Landmarks of Jurisprudential Criticism as a Criterion for the Jurist, the Preacher Pretentious Scholar; A Critical Study

Abstract

This research investigates jurisprudential criticism as a vital criterion for addressing the modern phenomenon of unqualified preachers discussing complex legal issues via mass media and social networking platforms. This trend has catalyzed the spread of misconceptions and fostered an inaccurate public perception that conflates the roles of the specialized jurist and the general preacher. Such confusion stems from a fundamental lack of awareness regarding the distinct functional and academic boundaries between these two figures. By employing an analytical and inductive methodology, this study explores critical methods as a primary means to purify Islamic jurisprudence from deviant or weak opinions that have become integrated into daily life through digital communication. The research emphasizes that the responsibility for this purification lies with qualified jurists. It seeks to systematize the criteria established in classical legal texts to demonstrate that effective criticism can only be conducted by a critic who satisfies specific scholarly conditions. Notably, while a critic may not need to reach the level of absolute ijtihad across all jurisprudential chapters, they must possess the essential tools of ijtihad and qualifications tailored to the specific subject of critique. The study concludes that jurisprudential criticism is a necessary protective mechanism for shielding Islamic law from corrupt interpretations. Furthermore, it asserts the necessity of distinguishing between the specialized jurist, who possesses the scientific methodology required to derive legal rulings, and the preacher, whose role is properly limited to moral guidance, social advice, and spiritual reminders. This distinction is crucial for maintaining intellectual and religious integrity in the digital age.