In a word, yes. There is no ‘Islamic Pope’, but Muslims do have a system of religious authority, even if it is not along the lines of an ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Western academia is predicated on knowledge being built upon knowledge, and constant critical re-evaluation by experts in the field. The same applies for Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi’i. Some individuals spent more time studying with the Prophet Muhammad than others, and they became known as experts in their time as a result. They taught next generation, who taught the next, and so on, in unbroken lines of transmission until today.

In this way, diversity was enshrined in Islam (as there are different lines), but so was scholastic integrity and pedigree; just as in academia. This system applied to different fields of study: theology, spirituality, and critically, law.

In terms of law, these lines of transmission crystallized into several ‘methods’, which underpinned the founding of ‘schools of law’(madhhabs). These are now standard across the Muslim world: among them, the Hanafi style, the Maliki style, the Shafi’i style, and the Hanbali style.

And just as Socrates founded the ‘Socratic method’ and Harvard Law School built a curriculum based on that method, Muslim academia settled on these ‘methods’, and established institutions accordingly. In every age, each ‘school of law’ would be updated by its best scholars to reflect the changing circumstances, and in this way, Islamic law remained dynamic.

Over time, titles were formulated: a ‘mufti’(expounder on Islamic law) was someone who could give a ‘fatwa’ (non-binding legal verdict); a ‘qadi’ (judge of Islamic law) was a type of mufti with state authority, and so on.

Western academia developed its own hierarchy: validation through peer review and degrees accords an expert authority. The same takes place in Islamic law: but while the idea of a 1st year law student challenging the Dean of Yale Law is laughable, many seem to take Bin Laden’s (an engineer, not a jurist) missives seriously, even most disagree with his conclusions.

Authoritative institutions still exist in the Muslim world: Dar al-Ifta’ in Egypt, Nahdat al-Ulama in Indonesia, Dar al Mustafa in Yemen, the Tabah Foundation in Abu Dhabi, and elsewhere. Yet, while their Islamic law experts have consistently have rejected terrorism, many prefer to entertain ill-trained amateurs, and to our collective loss.

The Amman Message is a contemporary re-assertion that Islamic law must be defined by its experts, and the experts reject terrorism. Just as any prescription not written by a doctor cannot be accepted by the pharmacist, no ‘fatwa’ written by a non-jurist can be considered as valid.

So, there is good news --- but also bad news. The good news is that Islamic law is not a free-for-all, and those who are qualified in it have rejected terrorism as morally illegitimate. The bad news: we often take terrorists at their word, and assume they are actually in charge of Islamic law.

The Harvard Dean might correct the ignorant student --- but it would be a foolish mistake to equate their knowledge of law. In the case of radical ideologies, it is now dangerous to make the same mistake.

H.A. Hellyer is a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Fellow of the University of Warwick, U.K. After the 7/7 bombings, Dr. Hellyer was invited to serve as Deputy Convener on the U.K. Government¹s Working Group on Preventing Radicalization and Extremism.