In a jurisprudential issue for which no Marfu' Hadith has been authentically reported, and an action of one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs has been established, with no known opposition from the Companions, but some of the Tabi'in differed with it in word or deed, are the sayings of the Tabi'in a proof in this case, and is the action of the Rightly Guided Caliph the obligatory proof, and is the saying of the Tabi'i not a proof, or is the saying of the Tabi'i given precedence over the action of the Caliph and becomes the proof?

Scholars differ on the authoritativeness of a Companion's action. The correct view is that the statements of the jurist Companions are authoritative under two conditions: that they do not contradict a text, and that they do not contradict another Companion. If they contradict a text, they are rejected. If they contradict the statement of another Companion, then a preponderant opinion must be sought. The action of a Companion for which no opposing view from other Companions is known should not be contradicted by the statements of the Tabi'in (successors), as it constitutes a legal proof. If the Companion was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, then the argument for the authoritativeness of his action, for which no opposing view from other Companions is known, is clearer and more emphatic, and it should not be contradicted by the statements of the Tabi'in. Imam Ahmad held the view that the statements of the Rightly Guided Caliphs take precedence over those of other Companions. Some scholars do not consider the statements of the Tabi'in to be authoritative at all.