That view is sound, and it is the position of Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī. Another group said, “This is not consensus.” A third maintained, “The judgment of the majority—the larger body—constitutes consensus even if a smaller number dissent,” while yet another group insisted, “Such a case is not consensus …”.

I say: Dr. Abū Ḥamād Ṣaghīr remarks in the introduction to al-Awsat (1/48): “Ibn al-Mundhir followed al-Ṭabarī in this respect: when he cites an issue and finds only an eccentric disagreement or a solitary opinion unsupported by an authentic chain, he deems it the consensus of the scholars, attaching no weight to the opposition of one or two individuals.

“Whoever is acquainted with Ibn al-Mundhir’s method, then surveys al-Ṭabarī’s practice in Tahdhīb al-Āthār and his Tafsīr, Ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī in Ikhtilāf al-ʿUlamāʾ, Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ and the Mudawwana al-Kubrā, al-Shāfiʿī in al-Umm, Abū ʿUbayd in Kitāb al-Ṭahārah and Kitāb al-Amwāl, and many others, will find that their approaches do not differ from one another.

“Therefore, the consensuses reported by Ibn al-Mundhir are not of the formal, uṣūl-based type, nor are they objectionable, for earlier scholars preceded him in this path and he simply followed their lead.”

Ibn Mufliḥ says in al-Furūʿ (1/465): “… al-ʿAllāmah Ibn al-Qayyim observed: ‘This was Ibn al-Mundhir’s habit: whenever he saw that the majority of scholars held a view, he related it as consensus.’”

I say: al-Maqarrī states in his Qawāʿid Fiqhiyyah, “Beware of Ibn al-Mundhir’s consensuses.” ⦗1⦘

This warning from al-Maqarrī may be correct if we weigh Ibn al-Mundhir’s consensuses against the uṣūlī definition of consensus; but if we adopt the definition Ibn Ḥazm attributes to al-Ṭabarī, al-Maqarrī’s remark becomes somewhat unfair.

Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Jibrīn says in the introduction to his critical edition of Ibn al-Mundhir’s al-Iqnāʿ (1/20): “Whoever studies the issues in which Imām Ibn al-Mundhir claimed consensus will find….”