Formulation of the Claim
Consensus is not a sacred given, but the result of a historical-social process.
Explanation
Arkoun argues that what is called consensus did not take shape all at once as a revealed truth; rather, it crystallized within a historical process governed by disagreements and selections. Consensus thus becomes a trace of the formation of a community and its norms, not a fixed origin that predates history.
This understanding places consensus within the field of struggle over meaning and authority, where ideology and politics intersect with the construction of what is later presented as final agreement. Accordingly, in Arkoun’s view, consensus is not read as proof of infallibility, but as the outcome of a history of codification and stabilization.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s critique of concepts that have been treated as if they stood above history, such as orthodoxy and consensus. It is linked to his broader thesis, which seeks to show that many intellectual structures in the Islamic tradition were formed through specific social, political, and epistemic conditions, not as closed final givens.
Limits of the Claim
This atom does not mean denying the existence of actual agreements within Islamic history, nor does it reduce every consensus to a purely political maneuver. The point is to strip consensus of its sacred status as a historical construction, not to abolish every value it may have held or every function it served.