Who speaks for Islam?

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 has no clergy. The right of
understanding the message and interpretation belongs 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.
As we said, 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 representing the Muslims (the khalifah or Caliph) the right to adopt a
particular ruling from amongst the authentic Shariah rules, 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 Quran "And if you followed
their desires after what knowledge has come to you, then you are surely an oppressor."
(Quran chapter 2, verse 120)
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 misquotation, out of context, or
contradicts other definitive texts, then it must be rejected.
Today, some people present un-Islamic opinions to serve political interests. They rely upon
the ignorance of general Muslims to get these rulings accepted. They misquote older
respected scholars to justify their modernist interpretations, despite the sometimes clear
irrelevance of such old opinions to modern issues.
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 Shariah,
which becomes exposed when his justifications are put to close scrutiny, even if he was a
master politician with a silver tongue.