Respecting Dissent (2/4)

Although the protocol of Islamic thought agrees to disagree on presumptively authoritative matters, it should be emphasized that dissenting views must be held to high standards and sound methodologies. They are not worthy of respect merely because they constitute dissent. Respecting dissent does not imply honoring weak and arbitrary arguments or those founded on ignorance of the Islamic sciences. Respecting dissent means rejecting authoritarianism; it does not mean rejecting authority. Non-categorical proofs must be as authoritative as possible. They require reasonable evidence, sound methodology, and cogent reasoning.

In what follows, I will give a few illustrations of presumptively authoritative texts and legal interpretations. Many passages in the Qur'an and Sunna appear at first to convey only one possible meaning but, upon closer examination, turn out to be open to other interpretations. Too often Muslims speak out of ignorance on matters of interpretation as if they allowed for only one point of view and were closed forever to further discussion.

In the one presumptively authoritative text, the Prophet stated: "Whoever brings dead land to life shall own it." Legal scholars accept the Hadith as an authentic transmission and agree that its wording is clear. Still, they classify the Hadith as presumptively authoritative. Dissent over the Hadith's implications is based on consideration of its original context, not questions of grammar and semantics. The Prophet functioned in different private and public capacities; he was a universal lawgiver, a governor and head of state, the head of a family, a personal friend, and so forth. Many Hadith cannot be properly understood without establishing the context in which they were spoken, and that is the case with this Hadith.

Imam Abu Hanifa regarded the Hadith "whoever brings dead land to life shall own it" as an administrative provision that the Prophet made as governor of Medina. Thus, the Hadith relates to agrarian conditions specific to Medina at a particular time. Abu Hanifa did not deny the validity of acquiring abandoned lands by bringing them under cultivation, as mentioned in the Hadith, but, given the Hadith's original administrative context in his view, its application requires official permission to ensure that it is suitable for application in a wide variety of conditions in diverse times and places.

Imam Malik held a similar view; he required governmental permission for fallow lands lying within the greenbelts (harim) that surrounded traditional Muslim towns and cities. Since these areas were the property of the people, Malik exempted any land within them from acquisition through cultivation despite the fact that such lands were technically fallow. Malik did not require governmental permission, however, for lands lying beyond the greenbelts.

Imam al-Shafi’i's methodology is based on the premise that every Hadith will be treated as a universal statement of law unless the contrary is proven through another explicit textual reference. Al-Shafi’i held, therefore, that the Prophet made the statement in the Hadith in his capacity as a universal lawgiver. Thus, for al-Shafi’i, no restrictions apply to the acquisition of revived lands, and no governmental approval is necessary.[1]

The three Imams agreed on the validity of the same Hadith but interpreted it in three significantly different ways. Each of their readings has a claim to validity, although some may arguably be stronger than others.

The second presumptively authoritative Hadith recounts that a certain Companion's mother asked him to free a Muslim slave after her death. The manumission of slaves is an act of worship and atonement in the Prophetic law. The man chose to emancipate a non-Arab girl on his mother's behalf but could not ascertain if she was a Muslim. He brought her to the Prophet to verify that she believed in Islam. The Prophet asked her: "Where is God?" She motioned with either her head or her index finger toward the sky. The Prophet then asked her: "Who am I?" She pointed her index finger toward him and then toward the sky. The Prophet declared her to be a Muslim, and she was set free.

Some Muslims cite this Hadith as categorical proof that God has a physical location in heaven. Muslim theological schools, both Sunni and Shi’ai, regard such as view as heretical and verging on disbelief, because it contradicts categorical proof and is based on conjecture. When this Hadith is contemplated in conjunction with parallel transmissions of the same narrative, its presumptively authoritative nature and inconclusiveness as a theological argument become clear.

Another narration of the same Hadith adds that the girl was mute and could not speak at all, which explains her gestures and the Prophet's readiness to accept them as a proof of faith. It would also clarify why the Companion was unable to ascertain that she was a Muslim. Since the girl was a non-Arab, she may not have known Arabic well or at all, which would give an alternative explanation for the nature of the interchange between the Prophet and her. Another transmission states that the Prophet did not ask her: "Where is God?" but "Who is God?" Both wordings are unusual, however, because it was the Prophet's custom when asking people if they believed in Islam to say: "Do you bear witness that there is no god but God?" Another narration makes no mention of the girl's inability to speak. In it, the Prophet asked her the customary question: "Do you bear witness that there is no god but God?" And she replied: "Yes" without making gestures toward the sky. [2]

The account of the girl is authentic but conjectural in meaning. The mere fact that the she may have been mute or may not have known Arabic makes hers an exceptional case, and exceptional cases cannot establish theological or legal norms. The Hadith has nothing to do with designating a location for God in heaven; it is, however, a testimony to the Prophet's openness toward accepting declarations of faith.

 (Continued)