Who speaks for Islam?

There are so many groups, organisations, councils and spokespersons for the Muslim community that you would be forgiven for asking who speaks for Islam?

The simple answer is that no one person or group does. Islam gave the right of interpretation to each and every Muslim. Even if two Muslims come to a different ruling based upon the same Islamic legal text, then they will both be rewarded in the next life, so long as their effort was a sincere attempt to find Allah’s solution to a problem.

Islam does not recognise a clerical class. Any attempt to establish official interpretations must be resisted by Muslims, as this inevitably takes Islam away from the people and leads to it serving political whims of the day. However, Islam did give the elected leader (khalifah) the right to adopt a particular ruling, to become an official adoption for the governors and judges to rule with. Other opinions can still be aired to account the ruler and ensure that only the strongest opinion is adopted.

However, even though Muslims all have the right to interpret, there are still clear guidelines as to what is a valid interpretation. Simply put, it must be based upon the Islamic texts. If it were a ruling to suit a vested interest, which was then justified by the text, then this would not be called an Islamic ruling. It would simply be following one’s desires and deserves punishment, not reward. Allah says in the second chapter of the Qur’an “And if you followed their desires after what knowledge has come to you, then you are surely an oppressor.”

The basic condition for us to judge whether an opinion is permitted is that the text must support the possibility of that interpretation. If it is a misquote, out of context, or contradicts other definitive texts, then it must be rejected.

Today, some public Muslims present un-Islamic opinions to serve political interest. They rely upon the ignorance of general Muslims to get these rulings accepted. They misquote older respected scholars to justify their modernist interpretations. For example, we hear that paying interest is now permitted as it is necessary or is a public benefit. This is justified as being perfectly consistent with past scholars’ principles. However, the scholar’s words are being used in the wrong context, or the strict conditions that they had put on the use of such principles are ignored; such as that the perceived benefit must not contradict clear texts like Allah’s saying in the Qur’an “Allah allowed trade and forbade interest”.

Moreover, even if an older scholar was found to have an obscure opinion that the text did not support, then it must also be rejected. Legal precedent is not a valid source of law for Muslims.

Current attempts to establish official bodies of scholars to give localised rulings under the pretext that they are building a consensus are doomed to failure, as they are politically motivated attempts to silence opposition. Imposing respect for past consensus of all Muslims has doubtful legal authority and is practically impossible to establish.

In short, an arrogant cheat who twists texts to serve his interests, would never speak for Islam, even if he fooled most of the people. His intention is not purely to submit to Allah’s shari’ah, which becomes exposed when his justifications are put to close scrutiny, even if he was a master politician with a silver tongue. This stands in stark contrast to the situation here in Britain, where the most tricky lawyers and legal wranglers are rewarded with power.