To what extent can we attribute statements to the jurisprudential schools of thought, and is the consensus of the school's scholars required, or are the statements of later scholars considered part of the school, even if they contradict earlier scholars?

The development of the jurisprudential schools (madhahib fiqhiyya) passed through multiple stages, culminating in the "liberation of the madhhab" (tahrir al-madhhab), meaning the refinement of the works of its imams to clarify what conforms to its اصول (foundational principles). In the Shafi'i madhhab, the madhhab settled on the preponderant views of the two imams, Al-Rafi'i and Al-Nawawi, and when they differed, Al-Nawawi's opinion was adopted. After them, scholars who verified and authenticated (muhaqqiqun) came in the tenth century, such as Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami and Al-Ramli, and their books "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj" and "Nihayat al-Muhtaj" became authoritative for those who lack the ability to determine the preponderant view.

As for the creed of the early Maliki imams, they were upon the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah, affirming Allah's exaltedness and His establishment (istawa') over the Throne, such as Asbagh ibn al-Faraj, Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, Ibn Zamanin, and Ibn Abd al-Barr.

Regarding shaving the beard in the Shafi'i madhhab, Al-Rafi'i and Al-Nawawi disliked it (karrahuha), but the majority of scholars explicitly stated its prohibition (hurmah), and some scholars mentioned a consensus (ijma') on the prohibition of shaving it.