Respecting Dissent (1/4)

Islam only speaks with a monolithic voice on foundational beliefs and practices. In other matters, it speaks with multiple voices and recognizes the legitimacy of dissent and competing interpretations. Although Islamic history has had periods of greater and lesser toleration, acknowledgement of divergent opinions is a central part of its heritage. Muslim scholars were trained in the protocol of dissent (adab al-ikhtilaf), which enabled them, for the most part, to benefit from opposing points of view and live civilly with those who held them.

Respect for dissent is a natural element in healthy societies; it is essential to human dignity and intellectual development. It nurtures a culture of tolerance that allows for openness to new ways of thinking and to other communities with different worldviews. Historically, Islam's receptivity to novel and often contacting ideas was an integral part of its cultural and intellectual success. This respect for dissent lay at the foundation of the religion's capacity to foster an international discourse of ideas; it enabled Muslims to become heirs to the great intellectual legacies of the past.

The right of dissent and the requirement to respect it are anchored in the manner in which Muslim scholarship approached scriptural interpretation. Scholars agreed that religious texts have different degrees of conclusiveness and often convey multiple meanings. Islamic scholarship divided religious texts into two categories: 1) those which are categorically authoritative (qat’i) and 2) those which are presumptively authoritative (zanni).

To be categorically authoritative, a religious text must pass two tests. The first pertains to authenticity of transmission; the second pertains to the number of meanings it conveys. In Islamic scholarship, the entirety of the Qur'an is categorically authentic (qat’i al-thubut). Hadith, on the other hand, have different levels of verifiable authenticity. Thus, the issue of textual authenticity applies in reality only to Hadith. Those Hadith that meet the highest standards of verification (al-ahadith al-sahiha) are categorically authentic from the standpoint of transmission, although they are not necessarily categorically authoritative from the standpoint of meaning. Hadith with lesser degrees of verifiability (al-ahadith al-hasana wa al-da'ifa) are presumptively authentic as regards transmission (zanni al-thubut). They may provide legitimate supporting evidence but cannot constitute conclusive proof in isolation no matter how clear their meanings may appear.

Once the authenticity of a text has been established, the next question regarding meaning must be answered. In many ways, this second question is more important than the first because most dissent among Muslims over religious questions is based on divergent interpretations of authenticated texts; it is such texts that constitute the primary arena of religious dissent among religious scholars.

Texts that are categorically authoritative in meaning (qat’i al-dalala) allow for only one possible interpretation. But texts that allow for more than one reasonable interpretation are said to be presumptively authoritative in meaning (zanni al-dalala). Such texts cannot logically be restricted to a single meaning, despite the fact that one of their meanings may appear stronger than the others. An applicable legal maxim states: "There can be no conclusive proof as long as the possibility of a contrary argument remains" (la hujja ma’a al-ihtimal); with presumptively authoritative texts, the possibility of a legitimate contrary argument always remains.

Belief in God's Oneness, the Last Judgment, and the prohibition of murder are based on categorically authoritative texts; they constitute primary foundations of the Islamic religion and are universally binding on Muslims.[1] Whether or not the Garden of Paradise comprises four or seven heavenly domains is a question based on presumptively authoritative texts; as are questions about whether God sent 124,000, 224,000, or some other undetermined number of Prophets.[2] Likewise, the discussion about how Muslims ought to hold their hands when standing in prayer revolves around texts of presumptive authority.

Beliefs and practices based on presumptively authoritative texts may be said to have secondary status; they cannot constitute the foundational beliefs and practices that all Muslims are obliged to accept. Nevertheless, these secondary beliefs and practices are of vital importance in Islam and are not to be regarded as tentative or untrue. Although they belong to the realm of formal dissent and cannot be imposed on others, they constitute valid beliefs and practices for those schools and the individuals who accept them. In essence, each school of Islamic law constitutes a working methodology for reaching valid conclusions about presumptively authoritative questions.[3] The schools agree on categorically authoritative matters; their differences concern presumptively authoritative ones. Although each school claims to be a reliable guide in presumptive matters, they acknowledge the rights of others to dissent and do not claim conclusive authority for themselves in the absence of categorical proof.

One of the most important principles in the definition of Islamic orthodoxy, heresy, and sectarianism relates to this distinction between categorically authoritative (primary) and presumptively authoritative (secondary) beliefs and practices. As indicated above, the foundational content of Islam, which all Muslims are required to acknowledge, must be restricted to primary beliefs and practices based on categorically authoritative proof. While it is valid for persons and schools to adopt presumptively authoritative elements of faith for themselves, it is not permissible to regard them as obligatory for the Muslim community as a whole; to do so is heretical and sectarian. It is equally unacceptable by the standards of orthodoxy to insist that Muslims renounce their dissenting secondary beliefs and practices simply because other Muslims may regard them to be false. By defining orthodoxy in this manner, the dichotomy between categorically authoritative and presumptively authoritative proof provides a protected space for intra-Muslim dissent and discourse. It establishes freedom of dissent as an intrinsic and necessary religious right and relegates Muslims who deny that right to the marginal status of heretics and sectarians.

(Continued)