The meaning of the rule of commonality from the perspective of the famous Imami scholars is that if a religious ruling is proven for a person who is obligated, whether the specific addressee of that ruling is or not, and whether it is due to a verbal reason that is apparent in its application, or due to a verbal reason such as consensus that lacks such an appearance; it includes all obligated persons at all times and in all situations. This approach believes that even despite the differences in time conditions and the circumstances and circumstances of the obligated persons throughout history, which lead to changes in the subject of the ruling, religious rulings are common among obligated persons and include generations that are far apart from the time of the forging and issuance of the rulings. To prove the rule of commonality, multiple reasons have been cited and argued, one of the most important of which is consensus. The finding of the present research, which was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, is that consensus cannot be relied upon to prove the rule of commonality and such reliance is flawed; rather, in the process of proving the aforementioned rule, other reasons must be sought and examined