Introduction
Muslims often hear that a certain tafsir “has scholarly consensus” or that “the Salaf all agreed about it,” and that opposing it means violating consensus. Sometimes that is true. If the tafsir concerns a legal ruling, a central matter of iman, or the clear Arabic meaning of the Quran, agreement can be binding. But not every repeated tafsir claim has that status. Agreement that a verse obligates an action is not the same as agreement over the name of a town, the identity of a character, or extra details of a story.
This article argues that claims of consensus in tafsir must be verified and classified. Complete and implied consensus, as discussed in Usul al-Fiqh, apply most clearly to tafsir connected to law, practice, or central matters of iman. Non-legal tafsir may still carry evidentiary weight, especially when it preserves the Arabic meaning or central message of a verse, but it is not automatically binding merely because earlier or later scholars repeated it without opposition.
In this article, I will first explain what consensus means in Usul al-Fiqh, then distinguish complete consensus from implied consensus. After that, I will apply those principles to tafsir and argue that practical tafsir can fall under binding consensus, while informational tafsir usually cannot. Then, I will identify three weaker but still important forms of agreement in informational tafsir: agreement about Arabic, agreement about the message, and companion-level agreement about details. Finally, I will briefly discuss how consensus is proven or verified.
What is consensus?
Definition of Consensus in Usul al-Fiqh
There are generally two types of definitions for consensus found in books of Usul al-Fiqh. The first type specifies that it is about rulings of the Sharia, and the second type is general.
First Definition: Most scholars of Usul al-Fiqh defined consensus as the agreement of the mujtahid scholars of the Ummah from one generation on a ruling of the Sharia.
For example, Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The meaning of consensus is that Muslim scholars agree on a ruling.” (Majmu al-Fatawa) Ibn Juzay said, “Consensus is the agreement of the scholars on a ruling of the Sharia.”
Their specification to “ruling of the Sharia” excludes non-legal consensus in tafsir from qualifying for the rank of consensus as defined in Usul.
Second Definition: Many scholars of Usul al-Fiqh, although they only discussed consensus in the context of fiqh, defined consensus in a way that it encompasses all agreement by the scholars of Islam, whether about a ruling or not.
For example, Al-Ghazali said consensus means “The consensus of the Ummah of Muhammad (SAW) about specifically a religious matter.” (Al-Mustasfa)
Ibn Qudamah defined consensus as “The consensus of the scholars of a generation from the Ummah of Muhammad (SAW) on a matter of the religion.” (Rawdhat al-Nazir)
In this definition, consensus about tafsir would be included in the definition of consensus in Usul.
Analyzing the evidence for consensus generally leads to the conclusion that the first definition of consensus is more justified.
Definition of Consensus in Usul al-Tafsir
Consensus in Tafsir was not defined as its own category in early works of Usul. That has to do partly with the fact that Usul al-Tafsir itself is a relatively new field compared to Usul al-Fiqh.
However, modern works generally define consensus in tafsir as the agreement of the scholars of tafsir on the meaning of a verse.
If we prefer the second definition of consensus in Usul al-Fiqh, this would be a subset of consensus as defined in Usul al-Fiqh.
If we prefer the first definition, consensus in tafsir would not be a subset of consensus in Usul al-Fiqh, so we would need to justify the authority of consensus in tafsir from first principles just as we justify the authority of consensus in fiqh.
Evidence for Consensus
Sunni scholars generally agreed that consensus is binding evidence in Islam. The vast majority also said that consensus can take place in any generation. The Dhahiris said only the consensus of the companions is binding evidence.
The evidence for consensus generally revolves around verses and hadith that explain 1) that this Ummah is the best nation, 2) that anyone who opposes the Ummah is blameworthy, and 3) that this Ummah will remain guided until the Day of Judgement.
As for this Ummah being the best nation, Allah says ⟪And thus we have made you a middle nation (i.e. a just nation)⟫ (2:143) and ⟪You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.⟫ (3:110)
The Ummah cannot be an example for mankind that corrects them if they are all wrong about the religion.
As for anyone who opposes the Ummah being blameworthy, Allah says ⟪And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.⟫ (4:115)
As for the Ummah remaining guided until the Day of Judgement, the Prophet (SAW) said, “A group from my Ummah will continue to uphold Allah’s command, and those who oppose them will not harm them, until Allah’s command comes.” (Sahih Bukhari and Muslim) There is also a famous report, although not proven Sahih, that he said, “My Ummah will not unite on falsehood.”
Complete Consensus vs. Implied Consensus
Definition of Complete Consensus
Complete consensus is when all the scholars agree on some matter without exception. It is when you know without doubt that if you met any Muslim scholar and asked him about the topic, he would say one view.
For example, Maghrib is three rakahs, and Zina is sinful.
This consensus is binding to follow, and it is definitive evidence. Anyone who denies it is not only blameworthy but at risk of kufr. This is the type of consensus we were discussing in the previous sections and the type of consensus Sunni scholars agreed was authoritative.
Definition of Implied Consensus
Implied consensus (or silent consensus), known as ijma sukuti in Arabic, is when many scholars said a view explicitly and we do not have evidence anyone disagreed.
Scholars had three views about this type of consensus:
- It is not evidence, and it is not considered consensus
- Most Shafi’is, Malikis, some Hanafis, and some Hanbalis held this view
- It is binding, definitive evidence
- Some Hanafis and Hanbalis held this view
- It is evidence but not definitive
- Imam Shafi’i, some Shafi’is, and some Hanafis held this view
- This appears to be the view of Ibn Taymiyyah as well
The justification for this type of consensus revolves around one key piece of evidence.
Allah says ⟪You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.⟫ (3:110)
This verse indicates that it is an inherent quality of this Ummah that we correct wrong. So, if a view becomes widespread and no one vocally opposes it, either that means the Ummah failed to correct wrong (which would contradict the verse, and that is impossible) or that means the Ummah agreed to that view and that view is correct.
Conditions of Implied Consensus
Implied consensus requires two conditions:
- The view of the scholars who spoke on the subject spread to all scholars
- Other scholars would have been obligated to correct them if they believed something else
The second condition means that implied consensus cannot be established on a matter like “Ammar (RA) was better than Hudhaifah (RA),” because even if a large amount of scholars said so, those who disagreed would not feel the need to correct it.
This condition was laid out explicitly by many scholars of Usul, including Al-Subki, Zarkashi, Mardawi, and others. The condition was also implied by many authors like Sarakhsi who mentioned that the obligation for scholars to correct is the reason why implied consensus is evidence.
Someone may say: What is the logic behind this condition? Why should there be an obligation to correct for implied consensus to exist?
I would say: Implied consensus only works when silence would be meaningful, and silence is only meaningful when scholars would have been obligated to object.
On the other hand, if there were no obligation to correct, silence could be for a wide variety of reasons including simply not thinking the issue was worth the time.
Types of Consensus in Tafsir
Kinds of Tafsir
For the purposes of this article, tafsir can be divided into two subjects:
- Practical Tafsir: Tafsir that relates to actions and iman
- Informational Tafsir: Tafsir that gives information but does not relate to practical action or iman
Iman in this context refers to central aspects of faith necessary for a Muslim to know, like the oneness of God or the existence of Hell and Paradise, not every detail the Quran might mention and Muslims might believe.
The types of content in tafsir can be divided into four.
- Meaning of words and sentences in language
- Allah says ⟪All praise belongs to Allah.⟫ The meaning of “praise.”
- Message of a verse
- Allah is reminding and teaching us to praise him.
- Implied meanings from a verse
- Allah says the Quran is ⟪guidance for those conscious of Allah⟫, meaning it is not guidance in the full sense for those who are not conscious of Allah.
- Extra details: Details about the meaning, details about a story, identity and description of characters, identity of objects and places, etc.
- Allah says ⟪And Hell will be brought that day⟫, and a hadith clarifies that it will be brought by seventy thousand angels dragging it with its bridles.
If you research into tafsir, you will find that the scholars of tafsir generally opined about type 1 and 2 for every verse of the Quran. As for 3 and 4, they gave opinions sometimes and did not give opinions sometimes.
Complete Consensus in Tafsir
When Complete Consensus is Possible
Complete consensus is possible in practical tafsir or in completely clear verses of the Quran that do not require much thought.
For example, Allah says ⟪And do not come near zina⟫, and everyone agrees zina is a sin in the eyes of Allah and everyone agrees zina refers to all illicit sexual relations, whether before or after marriage.
As such, anyone who claims zina only means adultery (after marriage) and not fornication (before marriage) violates complete consensus and risks kufr.
Another example is when Allah describes Himself as ⟪The Master of Yawm al-Deen.⟫ (1:4) Everyone agrees Yawm al-Deen refers to the Day of Judgement. There is no doubt about this fact.
When Complete Consensus is Not Possible
Other than the aforementioned practical or obviously clear tafsir, a large number of scholars (if not the vast majority) did not opine on tafsir or get involved in it. This is reported from the earliest generations, from the time of the students of the companions.
Ubaidullah ibn Umar said: I met the major scholars of Madinah, and they used to consider tafsir a very heavy matter (i.e. and avoid it), including Salim ibn Abdullah, Qasim ibn Muhammad, Saeed ibn al-Musayyab, and Nafi. (Tafsir Tabari; Sahih)
These four were among the greatest scholars of the generation after the companions.
Yahya ibn Saeed said: Ibn al-Musayyab was asked about a verse in the Quran, and he said, “I don’t say anything about the Quran.” (Tafsir Tabari; Sahih)
Yahya ibn Saeed also said: Ibn al-Musayyab only used to speak about the Quran in things that were definitely known. (Tafsir Tabari; Sahih)
Others narrated: We used to ask Ibn al-Musayyab about halal and haram and he was the most knowledgeable person about that topic. But, if we ever asked him about the tafsir of a verse in the Quran, he would stay silent as if he hadn’t heard us. (Tafsir Tabari)
Similar hesitance about saying anything about tafsir was reported from other major scholars from the early generations, including Sha’bi, Ibn Abi Mulaikah, and Abidah.
In practice, we also see the reality that scholars like Ibn al-Musayyab, Salim, Nafi, and others, despite being some of the greatest sources of knowledge in their time, are rarely quoted in tafsir, except for law.
Similarly, there were scholars in every generation until today who either did not speak about the tafsir of a specific verse or did not speak about tafsir at all.
When this is the case, it is not possible to claim complete consensus on any matter of tafsir except those matters that are definitely known without doubt, like law that has no difference of opinion or verses that do not require thought.
Someone may ask: When you defined consensus in Usul al-Tafsir, you mentioned that it is the agreement of the scholars of tafsir. So, why would the silence of scholars who never spoke about tafsir matter to consensus in tafsir?
I would say: There are two reasons.
Firstly, the definition of “scholars of tafsir” is not scholars who spoke on tafsir. The actual definition is scholars who were qualified to speak on tafsir. No one can doubt that scholars like Ibn al-Musayyab had the prerequisite knowledge to speak about tafsir if they wished to speak on it. So, the silence of scholars like Ibn al-Musayyab prevents there from being a complete consensus among the scholars of tafsir.
Secondly, when you realize that there were some scholars who were silent from all of tafsir because they felt it was speculative or dangerous, that strongly implies the existence of other scholars who spoke on some matters of tafsir and not others for similar reasons. That also prevents the formation of complete consensus on any specific matter of informational tafsir that is not entirely clear.
Implied Consensus in Tafsir
Implied consensus is possible in practical tafsir in the same way as complete consensus. This is taken directly from Usul al-Fiqh.
However, implied consensus is not possible in informational tafsir. That is because fulfilling implied consensus requires that the silence of other scholars at the widespread view indicates acceptance or approval for that view, as explained in the conditions of implied consensus.
There are three reasons this is not achieved in informational tafsir.
Firstly, the narrations about the hesitance of many scholars to speak about tafsir entail that scholars could have been silent for a reason other than approval: simply because they did not like speaking about tafsir without strong evidence.
Secondly, since informational tafsir does not relate to practice and a person can fulfill Islam correctly while misunderstanding the meaning of a verse in the Quran or misidentifying a character in the Quran, there would be no inherent urgency or obligation to correct, which is a condition of implied consensus.
Thirdly, Allah criticizes people who concern themselves with details that do not affect the purpose of verses. Allah mentions people arguing about the number of the people of the cave: ⟪They will say there were three, the fourth of them being their dog; and they will say there were five, the sixth of them being their dog – guessing at the unseen; and they will say there were seven, and the eighth of them was their dog. Say, [O Muhammad], “My Lord is most knowing of their number. None knows them except a few. So do not argue about them except with an obvious argument and do not inquire about them among [the speculators] from anyone.”⟫ (18:22)
Allah explicitly encourages us not to argue with those who add details to the Quran without evidence, so the silence of scholars to informational tafsir that does not have strong evidence could have been based on following this advice of Allah.
Someone may ask: If a view in informational tafsir becomes prevalent and some scholars did not approve of it, is it not part of their duty to forbid evil to make it clear they do not agree?
I would say: That depends. If the tafsir they do not approve is completely invalid and a distortion of the Quran or Islam, then it is their duty to make their disagreement clear. If the tafsir they do not approve is a plausible tafsir even if they do not agree with it or are convinced by it, then they have no duty to correct because a plausible tafsir is not an evil that Muslims are obligated to correct. Their silence, then, only indicates that they did not think the tafsir is sinful (which is a low bar), not that the tafsir is correct.
A plausible tafsir in this context means a tafsir that has no active evidence against it from the perspective of those scholars that do not approve of it.
For example, Allah says in the Quran ⟪Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship?⟫ (2:258)
The scholars of tafsir generally said that the name of the king who argued with Ibrahim (AS) was Nimrud. Even if some scholars thought the evidence to call him Nimrud was lacking, there would be no direct reason to point this out, since Nimrud is a plausible candidate for his name and there is no active evidence against it. As such, this situation would not be binding implied consensus.
Other Types of Consensus in Tafsir
The absence of complete and implied consensus in informational tafsir from the Usul al-Fiqh perspective does not mean there are no other types of consensus that can apply in informational tafsir.
I believe there are three other types of consensus that can apply in informational tafsir. However, they apply to some types of contents in tafsir more than others, and they have different levels of strength as evidence.
First: Consensus About Arabic
When Muslims agree about the Arabic meaning of a word or sentence from the time of the early scholars, that agreement is evidence. The condition of this consensus is that there was no disagreement before the consensus was formed.
For example, Allah says ⟪That is the book, there is no rayb in it.⟫ The scholars of tafsir agreed that rayb means doubt.
The reason this type of consensus is evidence is that Allah says the Quran is ⟪In a clear Arabic language.⟫ (26:195)
If all Muslims misunderstood the meaning of Arabic words or the construction of Arabic sentences, then either the Quran was not in clear Arabic or Muslims lost Arabic after some generations, both of which are unacceptable conclusions.
Additionally, the fact that there is consensus indicates this was the meaning of the Arabic language mass-transmitted by the speakers of Arabic from the time of the Prophet (SAW) till today.
This type of consensus applies specifically in the meaning of words and sentences, not in details or even the message of the verse.
For example, Allah says ⟪That is the kitab, there is no doubt in it.⟫ The Arabic consensus about kitab is that it means “book” or “law” or something similar and it definitely does not mean “pen.” However, the identity of the book does not fall into this category of consensus.
This category of consensus can be subdivided into complete and implied consensus and classified according to how strong it is. Sometimes it can be binding, and sometimes it can be strong evidence without being binding.
Second: Consensus About Message
When Muslims implicitly agree about the message of a word or sentence from the time of the early scholars, that agreement is evidence, without being binding. Later reflections and applications may be valid but cannot replace the original core message of the verse that Muslims agreed about.
For example, Allah says ⟪The example of those who take allies other than Allah is like that of the spider who takes a home. And indeed, the weakest of homes is the home of the spider, if they only knew.⟫ (29:41) Everyone agreed this is about spiderwebs.
There are two reasons this type of consensus should be evidence. Firstly, Allah says the Quran is ⟪In a clear Arabic language.⟫ It would not be clear if its message was not understood by anyone. Secondly, Allah says the Quran was revealed to be understood and to be a reminder for mankind. It would not be a reminder or understood if no one explained its meaning.
The evidence for this consensus is more speculative than the first type of consensus, hence this should be considered evidence rather than binding. It would become stronger evidence in verses whose purpose is to be clear, like parables and arguments, than in verses about the unseen or history whose purpose is to generally remind without needing to be clear about everything.
Third: Consensus of Companions About Details
When the companions agreed about the context or reference of some unclear verses, their agreement is strong and binding evidence.
That is because they were witnesses of the revelation and knew what the Quran would be referring to in context. Their agreement would entail that information came from the Prophet (SAW) or his time.
However, this requires strong evidence that all companions agreed or that a significant number of companions from different cities agreed. If only one or two or three companions said something about a verse, they could have gotten it from each other and/or sources other than the Prophet (SAW).
This does not apply to the consensus of people after the companions because they could have agreed on the opinion of one companion which in turn only came from his own opinion or other sources, thus their agreement would not prove that information comes from the Prophet (SAW). As for their implied consensus, it is not evidence because of the reasons we mentioned before.
For example, Allah says ⟪[Remember] when Ibrahim and Ismail were raising the foundations of the House.⟫
There is no doubt all the companions and every generation after them agreed that this ⟪House⟫ refers to the Kaabah in Makkah and that Ibrahim (AS) built the Kaabah.
What is Not Consensus in Tafsir
There are many situations that look apparently like implied consensus but do not meet the conditions of implied consensus and thus should not be considered binding evidence in Islam.
The underlying pattern in all these situations is that the core meaning and message of the verse is not affected by the detail on which there is supposed consensus.
First: Implied Consensus on Details
When the scholars of tafsir elaborated the meaning of a verse in the Quran with details, the absence of known opposition to those details does not establish valid implied consensus, as long as the verse has a comprehensible meaning and message without those details.
For example, Allah said to Ibrahim (AS) ⟪Take four birds and commit them to yourself.⟫ (2:260)
Some people said this refers to pigeons, some said crows, some said roosters, and others mentioned other species. We are not bound to any of these claims, even if one of them had implicit agreement in one generation, because the detail has no relevance to the message of the story.
Another example is when Allah says ⟪Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?⟫ (21:30)
One view was that the verse means “the heavens and the earth were together one entity before Allah separated them.” Many early scholars of tafsir who opined this view mentioned that they were stuck together then Allah separated the earth from the sky with air. No one explicitly opposed these details that I know of.
However, no one is bound to believe this modality of how they were a joined entity, since the meaning and message of the verse are not affected by the modality or details related to it.
As such, it would not be correct to say someone who applies this verse to other theories of the creation of the universe like the Big Bang is violating consensus, as long as his interpretation fits the language and is valid tafsir.
Second: Implied Consensus on Stories
When the scholars of tafsir elaborated a story in the Quran with details, the absence of known opposition to those details does not establish valid implied consensus, as long as the story has a comprehensible meaning and message without those details. At best, the consensus may be a form of evidence to take into account when explaining the verse.
There are many examples of this in the Quran where the early scholars elaborated stories based on details from other traditions and that elaboration became famous with no known opposition either at all or until a later generation of scholars.
For example, Allah says:
And has there come to you the news of the adversaries, when they climbed over the wall of [his] prayer chamber
When they entered upon Dawud and he was alarmed by them? They said, “Fear not. [We are] two adversaries, one of whom has wronged the other, so judge between us with truth and do not exceed [it] and guide us to the sound path.
Indeed this, my brother, has ninety-nine ewes, and I have one ewe; so he said, ‘Entrust her to me,’ and he overpowered me in speech.”
[Dawud] said, “He has certainly wronged you in demanding your ewe [in addition] to his ewes. And indeed, many associates oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds – and few are they.” And Dawud became certain that We had tested him, and he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance [to Allah].
Quote 38:21-24
In this context, some early scholars mentioned a story about Dawud (AS) that is similar to a story mentioned in the Bible. They said the story explains why Dawud (AS) sought forgiveness from Allah. There is no explicit report from the early scholars of someone opposing this story.
Several later scholars did oppose the story, because they said the story attributes things to Dawud (AS) that do not befit a prophet of Allah. Did these later scholars violate a consensus?
If you look at the verses, Allah chose not to mention any details about Dawud (AS)’s mistake, and the passage is perfectly comprehensible without delving into what Dawud (AS) was seeking forgiveness for. The only message is that he repented to Allah from whatever mistake he made when he was reminded.
As such, a background story for why Dawud (AS) sought forgiveness cannot have valid implied consensus.
Third: Implied Consensus on Identity
When the scholars of tafsir identified a person, place, or object mentioned in the Quran, the absence of known opposition to those details does not establish valid implied consensus, as long as the verse is comprehensible without knowing the identity. At best, this consensus may be a form of evidence to take into account when explaining the verse.
There are many examples of this in the Quran where the early scholars identified the names of people, places, and objects. Most of the time, those details came from Jewish or Christian traditions and there is no evidence they came from the Prophet (SAW).
For example, Allah says in the Quran ⟪Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship?⟫ (2:258)
Scholars generally identified the king who argued with Ibrahim (AS) as Nimrud. However, neither the meaning nor the message of the verse is affected by knowing the name of the king, so there is no valid implied consensus.
Another example is Allah saying ⟪And the Jews say, “Uzair is the son of God.”⟫
Ibn Abbas (RA), Ka’b al-Ahbar, Abdullah ibn Salam, and al-Suddi reportedly identified Uzair as Ezra, and this remained the commonly narrated identity by the scholars of tafsir after that.
However, the meaning and message of the verse is only to mention one of the crimes of the Jews, and it does not make a difference to that meaning and message whether it was Ezra or whether it was someone else.
As such, no one is bound to say Uzair was Ezra, and they can propose other reasonable theories that fit the verse.
The Prophet (SAW) said, “I do not know whether Uzair was a prophet or not.” (Abu Dawud; Hasan)
Abu Mijlaz said: Ibn Abbas came to Abdullah ibn Salam (a companion who was a Jewish scholar before he converted to Islam) and said, “I want to ask you about three things.” Abdullah ibn Salam said, “You want to ask me even though you read the Quran?” He said, “Yes.” So, Ibn Abbas asked him about the identity of Tubba’, the identity of Uzair, and the reason why Sulaiman (AS) noticed the (bird) Hudhud was missing despite the large number of birds. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah and Tafsir Tabari; Hasan Sahih)
When the details about Uzair were elusive to Ibn Abbas (RA) and even to Prophet (SAW) at least at one point in his life, it is not reasonable to claim a later implied consensus of scholars could ever form on the subject. It is more likely they stayed silent not out of agreement but simply because they did not know and did not consider it important enough to know.
Implied Consensus About Details vs. Implied Consensus About Message
The category of details about verses is sometimes difficult to differentiate from the message of verses. Some cases are between these two categories.
The operative question that should help make the distinction is: Are these details necessary to the meaning and message of the verse?
When the details are necessary the verse would have no comprehensible meaning without them.
For example, Allah says ⟪And We certainly tested Solomon and placed on his throne a body; then he returned.⟫
Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Hasan al-Basri, Qatadah, Suddi, Sha’bi, and others from the Salaf said: The ⟪body⟫ was a Jinn or Shaitan who impersonated Sulaiman (AS)’s body and sat on his throne.
They added more details to the story about how this Shaitan came to take over Sulaiman (AS)’s throne, and some mentioned that the Shaitan’s name was Sakhr.
As for the elaborated story and the name of the Shaitan, those definitely fall under the category of details and are not valid implied consensus.
As for the idea that the ⟪body⟫ in this verse refers to a Shaitan, that probably falls into the category of a verse’s message. That is because the verse would become very difficult to understand without identifying what the ⟪body⟫ refers to.
Hence, their implicit agreement that it was a Shaitan should be treated as significant evidence and should generally be preferred, unless there is stronger evidence to overturn it.
Even the exact extent of the meaning of a verse can be a detail that is not necessary to the message of a verse.
For example, Allah says ⟪And [do they not look] at the earth how it is spread out.⟫ (88:20)
This can be interpreted in two ways: 1) the earth being flat in shape or 2) the earth being flat on a local level to allow for human habitation (despite being round in shape overall). Both of these have the underlying commonality that they describe the earth as being spread out or flattened in some sense. This underlying commonality is the core message of the verse.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that many scholars of tafsir had mentioned the first interpretation without anyone opposing it. This would not be valid or binding consensus.
That is because the extent of the flatness described by the verse is a detail that does not affect its core meaning and message. The core message of the verse in either interpretation remains that Allah spread out the earth for humans to live on, regardless of whether that extends globally or applies locally.
Proving Consensus
When coming across a claim of consensus, it is necessary to verify whether that claim of consensus is accurate or not.
Ways of Proving Consensus
Complete consensus is, by definition, obvious enough that any cursory learning would inform a person that everyone agrees on the given topic. For example, you do not need to research or prove much to know that everyone agrees Maghrib is three rakahs. All of Muslim practice and Muslim scholarly discussion revolving around this fact proves the agreement.
Implied consensus has two main ways of proving it:
- Primary Way: Researching the opinions of the scholars and searching closely for the existence of any disagreement.
- Secondary Way: Referring to scholars who claimed consensus on the topic after themselves researching the opinions of the scholars.
Some modern works have attempted to collect and verify scholarly claims of consensus in tafsir.
Most aspects of tafsir that have consensus do not have explicit statements by scholars that there is consensus. So, it often requires individual research in the primary way to determine consensus on any given topic. This introduces much more uncertainty into the consensus claim.
Mistaken Claims of Consensus
Sometimes, a scholar might claim consensus about something because he did not notice that someone actually disagreed. It is thus important to verify any claim of consensus with close research to find possible disagreement.
For example, Allah says ⟪We sent down on you [O Bani Israil] Manna and Salwa.⟫ (2:57)
Ibn Atiyyah said, “Salwa was a bird by the consensus of the scholars of tafsir.”
However, Qurtubi criticized this claim by Ibn Atiyyah and mentioned that some early scholars also mentioned that Salwa could mean “honey”.
Mistaken Wording of Consensus
Sometimes the problem can be the wording of the consensus even though the general direction is sound.
For example, Allah says ⟪[Remember] when we said to the angels prostrate to Adam (AS), so they prostrated⟫ (2:34)
Al-Razi said, “Muslims agreed that this prostration was not a prostration of worship.”
However, this claim is not correct, because Abu Ibrahim al-Muzani reportedly said, “Allah made Adam (AS) a qiblah, like the Kaabah.” In this tafsir, the prostration was of worship, but the worship was directed at Allah, not Adam (AS).
Hence, the wording of the consensus is incorrect and should be, “Muslims agreed the angels did not prostrate to worship Adam (AS).”
Tabari’s Claims of ‘Consensus‘
Tabari commonly used a phrase in his tafsir: Ijma Ahl al-Taweel, which translates at face value to “the consensus of the scholars of tafsir.”
However, reading Tabari’s use of the phrase closely informs you that he did not mean complete consensus and that he applied this phrase even in cases of minority disagreement. So, this phrase should not be misunderstood as a claim of consensus but simply a claim about a strong majority.
Conclusion
In conclusion, “the scholars agreed” or “the Salaf agreed” is not enough by itself to prove that Muslims are bound to believe in a given tafsir.
We must ask: Did they truly agree? What kind of tafsir did they agree on? Was the matter one scholars were obligated to correct if false? Was the agreement about Arabic, the verse’s message, or detachable details?
Only after answering these questions can we know whether the claim is binding consensus, strong evidence, weak evidence, or not consensus at all.
