In his weekly program on Alhurra, writer and journalist Ibrahim Essa examines the concept of ijma – the consensus of the Islamic community on matters of law – and criticizes what he calls the “great myth” that has been used throughout Islamic history to suppress independent reasoning (ijtihad) and dissent.
Essa argues that the idea of an absolute consensus (ijma) has no logical or factual foundation. He cites statements by leading jurists such as Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, the precursor of Salafism, and highlights the many historical disagreements among scholars and schools of thought that undermine the notion of any comprehensive agreement.
The following text summarizes the main points from the episode and has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.
Whenever you hear someone raise his voice in absolute surrender or excessive praise of the idea of “consensus,” or repeat phrases like “the Muslims agreed,” “the scholars agreed,” or “the early Muslims agreed,” you can be sure that a great falsehood is being passed off as absolute truth under the name of “consensus.”
This myth still weighs heavily on the chest of Islamic culture, thought, and jurisprudence.
We must be certain: it is impossible to imagine anything absolute called “consensus” about everything, under any circumstance. That is a grand claim that rests on no objective basis. You will instantly accuse me of being a supporter of secularism or a civil state, or of wanting to “destroy Islam.” Keep those accusations if you wish, because I will tell you: I am not the one who said this. I am not the one who said, “Whoever claims consensus has lied.” That statement was said by Ibn Hanbal himself. So will you accuse Ibn Hanbal of secularism?!
Another surprising matter: when people are misled by hadiths such as “the ummah will not agree on error” or “my nation will not gather on misguidance,” you find, if you scrutinize the chains of transmission according to their own hadith rules, that some of these hadiths are weak, fabricated, or strange. In many cases they contradict reason.
So, what is meant by “consensus” in the first place? If the meaning is that all people agree on a single thing, where is that total agreement? Is there consensus even on the existence of God? There are deniers and atheists in the world by the millions. Do we mean an absolute consensus among all human beings? Or a consensus confined to a sect or school? And doesn’t that definition of consensus logically destroy the natural differences among human beings? Consensus in that sense is an illusion of the first order.
Consensus versus the Reality of the Community
When they speak of consensus, whose consensus do they mean? Are all Muslims even of one school? Is it the consensus of Sunni Muslims or of Shi‘a Muslims? Consensus of the Shāfi‘ī school or the Hanafī school? The undeniable truth is that the historical and contemporary reality of the ummah (Islamic community) is full of plurality, fragmentation, and disagreement.
When you say, “there is consensus,” you cancel out the logic of difference and reasoning (ijtihad) that Muslims have lived since the early centuries of Islam until today. Throughout history we see disputes and struggles over the very fundamentals of religion. If there were a real consensus it would be the consensus of the Companions of Mohammad. But did the Companions even agree on one single reading of the Qur’an? History says otherwise: after the collection and unification of the Qur’an, controversy erupted over the codices, so much so that some Companions rejected certain versions. Thus, disagreement even extended to the text of the revealed book.
Remember the position of the Qu’ranic interpreter, Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd, who said that al-mu‘awwidhatayn (the final two chapters in the Qur’an) are not verses of the Qur’an. If there was such intense disagreement over a foundational matter, how can some imagine a total agreement?
And disagreement did not disappear with time; it continues today. Even on matters such as the start date of Ramadan or the sighting of the moon, differences reappear every year among Muslims. Is that a case of “consensus” or simply the reality of natural divergence?
As for those who grandstand with the phrase “the Salafists agreed,” at least they are honest with themselves in appealing to the Salafists rather than all Muslims. But the surprise is that the Salafists themselves did not agree either! History proves they differed and contested. Any reader of Islamic histories will find a record full of disputes: clashes in mosques, polemics among schools, raids on houses, sieges of scholars. These are facts that cannot be hidden. So what “consensus” are they talking about?
Al-Shāfi‘ī: the story of inventing consensus
Why then is this idea clung to so tightly? Where did the status of “consensus” as a source of legislation alongside the Qur’an and the Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet) come from? The history of jurisprudence brings us face to face with Imam al-Shāfi‘ī, who placed consensus as a legislative source after the Qur’an and the Sunnah and made it a means to resolve intellectual fragmentation. But even al-Shāfi‘ī himself, in his book, restricts consensus to a narrow axis: consensus on the definitive obligations of religion, not on everything.
In al-Shāfi‘ī’s view, reasonable consensus concerns definitive duties such as prayer, matters that do not accept difference in their essential structure. Many juristic details and practical rulings, however, remain open to reasoning (ijtihad) and disagreement.
Thus al-Shāfi‘ī presented consensus as a solution to the problem of sectarian dispersion, but he could not have foreseen that this invention would later turn into a tool for freezing critique and controlling pulpit authority. The result was an expansion in the definition of “who are the agreed-upon” and in what time the consensus applies: are they the people of Medina? The people of the first century? The adherents of a school? Most scholars? These expansions made consensus a weapon rather than a means to unite the ummah (Islamic community) on fundamentals.
Consensus (Ijma) is now a weapon of domination against renewal and difference
Consensus, as it is now used, is not a neutral juristic term; it is a weapon used against dissenters and reformers. Throughout history many have been killed with such arguments: “the scholars agreed on his disbelief,” “the scholars agreed on his misguidance.”
How many thinkers, mystics, or reformers fell victim to accusations of heresy or innovation based on alleged consensus? History is full of names slaughtered or ostracized after the suspicion of “deviating from consensus” was cast upon them. Ironically, many of those who denounced others as being “outside consensus” later themselves became subject to the same accusation.
This mechanism serves only to preserve the influence of those who wish to monopolize thought: if one group has the right to declare that its opinion is “agreed upon,” then the door to dialogue and reasoning (ijtihad) is closed. Ready accusations follow: “You are against the ummah,” “You fight Islam,” “You spread sedition.” Thus, any opposition or critique is canceled in the name of defending “religious constants” or “the consensus of the ummah.”
It thus becomes clear that the aim of invoking consensus in many cases is not to protect religion, but to monopolize it; for a class or sect to act as custodian over concepts and fatwas. And since such monopolies protect dictatorial religious or political interests, consensus is exploited to legitimate authority and shield it from accountability.
The conclusion is clear: “consensus,” as it is used today in religious discourse, is neither a precise scientific tool nor an absolute reference. It is a weapon that shackles thought, reproduces a religious grip that employs accusation, excommunication, and guardianship, and excludes others in the name of an alleged unity that does not exist in the historical reality of the ummah.
