than one opinion, then they had a consensus on one of these opinions. Is this late consensus acceptable and considered obligatory and removing the previous lack of agreement? I indicated that the conceptualized image in our contemporary era upon which most of the jurisprudential applications are built on is that those meeting leave on two opinions.
The question is: Is it acceptable for those who come after them to have consensus on one of the two opinions? Scholars are divided into three axes: The first indicates that it is acceptable to have consensus on the one of the two opinions, and in this case, this later consensus removes the previous disagreement. This is the opinion of most scholars. The second axis keeps the previous consensus and permits adopting any of the previous opinions or sayings. The final axis: if there is disagreement in which they blame each other to be sinful. In this case, consensus is acceptable on one of the two opinions. As a researcher, I revealed the reasons of this disagreement and presented the evidence according to the scholars and discussed it. I found that the first opinion that is adopted by most scholars (late consensus) is removing the previous to be the appropriate.
"قاعدة الإجماع المتأخر يرفع الخلاف المتقدم دراسة أصولية مقارنة,"
Hebron University Research Journal-B (Humanities) - (مجلة جامعة الخليل للبحوث- ب (العلوم الانسانيه: Vol. 11
, Article 1.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/hujr_b/vol11/iss2/1