I refer to the article The great Islamic debate by AB Sulaiman.
In his article, Sulaiman tried to draw a false similarity between tribal laws and the Islamic paradigm. He tries to equate tribal practice with the Islamic pratice of referring to the 'ulama' or scholars. He views adherence to scholars in Islam as a form of giving total loyalty to leaders in the tribal context.
I think Sulaiman's comparison is totally out of context. First, he is totally unclear about the role of scholars or ulama in Islam. Ulama are not leaders by default. They do not lead or give orders to their flock. They do not require total submission to operate effectively.
They are but 'interpreters' of the law. The laws of Islam have already been enacted. The enactment is in the form of al-Quran and al-Hadeeth. The role of the ulama is to interpret the laws to fit various and diverse situations and circumstances in line with the times.
The role of the ulama is akin to judges in the civil courts. To this day, all syariah judges are also ulama. If the ulama should not be allowed to have sole rights to interpret Islamic law, than Sulaiman must also be willing to accept any Tom, Dick and Harry sitting on the bench in the civil courts.
Sulaiman should also question why only 'those who have read law' are allowed to sit on the bench in civil courts. Also, shouldn't we question tyat if the courts decide on matters relating to public interest, why shouldn't the public participate in the interpretation of the law? Why should the courts only allow those who are learned and trained to sit on the bench?
If one is allowed to choose between the interpretation of a learned individual and the interpretation of an ignorant one, I think the choice is natural. Any sane individual will automatically opt for the interpretation given by the learned as compared to the ignorant.
What Sulaiman and the so-called liberal Muslims want is that Islam be interpreted by all, learned or ignorant alike. Such a practice will only lead to chaos and confusion. I challenge the Muslim liberals around the world to advocate equality when it comes to qualification for judges in the civil courts. Let the ignorant and the learned have equal opportunity to sit on the benches there.
The same principle applies to all discipline of knowledge. No one on earth would allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to conduct a triple bypass on their heart, for instance. They would only opt for a trained and learned physician and surgeon for such task.
Advocating interpretation of the religion by the ignorant? One has to wonder what type of good this will do for the religion and the entire human race.
