Respecting Dissent (4/4)

Because most legal positions in Islam are based on conjecture and lead to dissent, classical academies for Islamic law made the art of debate a required subject in their curricula. In fields like Hadith, rote learning was sufficient, but this was not the case in law. Advanced students of jurisprudence had to acquire comprehensive understanding of the proofs and legal arguments that underlay Islamic law. Like doctoral candidates today, a law student attained the degree of an accredited jurist (faqih, mujtahid, mufti) after preparing an independent thesis in support of an original legal opinion, which had then to be defended successfully before qualified jurists. According to George Makdisi, the Islamic legal tradition of debate, independent research, and defending a thesis contributed to the rise of universities in medieval Europe and adoption of the dissertation and doctorate as an essential part of advanced scholarship. [1]

Some Muslims today confuse intra-Muslim dissent with discord and regard questions and dissenting opinions as a threat to unity. Unity grows out of general agreement based on discussion and free choice. Unity must not be confused with uniformity. Traditional Islamic societies did not promote uniformity; they promoted unity in diversity. Uniformity can only be imposed by intimidation and social pressure; it cannot extend beyond the range of the force that imposes it. Imposing uniformity does not strengthen societies; it weakens them. Respect for dissent, on the other hand, provides a basis for true social cohesion. By promoting self-respect and human dignity, the operational principle of respecting dissent fosters mutual understanding and creates the basis upon which a healthy community can be built.

The value of respecting dissent lies not in the fact that it has become politically correct but because it brings different perspectives to light and promotes learning. A common dictum of Islamic education says: "Good questions are half of learning." The protocol of dissent requires that questions be asked, and it affirms that questioning is valid no matter how sacrosanct a matter may be. Things are not deemed sacrosanct in Islam without demonstrable proof, and each Muslim has a right to ask about that proof. When the right to question is respected, arguments cease to be worthy of consideration unless they are based on convincing reasons and can stand up to frank discussion and honest discourse.

Many Muslims believe that asking perplexing questions about Islam is not allowed. For some, it is shameful to ask such questions or to express doubts. Traditional Islamic scholarship did not regard it an impropriety to raise difficult questions about the religion or ask about one's doubts; rather, it was a sin not to ask. One of the intellectual responsibilities of the Muslim scholar was to prepare cogent answers for such inquiries. In order to respond effectively to the types of questions that might be asked, whole genres of scholarly literature were composed in question/answer form.

It was the scholars themselves who asked each other the most difficult questions. They made critical inquiries into the apparent contradictions in the Qur'an and Sunna; they raised questions about the greatest sanctities of the faith and the most fundamental precepts of the law. The Companions occasionally asked such questions themselves during the time of the Prophet. The Companion Abu Razin asked him: "Where was our Lord before He created creation?" The Prophet answered: "He was in a state of complete hiddenness (‘amd'), beneath which there was no atmosphere and above which there was no atmosphere. Then He created His throne over the water."[2]

Social justice is one of the core values and highest ideals of Islam. Tolerance and openness to questioning and dissent create an ambience where commitment to social justice can be meaningful. It is a contradiction in terms to speak of social justice in communities that neither welcome dissent nor allow for questions.

Denying the right to dissent and to ask questions drives people away, disempowers the community, and condemns its membership to being passive onlookers. The operational principle of respecting dissent and the imperative to develop dynamic communities necessitate an atmosphere in which diverse opinions can be expressed and where serious questions can receive respectful answers. The right to inquire and to dissent creates an organic system of checks and balances that helps guard against excess.

Ultimately, the freedom to question and to disagree benefits the entire community; it holds both its members and its leadership accountable and requires them to meet reasonable standards of sensibility and discretion.