Methodology of Jurisprudential Analysis of Laws.

Laws must be derived from Islam and be legislated for the public. Access to such laws requires the involvement of jurists in the realm of legislation. This involvement may take the form of either ex post or ex ante evaluation, and can be approached from either a partial or holistic perspective. In this research, the approaches to jurisprudential analysis of laws will be evaluated to arrive at a correct judgment regarding the optimal methods and the desired functions of each approach.



The findings of the research indicate that the partial approach is unreliable due to being afflicted by four issues: the obfuscation of fundamental concepts, inconsistency between the disassembly and reassembly of laws, inconsistency of laws with other laws and contexts. The ex post approach, although necessary for assessing past legislation, renders the demand for changes to newly established laws by those who did not participate in the legislation process as economically unfeasible, socially inappropriate, and pointless.



The holistic ex post approach in the evaluation of laws is essential and includes the analysis of individual components, ensuring non-contradiction of legal propositions with other laws, viewing concepts as interconnected, distinguishing between ultimate, content-based, and relational concepts, confirming the absence of conceptual contradictions, and assessing the relationship of the law with its context.



The holistic ex ante approach in drafting laws involves conceptual analysis, contextual assessment, the construction of the framework and structure of laws, defining obligations under this structure, determining the relationship of the law with the enforcement or cessation of Sharia, and assessing the relationship of the law with other laws.