How do you know the truth?
Well! Primary truths can be obtained only through observations/experiences, direct or indirect; followed by the process of inductive inference; followed by repeated-concurrent peer review and reporting.
I’ve discussed this at length in my second article from which I’ll import passages below to further explore the case of consensus and its role in finding the truth, in general, and within Islam.
Consensus as a criterion of truth, how consensus builds collective truths, and its limitations
It so often happens that repeated corroborative observations and concurrent reports become so large scale, they garner ‘universal consensus’. And, as long as there is universal consensus about the existence of observable entities, the truth of these matters cannot be significantly disputed.
We do not dispute the existence of Aristotle although we haven’t seen him, since his existence has been reported repeatedly and unanimously. Likewise, I accept the existence of places and things that I’ve never visited or seen, say, Egypt, or the Pyramids of Giza, since their existence has been concurrently documented/reported. Such things become the collective truth of a society or community, or humanity at large.
But there could be several aspects regarding Aristotle or Egypt which are not reported concurrently; consequently, there wouldn’t be consensus over these issues, thus their truth would be hard to ascertain. Lack of universal consensus thus leaves matters open to scepticism.
Truth of existence versus the truth of the nature of entities: It must be noted that inferences pertaining to the nature of entities, rather than the very existence of entities, is more prone to suffer from this impermanence; for instance, the existence of the solar system is unlikely to be ever disputed, but the knowledge regarding the nature of the solar system being geocentric or heliocentric, was prone to be revised with new observations.
Likewise, the existence of the atom is improbable to be challenged, but aspects regarding its nature are susceptible to disagreements and revisions with time. Same for the nature of light which has been debated and disputed while the existence of light is a given!
Not to say that the knowledge regarding existence of entities can never suffer from this impermanence! For instance, a person vaguely (vaguely due to some sensory obstacles) observes some phenomena in a deep forest and he (mis)interprets it to be due to a ‘monstrous cave man’.
When he relays his interpretation to his people, his authority amongst his community leads to all people agreeing with his misinterpretation and eventually this notion of a ‘monstrous cave man’ in the said forest becomes an established truth of that community, despite being utterly false! Superstitions are generally grounded upon similar phenomena.
Thus, not just the nature of entities, but also the existence of entities could sometimes be falsely agreed upon by communities, and sometimes even by humanity at large! Therefore, sometimes, even universal consensus doesn’t guarantee the truth!
Consensus can come over falsehood too: Repeated concurrent observations through our naked eyes, like the Sun ‘rising up from the East’, going high up ‘to the zenith’, and then coming down to ‘set in the West’, led humans to infer that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, with the Sun and other planets going around the Earth.
And interestingly, this was almost universally agreed upon for centuries, prior to the 15th century C.E.! Thus, this model of the solar system, called ‘geocentrism’, was a near collective truth of humanity until further observations and new astronomical data proved this understanding to be false, leading to the new collective truth that the Earth and all other planets revolve around the Sun, a model of the solar system called ‘heliocentrism’.
Take another example. Is light a wave or is it a stream of particles? The nature of light as a stream of corpuscles/particles was almost universally agreed upon in the 18th century C.E, well into a hundred years since Newton proposed it in 1675. But four new observations in the 19th century C.E swayed the consensus in favour of the wave picture of light!
Likewise, the world was certain that the atom cannot be broken down into smaller parts. The worldview was settled and the matter was closed as a solved case. Consensus had brought certainty, until the table was turned upside down by a host of scientists in the early 20th century C.E!
Therefore, consensus doesn’t necessarily always establish the truth. ‘Universal truths’ too could be impermanent and disproven with new observations and fresh data. Therefore, universal consensus (built over observation and inference) is a highly probable evidence of truth, but not definite evidence!
What does consensus definitely guarantee?
It only guarantees that the matter over which consensus has been reached is a clear/unambiguous issue. That is, consensus is a mark of clarity of/on an issue, NOT a guarantee of its truth (since consensus is sometimes achieved even over falsehood, as discussed above)!
Moreover, even the clarity too could be temporary as new data sometime later could possibly make the matter unclear/ambiguous!
Nevertheless, clear matters inevitably garner consensus, even if temporarily, albeit sometimes over falsehood. Consensus does occur if the issue is clear. Therefore, if there’s no consensus over something over thousands of years implies the matter itself is inherently ambiguous/unclear, e.g.; God! And I’ve discussed this relation between God and consensus in my 24th article. Do give it a read!
The truth of theories: (Consensus + Utility) is a greater measure of truth
When ‘impermanent truths’ are developed into a ‘theory’ which finds practical use, as in technological applications, then its truth value goes several notches up and becomes more definite and binding! Usefulness is thus another defining criterion of truth.
All the knowledge of physics, despite being only probabilistically true (due to its inductive nature), provides us enough practical certainty (when used) in aerospace technology to allow us to board a flight unflinchingly, to cruise to dizzying heights at breakneck speeds to travel thousands of kilometers across continents!
Now, the universal observation that things left to fall come down to the ground, leads us to infer the existence of the effect of gravity. The existence of gravity is universally agreed upon by scientists, but its nature has been debated as to whether it’s an action-at-a-distance force as suggested by Newton or is it simply an effect of the curvature of spacetime as suggested by Einstein.
Notwithstanding the disagreement, the Newtonian theory of gravity as an action-at-a-distance force found useful application in the accurate explanation of planetary orbits and their motions, their periods of revolution, seasons, etc.; thus found further currency as an established truth which is still taught today (in high schools and in colleges at the undergraduate level), although challenged later by Einstein’s general theory of relativity (at the graduate level) which too might give way to another theory in the future!
Despite these differences over the nature of gravity, the effect of gravity is thoroughly taken into consideration in all aerospace technological applications to such an astounding degree of certainty that we don’t hesitate to board a flight!
This then leads to a related conclusion that theories are analysed for their truth value in a way different from individual entities/events. Theories which find practical application(s) are accorded greater truth value, like the theories of physics. I’ve written about this in my article #2 under points 7a-10. And it’s relevant to this discussion because Islam too is a theory and its truth value thus depends on how the truth of theories is analyzed.
Consensus or ‘ijma’ in Islam: the truth of the Quran and its interpretations
In the attribution of the Islamic sources to its origin(s) and in Islamic law, ijma determines the truth quite definitively. Let’s see how.
If I dictate a physics book to thousands of my students, that gets mass transmitted through concurrent reporting (‘ijma’ and ‘tawatur’), garnering consensus that it was indeed given by me, then the world could be certain that the original source of that book is indeed me.
But this ijma cannot guarantee the truth of the content of the book. The content would have to be analysed independently for its truth value. Upon analysis, if peer reviewed consensus of experts is achieved, it brings certainty. But this certainty too doesn’t necessarily guarantee the truth, as discussed above.
Similarly, the Quran was/is transmitted enmasse, by consensus, hence its attribution to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is clear and certain. As regards its content, it needs independent analyses to establish its truth value if it’s a non-Muslim reading the Quran and doing an independent analysis of its content to determine whether to accept it or reject it.
If the Quran says that an event ‘x’ happened in time ‘t’ at a place ‘p’, and all scholars agree upon the same meaning of the verse, then the unambiguous/explicit/ clear nature of the verse is implied.
And if a Muslim is reading the verse, he affirms the event (even if there is no independently established empirical evidence for the same) based upon his prior acceptance of the Quran as God’s Word (based upon an independent/separate rationale for the same). So in this case, consensus over the meaning of the verse establishes the truth for Muslims since they believe the Quran to be from God (thus it cannot say anything but the truth!).
But the truth is subjective here, because it’s akin to the case of testimonies, that is, accepting or rejecting a report (of an event here) based upon the reliability/ acceptance/rejection of the source (the Quran). The same source can be accepted by some but rejected by others. Only those who accept the source to be absolutely true will accept the report to be true as a corollary, else not! Thus, a non-Muslim, who doesn’t consider the Quran to be from God, cannot accept the Quranic description of the event ‘x’ until the event is independently established to have indeed occurred as described!
Ijma in Islamic law: If a certain thing ‘x’ is understood to be forbidden (haraam) as per the Quran by all its scholars, then this ijma in understanding implies that the verse(s) regarding the matter is/are clear/explicit/unambiguous. Thus, in this case again, ijma gives the truth of the matter for a Muslim, as he cannot consider something to be permitted (halaal) if the matter is explicitly declared (and hence understood) to be haraam.
But that’s not all about it! It can also happen that an interpretation of the Quran that is universally accepted by all scholars of all denominations of all times and places, be just a temporary truth.
YES??!!??
More on this in the next article (WIP)!
Plus, I’ve already discussed the role of consensus and/or the impact of the lack of it, in Islam, in quite detail in my articles #16 & #25. Do give ‘em a read!
And to conclude
*Consensus is a mark of clarity of/certainty over an issue; NOT a proof of its truth, since consensus is sometimes achieved even over falsehood!
*The clarity+certainty too could be temporary as new data could turn the tables upside down anytime later.
*Clear matters inevitably and ultimately garner consensus albeit sometimes over falsehood, but consensus does occur if the issue is clear. Therefore, if there’s no consensus over something then that implies the matter itself is inherently ambiguous, e.g.’ God!
*Consensus + utility (as in technology) in the framework of a ‘theory’ provides more truth value than mere consensus alone. Thus Islam as a theistic theory has a good truth value due to its various utilities (and advanced features).
*The Quran has reached us through uninterrupted concurrent mass transmission and hence there is consensus/ijma over Muhammad (pbuh) being the source of the Quran. Ijma is thus a marker of truth regarding the origins/source of a text.
In Islamic law and theology, the consensus over an interpretation of the text implies that the text is explicit/clear/unambiguous.
And if this clarity of the text leads to a specific interpretation (like something being declared forbidden/haraam by all scholars unanimously at all times and places) then that’s a very certain marker of the truth/correctness of the interpretation (that the thing is indeed forbidden by Islam). Thus, ijma determines the truth quite definitively in Islamic law.