>The claim of Ijma' is problematic because according to the majority of Usulis, if there was a previous Khilaf, there cannot be an Ijma' afterwards, ever. As Imam al-Shafi'i said: the Khilaf doesn't die out because of the death of who held it

>Hence the agreement of the four Imāms or Madhhabs is not necessarily an Ijma' most of the time. If you read Imam Ibn Hubayra's book on the differences between the four Imāms and where they agreed, sometimes he said: "they agreed on X", and sometimes he says: "they had a consensus on Y", making the difference between both very clear.

I tried to differentiate it from ijma' by saying "virtually a matter of consensus," but looking at my post again, I may not have been clear enough. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say "near-consensus."

BTW, is it true that Ibn Rajab (r) argued against this opinion after initially accepting it?