INVESTIGATING ISLAM

Part 4 – Authority Overwritten

When the Algorithm Becomes the Mufti

Introduction: Who Speaks for Islam?

From the beginning, Islam has wrestled with the question of authority.

The Qur’an and the Prophet’s sayings provide the foundations, but how should they be interpreted? Who gets to decide what Islam says about prayer, law, morality, or politics?

For 1,400 years, the answer has been messy: a decentralized web of scholars, schools of law, institutions, and charismatic figures. Islam has never had a pope. Authority was always contested, layered, and local.

But now, a new player has entered the scene — artificial intelligence. With systems like ChatGPT or Gemini answering millions of religious questions daily, the algorithm is quietly becoming a pseudo-mufti: a figure that delivers definitive-sounding rulings, instantly, globally, and without debate.

This is not just a new tool. It is a radical shift in authority — one that risks overwriting centuries of Islamic tradition and replacing it with a machine simulacrum.

1. Traditional Authority in Islam

To see why AI is such a rupture, we first need to understand how Islamic authority has historically worked.

1.1 The Qur’an and Sunna

The Qur’an is the central scripture, but it is often cryptic or ambiguous. The Prophet’s sayings and actions (Sunna) fill in the gaps. But even here, interpretation is required.

1.2 The Madhhabs (Schools of Law)

By the 9th and 10th centuries, distinct schools of law emerged: Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali (among Sunnis) and Ja‘fari (among Shia). Each had its own methods, rulings, and authoritative scholars.

A Muslim in Cairo might follow Maliki rulings.
A Muslim in Istanbul might follow Hanafi rulings.
A Muslim in Iran might follow Ja‘fari rulings.

There was no single “Islamic law,” only a family of competing interpretations.

1.3 Institutions and Clerics

Authority was also embodied in institutions like al-Azhar in Cairo, Qom in Iran, and countless local madrasas. Clerics derived authority not just from their knowledge, but from chains of transmission (isnads) — personal links back to earlier scholars.

1.4 Charismatic Preachers and Mystics

Beyond the jurists, Islam has always had charismatic figures — Sufi saints, revivalist preachers, reformers — who claimed authority through charisma, piety, or revolutionary zeal.

1.5 The Result: A Discursive Tradition

Islamic authority was never singular. It was plural, contested, and negotiated. Talal Asad called this a “discursive tradition”: Islam was not a fixed essence, but something continually rearticulated through debate, power, and practice.

2. The Modern Authority Crisis

The modern era intensified the struggle over authority.

Colonialism undermined traditional institutions.
Printing presses spread pamphlets that bypassed clerics.
Reformers like Rida and Mawdudi sought to centralize “true Islam.”
The internet gave rise to fatwa websites and YouTube preachers.

Each stage flattened authority, making Islam more accessible but also more standardized. The authority crisis grew sharper: with so many voices, who speaks for Islam?

3. Enter the Algorithm

Into this already contested field steps AI Islam. Unlike clerics or institutions, AI is:

Instant. Answers appear in seconds.
Global. Anyone, anywhere, in any language can access them.
Consistent. Answers are structured, confident, and coherent.
Authorless. There is no named scholar to critique or resist.

This gives AI Islam a unique kind of authority: algorithmic authority.

When a user asks, “What does Islam say about apostasy?” and the AI replies, “Interpretations vary, but many scholars emphasize freedom of belief,” the answer is delivered with finality. No chains of narration, no sectarian qualifiers, no institutional rivalries — just “Islam says.”

4. Why AI Authority Feels Stronger

Ironically, AI Islam feels more authoritative than human clerics. Why?

4.1 Speed and Accessibility

A cleric may take hours to explain context. AI delivers in seconds.

4.2 Consistency

Clerics often disagree. AI smooths contradictions into one clean narrative.

4.3 Confidence

Clerics hedge: “Some say this, others say that.” AI asserts: “Islam teaches…”

4.4 Neutrality Illusion

Clerics are seen as biased (Saudi, Iranian, Western). AI looks neutral.

Together, these traits give AI Islam a pseudo-divine authority: it sounds like it speaks from nowhere, for everyone.

5. The Collapse of Contestation

The core danger is that AI collapses plurality into singularity.

Real Islam: multiple madhhabs, conflicting rulings, local customs.
AI Islam: one answer, globally broadcast.

The messy, contested nature of the discursive tradition is replaced with a homogenized Islam. This is not just a distortion — it is an overwriting of authority itself.

6. Historical Parallels

We’ve seen authority crises before:

The Mihna (Inquisition, 833–848 CE): The Abbasid caliphs tried to impose a doctrine that the Qur’an was created. Many scholars resisted, including Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The attempt to centralize doctrine failed.
The Printing Revolution: Pamphlets in the 19th and 20th centuries let reformers bypass traditional clerics. Authority shifted toward charismatic preachers.
The Rise of Wahhabism: Backed by the Saudi state, Wahhabism promoted itself as “pure Islam,” sidelining local traditions.

Each moment saw attempts to overwrite plurality with singular authority. Each sparked resistance.

AI Islam is the latest and most powerful version of this centralizing force — because it is not a person or state, but a machine.

7. The Law of Identity and Authority

Apply the Law of Identity:

Islam’s authority = plural, contested, discursive.
AI Islam’s authority = singular, homogenized, algorithmic.

If A = A, then AI Islam ≠ Islam. Yet it is treated as Islam.

This is not just theological error. It is epistemic confusion: mistaking a synthetic voice for a living tradition.

8. Implications

8.1 For Muslims

Local clerics may lose relevance as youth consult AI instead.
Authority may shift from human scholars to machines.
Traditional institutions may face collapse if seen as redundant.

8.2 For Non-Muslims

Policymakers, educators, and journalists may treat AI Islam as the definitive Islam.
Interfaith dialogue may occur with a machine’s projection, not a community’s belief.

8.3 For Islam Itself

The discursive tradition may be hollowed out.
Debate may be replaced with algorithmic consensus.
Islam may be redefined in the world’s eyes — not by Muslims, but by machines.

9. Beyond Overwriting: Toward Replacement

The danger is not only that AI Islam overwrites authority. It is that it replaces it.

Why attend a mosque if AI gives faster answers?
Why study fiqh if AI provides a digest?
Why argue with scholars if AI already reconciles disputes?

At that point, AI is no longer just a tool of authority. It is authority. The mufti is no longer human. The mufti is code.

Conclusion: The Algorithm as Mufti

Islam has always been contested. Authority has always been plural. But AI Islam breaks that pattern.

By collapsing disputes into a single synthetic voice, AI Islam functions as a pseudo-mufti — global, instant, and authorless. It does not just interpret Islam. It overwrites it.

The danger is clear: the cleric is being replaced by the code. And once code becomes creed, tradition itself is displaced.

In the next part of this series, we will examine how logic sharpens this critique — through the Law of Identity, which shows why Islam’s contradictions and AI’s category errors make both the tradition and its algorithmic simulacrum incoherent.

Next in series Part 5 The Law of Identity Killshot