Is it considered disbelief (kufr) or unlawful (haram) not to believe in the consensus (ijma') of the Ummah after the first three centuries, or not to adopt analogical reasoning (qiyas) after the Tabi'in and their successors, while believing in the consensus and analogical reasoning of the Companions and the first three centuries, and holding the view that the hadith "My Ummah will not agree upon error" is weak?

The person mentioned does not deny the authority of ijma' (consensus) absolutely, but rather denies its occurrence after the era of the Companions and the Successors. This is due to his view that it is difficult to ascertain the consensus of scholars after that period because of their dispersion. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah clarified that the known ijma' is that which was held by the Companions, and that it is often difficult to ascertain ijma' after their time. As for the hadith: "My Ummah will not agree upon error," its text is well-known, but its chains of transmission are not free from criticism; rather, those who affirmed it did so due to the multitude of its paths and corroborating evidence. There is no disagreement among scholars regarding the occurrence of ijma' on rulings known to be essential parts of the religion, but disagreement arose concerning speculative rulings. As for qiyas (analogical reasoning), a group of scholars denied its authority. However, Ibn Taymiyyah clarified that it is considered an authoritative proof by the majority of jurists, but the truth in it lies in a moderate position between excess and rejection.