Kadiri Islamic University Entrance Exam Set

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a researcher, Aisha, who discovers a novel medical treatment with potential life-saving benefits but also significant, albeit rare, side effects. The ethical dilemma centers on the obligation to disclose these risks. In Usul al-Fiqh, the principle of *maslahah* (public interest/welfare) is paramount, but it must be balanced against the principle of *darar* (harm) and the individual’s right to informed consent. The concept of *al-ghurur* (deception or excessive uncertainty) is also relevant, as withholding information about potential harm could be construed as such. The most appropriate approach, aligning with the Islamic ethical framework emphasized at Kadiri Islamic University, is to prioritize transparency and informed consent. This means disclosing all known risks, even those with low probability, to allow individuals to make autonomous decisions. The potential benefit of saving lives (*maslahah*) does not negate the duty to prevent harm (*darar*) to individuals through informed choice. Therefore, Aisha has an obligation to fully inform potential recipients of the treatment about both its benefits and its potential adverse effects, regardless of their statistical likelihood. This upholds the sanctity of individual autonomy and the principle of not causing harm, which are deeply embedded in Islamic legal and ethical thought. The university’s commitment to rigorous scholarship and ethical practice necessitates an approach that respects individual agency and the pursuit of truth, even when it involves complex risk-benefit analyses.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a medical decision-making process where conflicting principles of patient autonomy and the sanctity of life are present. To determine the most appropriate Islamic legal approach, one must consider the hierarchy of legal objectives (Maqasid al-Shari’ah) and the established methodologies for resolving jurisprudential conflicts. The core of the dilemma lies in balancing the patient’s right to self-determination (autonomy) against the Islamic imperative to preserve life (hifz al-nafs), which is one of the highest objectives of Shari’ah. In situations where a patient’s decision might lead to a high probability of death or severe harm, jurists often refer to principles like *darurah* (necessity) and *amr bil ma’ruf wa nahy an al-munkar* (enjoining good and forbidding evil). However, patient autonomy, derived from the principle of individual accountability and the right to make informed choices about one’s own body, is also a significant consideration. When a competent adult patient makes a decision that, from a medical perspective, is considered detrimental but is based on their informed consent and religious beliefs, the principle of respecting individual agency generally takes precedence, provided it does not directly cause harm to others or violate established public law. The role of the medical professional and the Islamic scholar is to provide guidance, ensure the patient is fully informed of the consequences, and explore all permissible alternatives. However, imposing a treatment against a competent patient’s will, even if deemed medically beneficial, can be problematic from an Islamic ethical standpoint, as it infringes upon their freedom of choice and dignity. The concept of *la ikraha fid-deen* (there shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion) also underscores the importance of individual volition. Therefore, the most appropriate approach involves extensive counseling and ensuring the patient’s decision is truly informed and free from coercion, rather than overriding their autonomy based solely on a perceived medical benefit that the patient themselves does not prioritize.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinion) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both tradition and innovation, would expect its students to grasp the nuanced application of these concepts. The scenario presents a modern dilemma: a new medical procedure with potential ethical implications not explicitly addressed in classical texts. To resolve this, a scholar must engage in *ijtihad*. This involves: 1. **Understanding the foundational sources:** Consulting the Quran and Sunnah for relevant principles. For instance, the principle of preserving life (*hifz al-nafs*) is paramount. 2. **Analyzing established juristic methodologies:** Examining how previous scholars approached similar novel issues, considering principles like *qiyas* (analogical reasoning), *maslaha* (public interest), and *urf* (customary practice). 3. **Considering the specific context:** Evaluating the procedure’s benefits, risks, and societal impact in the current era. Option A, advocating for a direct application of *ijtihad* based on the overarching principles of Islamic ethics and jurisprudence, aligns with this process. It acknowledges the need for scholarly deliberation to derive a ruling for a novel situation. Option B, suggesting a reliance solely on *taqlid* to a specific historical scholar’s opinion on a different matter, would be insufficient as it fails to address the unique aspects of the new procedure. While respecting past scholarship is crucial, rigid adherence without considering new evidence or contexts can stifle progress. Option C, proposing a consensus-building approach without a clear jurisprudential framework, might lead to subjective or ungrounded conclusions. While consensus is valued, it typically follows rigorous scholarly deliberation, not precedes it in novel cases. Option D, focusing on the literal interpretation of unrelated historical texts, ignores the dynamic nature of Islamic legal reasoning and the necessity of adapting principles to contemporary realities. This approach would fail to provide a relevant ruling for the medical scenario. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for a scholar at Kadiri Islamic University, committed to both Islamic tradition and intellectual rigor, would be to engage in a thorough process of *ijtihad* grounded in the established methodologies of Islamic jurisprudence to address the ethical considerations of the new medical procedure.

The core principle being tested here is the nuanced understanding of *ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its application in contemporary contexts and its relationship with established scholarly consensus (*ijma*). Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both traditional scholarship and modern relevance, would expect candidates to grasp the conditions and limitations of *ijtihad*. The scenario presented involves a novel issue not explicitly addressed in foundational texts. The correct approach, therefore, requires a scholar to engage in rigorous reasoning based on the established principles of Islamic law, considering the *maqasid al-shari’ah* (higher objectives of Islamic law) and the prevailing circumstances. This involves analogical reasoning (*qiyas*), consideration of public interest (*maslahah*), and adherence to the methodologies of recognized schools of thought, without outright rejecting established consensus on unrelated matters. The other options represent either an overreliance on strict adherence to past rulings without considering new contexts, an unwarranted dismissal of established legal frameworks, or a misapplication of the concept of consensus to situations requiring fresh interpretation. The ability to synthesize these elements is crucial for advanced legal scholarship at Kadiri Islamic University.

The core principle at play here is the concept of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its application in contemporary contexts where new challenges arise that were not explicitly addressed in foundational texts. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on integrating traditional Islamic scholarship with modern intellectual inquiry, would prioritize an approach that respects the established methodologies while allowing for reasoned adaptation. The scenario presents a novel ethical dilemma concerning digital information dissemination and its potential impact on communal harmony. The correct approach, therefore, involves a rigorous application of *usul al-fiqh* (principles of jurisprudence) to derive a ruling. This requires consulting the primary sources (Quran and Sunnah) for guiding principles, examining the consensus of scholars (*ijma*), and employing analogical reasoning (*qiyas*) where appropriate. Crucially, it also necessitates considering secondary sources and the broader objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shariah*), which include the preservation of faith, life, intellect, lineage, and property, as well as the promotion of justice and public welfare. In this specific case, the potential for widespread misinformation to incite discord and harm individuals or groups necessitates a cautious and well-reasoned response. The most appropriate method for addressing such a novel issue, aligning with the academic rigor expected at Kadiri Islamic University, is to engage in a comprehensive *ijtihad* that considers the specific context, the potential harms and benefits, and the established legal maxims. This process would involve consulting with qualified scholars, analyzing the nature of the digital platform and its reach, and evaluating the intent and impact of the disseminated information. The goal is to arrive at a ruling that upholds Islamic ethical principles and safeguards the community’s well-being.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinion) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges and the educational mission of an institution like Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario presents a novel issue concerning digital currency, which is not explicitly addressed in classical texts. A student at Kadiri Islamic University, aiming to contribute to the discourse on Islamic finance, would need to engage in a process that goes beyond mere recitation of existing rulings. The process of deriving a ruling on a new issue involves several steps. First, identifying the underlying *maqasid al-shari’ah* (objectives of Islamic law) relevant to financial transactions, such as justice, fairness, preventing harm, and facilitating legitimate transactions. Second, examining the *usul al-fiqh* (principles of jurisprudence) that guide legal derivation, including the Quran, Sunnah, *ijma’* (consensus), and *qiyas* (analogical reasoning). For a novel issue like digital currency, *qiyas* would be crucial, comparing it to existing forms of currency or commodities with established rulings. Furthermore, considering the principles of *maslahah mursalah* (public interest) and *urf* (custom) would be essential, as these allow for rulings based on general welfare and prevailing societal practices, provided they do not contradict established Islamic principles. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for a student at Kadiri Islamic University, seeking to provide a well-reasoned Islamic perspective on digital currency, would be to undertake rigorous *ijtihad*. This involves a deep study of the relevant jurisprudential sources, an understanding of the nature of digital currency, and the application of established methodologies of legal reasoning to derive a ruling that aligns with the broader objectives of Islamic law and serves the public interest. This process is not about simply finding a pre-existing fatwa, but about actively engaging with the sources and principles to arrive at a sound conclusion.

The core principle being tested is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence and its application in contemporary contexts, particularly concerning the ethical considerations of scientific advancements. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on integrating traditional Islamic scholarship with modern intellectual inquiry, would expect candidates to grasp how *ijtihad* allows for the re-evaluation of established rulings in light of new knowledge and societal needs. The scenario of advanced genetic editing technology, specifically germline editing, presents a complex ethical dilemma. Traditional jurisprudence might have limited direct precedent for such technologies. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for scholars at Kadiri Islamic University would be to engage in rigorous *ijtihad*, drawing upon the foundational principles of Islamic law (*usul al-fiqh*), the objectives of Sharia (*maqasid al-shariah*), and the ethical frameworks derived from the Quran and Sunnah. This process involves careful consideration of potential harms and benefits, the preservation of human dignity, and the avoidance of corruption or mischief (*fasad*). While seeking consensus (*ijma*) is valuable, it may not be immediately achievable for novel issues. Relying solely on historical rulings (*taqlid*) without critical re-evaluation would be insufficient given the unprecedented nature of germline editing. Similarly, a purely secular ethical framework, while potentially informative, would not fully address the specific theological and spiritual dimensions central to an Islamic university’s perspective. Thus, the systematic application of *ijtihad* to derive rulings that align with the overarching spirit and objectives of Islamic law is the most academically sound and ethically responsible path.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a researcher, Aisha, who discovers a novel method for preserving perishable goods that significantly reduces spoilage. However, this method relies on a process that, while not explicitly forbidden, involves a subtle manipulation of natural processes that some scholars might interpret as altering God’s creation in a way that could be seen as problematic under the principle of *taghyir al-khalq* (changing creation). To determine the most appropriate Islamic legal ruling, one must consider several key Usul al-Fiqh principles. The primary principle governing new matters is *istihsan* (juristic preference), which allows for a departure from a strict analogy (*qiyas*) if it leads to a more beneficial or less burdensome outcome for the community, provided it doesn’t contradict clear textual evidence. Another relevant principle is *maslaha* (public interest), which permits rulings based on the welfare of the community. The concept of *urf* (custom or common practice) also plays a role, as does the principle of *darura* (necessity) if the spoilage of food is a significant issue. Aisha’s discovery aims to alleviate food waste, a clear manifestation of *maslaha*. The method’s potential to benefit society by making food more accessible and reducing economic loss aligns with the objectives of Sharia (*maqasid al-Sharia*). While the manipulation of natural processes might raise concerns under *taghyir al-khalq*, this principle is generally applied when the alteration is inherently harmful or intended to deceive. In this case, the intention is beneficial, and the alteration is a scientific advancement rather than a malicious act. Therefore, the ruling would likely lean towards permissibility, especially if the method is deemed to serve a greater public good and does not involve any prohibited substances or actions. The most nuanced approach, considering the potential for differing interpretations regarding *taghyir al-khalq*, would be to seek a ruling based on the overwhelming *maslaha* and the absence of a clear prohibition, making the principle of *istihsan* particularly relevant for justifying a departure from a strict, potentially negative, interpretation of altering creation. This aligns with the university’s emphasis on balancing textual fidelity with the practical needs of the Muslim community.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established legal opinions) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges and the educational mission of an institution like Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario presents a hypothetical situation where a new technological advancement, a drone capable of delivering medical supplies to remote areas, raises questions about its permissibility (*halal* or *haram*) based on existing Islamic legal frameworks. To determine the correct approach, one must consider the methodology of Islamic legal reasoning. The permissibility of new matters, especially those related to worldly affairs (*mu’amalat*), is generally presumed unless there is a clear prohibition in the Quran or Sunnah. Drones, in this context, are a novel technology. Applying *ijtihad* would involve analyzing the drone’s function and potential uses against established legal principles. If the drone’s primary purpose and application are beneficial and do not contravene any Islamic ethical or legal injunctions (e.g., privacy violations, facilitating illicit activities), then its use would likely be considered permissible. This process involves analogical reasoning (*qiyas*), consideration of public interest (*maslahah*), and the principle of presumption of permissibility (*asl al-ibahah*). *Taqlid*, on the other hand, would involve seeking the opinion of established scholars who have already deliberated on similar technologies or have issued fatwas concerning drones. However, given the novelty of advanced drone applications in medicine, a direct *taqlid* might not yield a definitive answer without further scholarly interpretation. The question tests the candidate’s ability to discern the appropriate methodology for addressing contemporary issues within an Islamic scholarly framework. Kadiri Islamic University, as an institution committed to both tradition and innovation, would encourage a reasoned approach that balances established principles with the needs of modern society. Therefore, the most appropriate response is to engage in *ijtihad* by analyzing the technology’s benefits and potential harms against Islamic legal maxims, rather than simply relying on existing, potentially outdated, opinions or outright prohibition without due consideration. The scenario highlights the dynamic nature of Islamic law and its capacity to adapt to new realities through rigorous scholarly engagement.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established legal interpretations) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as applied to contemporary challenges. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both tradition and modern relevance, would expect candidates to grasp the nuanced application of these concepts. The scenario presents a situation where a new technological advancement (AI-driven legal analysis) intersects with established Islamic legal frameworks. The most appropriate approach, aligning with the university’s educational philosophy, is to engage in rigorous *ijtihad* that is informed by, but not rigidly bound to, existing *taqlid*. This involves a deep understanding of the Quran, Sunnah, scholarly consensus (*ijma*), and analogical reasoning (*qiyas*), while also considering the *maqasid al-Shari’ah* (higher objectives of Islamic law) and the changing realities of the world. Simply relying on existing *taqlid* without critical evaluation might miss the potential benefits or address the unique ethical dilemmas posed by AI. Conversely, a purely unbridled *ijtihad* without grounding in established principles could lead to arbitrary or unsound conclusions. Therefore, a balanced approach that synthesizes rigorous independent reasoning with a respectful engagement with the legacy of Islamic scholarship is paramount. This approach allows for the adaptation of Islamic law to new contexts while preserving its foundational integrity, a key tenet for scholars at institutions like Kadiri Islamic University.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinions) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges faced by institutions like Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario presents a novel ethical dilemma concerning the integration of AI in academic assessment, a topic not explicitly addressed in classical texts. For a student at Kadiri Islamic University, which emphasizes both traditional Islamic scholarship and modern intellectual engagement, the most appropriate approach would be to engage in rigorous *ijtihad*. This involves a thorough analysis of the underlying ethical principles (e.g., justice, fairness, the pursuit of knowledge), consultation of relevant Quranic verses and Hadith, and consideration of the *maqasid al-shari’ah* (higher objectives of Islamic law). While acknowledging the value of established scholarly consensus (*ijma*), a direct application of *taqlid* to a completely new technological context would be insufficient. The process of *ijtihad* would allow for the development of a reasoned, contextually relevant, and ethically sound ruling. This process would involve consulting with contemporary scholars, examining the potential benefits and harms of AI in assessment, and ensuring the solution aligns with the broader Islamic ethical framework. Therefore, the most robust approach is to undertake a comprehensive *ijtihad* to derive a ruling that is both grounded in Islamic principles and responsive to the specific technological and educational realities.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical framework governing scholarly inquiry within an Islamic academic context, specifically as it pertains to research integrity and the dissemination of knowledge. Kadiri Islamic University, like many institutions of higher learning, emphasizes the importance of upholding ethical principles in all academic pursuits. When considering the responsible conduct of research, particularly in fields that intersect with religious and societal values, the principle of *amanah* (trustworthiness, responsibility) is paramount. This encompasses not only the accurate reporting of findings but also the careful consideration of the potential impact of research on individuals and communities. The scenario presented involves a researcher at Kadiri Islamic University who has discovered findings that, while scientifically valid, could be interpreted as challenging established theological interpretations or societal norms. The ethical dilemma lies in balancing the pursuit of knowledge and its open dissemination with the potential for misinterpretation or misuse that could lead to societal discord or harm. Option a) correctly identifies the most ethically sound approach by advocating for transparent communication of findings, coupled with a contextualized explanation that addresses potential misinterpretations and emphasizes the researcher’s commitment to Islamic ethical principles. This approach aligns with the scholarly ideal of seeking truth while also demonstrating responsibility towards the community and the broader academic discourse. It acknowledges the complexity of the findings and proactively mitigates potential negative consequences. Option b) is incorrect because it prioritizes the avoidance of controversy over the pursuit and dissemination of truth, which is contrary to the spirit of scholarly inquiry. While sensitivity is important, outright suppression of valid findings is not an ethical solution. Option c) is also incorrect. While acknowledging the potential for misinterpretation is good, focusing solely on the “potential for negative societal impact” without a clear plan for contextualization or open dialogue can lead to a form of self-censorship that hinders academic progress. It risks prioritizing expediency over intellectual honesty. Option d) is flawed because it suggests seeking external approval for publication without a clear framework for what constitutes “approval” and who provides it. This can lead to undue influence and compromise the independence of research. Furthermore, it shifts the responsibility for ethical dissemination away from the researcher, who has the primary obligation to present their work responsibly. The emphasis should be on the researcher’s own ethical framework and their ability to articulate the significance and implications of their work within the university’s guiding principles.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a researcher facing a conflict between the imperative to advance knowledge and the potential for unintended negative societal consequences stemming from their findings. The principle of *Maslahah* (public interest or welfare) is paramount here. *Maslahah* dictates that actions should be guided by what serves the greater good and prevents harm. In this context, the researcher must weigh the potential benefits of their research against the foreseeable risks. The concept of *Sadd al-Dhara’i’* (blocking the means to harm) is also relevant, suggesting that even permissible actions can be prohibited if they lead to prohibited outcomes. However, *Maslahah* is generally considered a primary source for deriving rulings when other textual evidence is not explicit. Therefore, the most prudent approach, aligned with Islamic legal methodology, is to seek a balance that maximizes benefit while minimizing harm, often through careful consideration of the research’s dissemination and application. This involves proactive measures to mitigate risks, such as transparent reporting, ethical guidelines for use, and engaging with stakeholders to address concerns. The other options represent either an overemphasis on potential harm without fully exploring mitigation strategies, a disregard for potential negative outcomes in favor of pure scientific pursuit, or an overly restrictive interpretation that might stifle beneficial innovation. The core of the answer lies in the judicious application of *Maslahah* to ensure that scientific progress aligns with the ethical framework of Islamic teachings, a critical aspect of scholarly conduct at Kadiri Islamic University.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a researcher, Amina, grappling with the ethical implications of using advanced genetic sequencing technology to identify predispositions to certain diseases. This technology, while offering potential health benefits, also raises concerns about privacy, potential discrimination, and the very definition of human identity. In Islamic jurisprudence, the concept of *maslaha* (public interest or welfare) is paramount. When evaluating new technologies or practices, scholars weigh their potential benefits against their potential harms, always prioritizing the preservation of life (*hifz al-nafs*), intellect (*hifz al-‘aql*), religion (*hifz al-din*), lineage (*hifz al-nasl*), and property (*hifz al-mal*). The principle of *darura* (necessity) allows for the transgression of prohibitions in cases of dire need, but this is not directly applicable here as the technology is not for immediate life-saving intervention in a critical situation. Amina’s dilemma centers on the potential for misuse of genetic information. If this information were to be used for discriminatory purposes, such as denying employment or insurance, it would violate the principle of justice (*’adl*) and potentially cause significant harm, thus negating any perceived *maslaha*. The Islamic ethical framework emphasizes the sanctity of the individual and the prohibition of causing harm (*la darar wa la dirar* – no harm and no reciprocal harm). Therefore, the most prudent approach, aligning with Islamic ethical guidelines, is to ensure robust safeguards are in place to prevent misuse and protect individuals’ rights and dignity before widespread adoption. This involves careful consideration of the societal impact and the establishment of clear ethical boundaries, reflecting a commitment to responsible innovation that upholds Islamic values. The focus is on proactive ethical governance rather than reactive measures after potential harm has occurred.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established legal opinions) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both traditional scholarship and modern relevance, would expect candidates to grasp the nuanced application of these concepts. The scenario presents a situation where a new technological advancement, the development of an artificial intelligence capable of generating legal opinions, emerges. The question probes how a scholar, adhering to the foundational principles of Islamic legal methodology, would approach such a development. The development of AI for legal opinions touches upon the very essence of jurisprudence. *Ijtihad* is the process by which qualified scholars derive rulings from primary sources (Quran and Sunnah) and secondary sources (consensus and analogical reasoning). It requires deep knowledge, understanding of linguistic nuances, and awareness of the context and purpose of Islamic law. *Taqlid*, on the other hand, is the acceptance of the rulings of a recognized jurist without necessarily understanding the derivation process. An AI, by its nature, operates on algorithms and data. While it can process vast amounts of information and identify patterns, it lacks the human elements crucial for genuine *ijtihad*: intent (*niyyah*), understanding of the spirit of the law, ethical consciousness, and the ability to weigh competing public interests (*maslahah*) in a holistic manner. Therefore, a scholar at Kadiri Islamic University would likely view such an AI as a tool for research or assistance, but not as a replacement for human scholarly judgment. The AI could potentially assist in identifying relevant texts or precedents, but the ultimate decision-making, the nuanced interpretation, and the contextual application would still require human intellect and adherence to the established methodologies of *ijtihad*. The most appropriate approach, therefore, is to integrate the AI as a supportive mechanism within the existing framework of Islamic legal reasoning, rather than granting it autonomous authority. This involves critically evaluating the AI’s outputs, cross-referencing them with established scholarly consensus, and applying human discernment to ensure the rulings align with the overarching objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shari’ah*). The AI can augment the scholar’s capacity, but it cannot substitute the essential human element of scholarly endeavor.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core component of the curriculum at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a modern technological advancement, artificial intelligence (AI), and its potential implications for human agency and accountability. The correct answer hinges on identifying the jurisprudential principle that best addresses situations where the direct causal link between human action and outcome is obscured by algorithmic processes. In Islamic jurisprudence, the concept of *’urf* (custom or prevailing practice) is a secondary source of law, used to interpret and apply primary sources (Quran and Sunnah) to new circumstances. However, when dealing with direct responsibility and intent, principles like *niyyah* (intention) and *taqdir* (predestination/divine decree) are crucial. The scenario presents a situation where an AI system, designed by humans, makes a decision that leads to a negative consequence. The core issue is attributing responsibility. The principle of *maslahah* (public interest) is a guiding principle for deriving rulings, but it doesn’t directly address the attribution of fault in such a scenario. *Ijtihad* (independent reasoning) is the process of legal reasoning, not a principle for assigning blame. *Qiyas* (analogical reasoning) is a method of deriving rulings by comparing a new case to an existing one, which might be used in determining the ruling, but not the primary principle for accountability. The most relevant principle for determining accountability when an intermediary (even an artificial one) is involved, and where human intent is paramount, is the concept of *’aqd* (contract) and the underlying responsibilities established by the creators of the system. Specifically, the responsibility of the creator for the foreseeable consequences of their creation, and the intent behind its design, becomes paramount. In the context of AI, the developers and deployers of the AI system bear the primary responsibility for its actions, as they are the ones who imbued it with its decision-making capabilities and set its parameters. This aligns with the jurisprudential understanding that human actions, even those mediated through tools, are ultimately attributable to the human agent who initiated and controlled the process. The AI itself, lacking consciousness and intent in the human sense, cannot be held legally or ethically responsible in the same way. Therefore, the focus shifts to the human actors who designed, trained, and deployed the AI, and their adherence to principles of due diligence and ethical design, which are rooted in the broader framework of Islamic ethics and jurisprudence concerning responsibility and the prevention of harm. The correct answer emphasizes the human element of creation and deployment as the locus of accountability.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a medical decision where a patient’s life is at stake, and the available treatment has a high probability of success but also a significant risk of severe side effects. The principle of *maslahah* (public interest/welfare) and *mafsadah* (harm/corruption) are central to Islamic legal reasoning. When faced with a choice between two potential harms or between a benefit and a harm, Islamic jurisprudence employs a hierarchy of considerations. The preservation of life (*hifz al-nafs*) is considered one of the highest objectives of Sharia. In this case, the potential benefit of saving the patient’s life outweighs the potential harm of severe side effects, especially when the alternative is certain death. The concept of *darurah* (necessity) permits actions that would otherwise be forbidden if they are essential to prevent greater harm. While *istihsan* (juristic preference) might be considered if there’s a clear preference for a less risky, albeit slightly less effective, treatment that still achieves the objective of preserving life, the scenario emphasizes the *imminent threat* to life. Therefore, prioritizing the treatment with the highest probability of success, even with risks, aligns with the principle of averting the greater harm (death) by embracing a lesser harm (side effects). The other options represent misapplications or incomplete understandings of these principles. Choosing the treatment with the lowest risk but also the lowest probability of success would contradict the imperative to save a life when a viable, albeit risky, option exists. Focusing solely on *sadd al-dhara’i* (blocking the means to evil) is not directly applicable here as the primary concern is averting an immediate, certain harm. Similarly, prioritizing *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) without grounding it in established jurisprudential principles like *maslahah* and *darurah* would be problematic. The correct approach is to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harms, with the preservation of life being a paramount consideration, thus favoring the treatment with the highest chance of success despite its associated risks.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinions) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to the evolving socio-legal landscape that Kadiri Islamic University Entrance Exam University engages with. The scenario presents a contemporary issue concerning digital assets and their inheritance, which requires a jurist to navigate established principles with new realities. The principle of *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) is crucial here. A jurist would first identify the underlying *’illah* (effective cause or reason) for existing rulings on inheritance of tangible assets. For instance, the reason for distributing wealth upon death is the cessation of ownership by the deceased and the need for its orderly transfer to heirs. When applying this to digital assets, the jurist must determine if the *’illah* for tangible property inheritance applies equally to intangible digital assets. The concept of *maslahah mursalah* (unrestricted public interest) also becomes relevant. If existing analogies are insufficient or lead to undue hardship, a jurist might consider the broader welfare of the community in formulating a ruling. However, this must be done cautiously, ensuring it does not contradict fundamental Islamic tenets. The scenario specifically asks about the *most appropriate* approach for a contemporary Islamic scholar addressing such a novel issue within the framework of Islamic legal methodology. * **Option 1 (Correct):** Emphasizes a rigorous application of *ijtihad*, utilizing *qiyas* to bridge the gap between established rulings on tangible assets and the nature of digital assets, while also considering *maslahah mursalah* if analogies prove insufficient, all within the established methodological framework of Islamic jurisprudence. This reflects the dynamic yet principled approach expected of scholars at institutions like Kadiri Islamic University Entrance Exam University, which encourages critical engagement with modern challenges. * **Option 2 (Incorrect):** Suggests a strict adherence to *taqlid* without any attempt at reinterpretation. This would be insufficient for novel issues not explicitly addressed in classical texts and would stifle scholarly development. * **Option 3 (Incorrect):** Proposes a complete disregard for existing jurisprudence in favor of purely secular legal frameworks. This would violate the foundational principles of Islamic legal reasoning and the mandate of Islamic scholarship. * **Option 4 (Incorrect):** Advocates for a superficial application of *qiyas* without a deep analysis of the *’illah* or consideration of other methodological tools like *maslahah mursalah*. This could lead to erroneous rulings. Therefore, the most comprehensive and methodologically sound approach involves a deep engagement with established principles of Islamic legal reasoning to address the unique characteristics of digital assets.

The question probes the understanding of the fundamental principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established legal opinions) within Islamic jurisprudence, a core concept relevant to the academic rigor expected at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario presents a contemporary issue concerning bioethics, specifically organ transplantation, which requires an applicant to apply jurisprudential methodologies to a novel situation. The correct answer, emphasizing the necessity of *ijtihad* by qualified scholars in the absence of explicit textual precedent, aligns with the university’s commitment to fostering critical engagement with Islamic tradition in light of modern challenges. This approach acknowledges the dynamic nature of Islamic law and the role of scholarly consensus (*ijma*) and analogical reasoning (*qiyas*) in deriving rulings for new circumstances. The explanation underscores that while established opinions might offer guidance, the complexity and novelty of such issues necessitate a fresh, rigorous application of jurisprudential principles by those equipped to do so, reflecting Kadiri Islamic University’s emphasis on advanced scholarly inquiry.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its application in contemporary contexts and its relationship with established legal schools. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both traditional scholarship and modern relevance, would expect candidates to grasp the nuanced conditions and limitations of *ijtihad*. The scenario presents a hypothetical situation where a new technological advancement (digital currency) raises questions not explicitly addressed in classical texts. The correct application of *ijtihad* requires a scholar to draw upon the foundational principles of Islamic law (*usul al-fiqh*), the objectives of Sharia (*maqasid al-shariah*), and the consensus of scholars (*ijma*) where applicable, while also considering the prevailing societal conditions (*urf*). The process of *ijtihad* is not arbitrary; it demands rigorous adherence to established methodologies. A qualified *mujtahid* must possess deep knowledge of the Quran, Sunnah, analogical reasoning (*qiyas*), and juristic principles. When faced with a novel issue like digital currency, the *mujtahid* would analyze its nature, its economic implications, and its potential impact on societal welfare, all through the lens of Sharia objectives like preserving wealth, justice, and public interest. The decision must be grounded in evidence and reasoned deduction, aiming to fulfill the spirit of Islamic law rather than merely its letter. The other options represent common misconceptions or misapplications of *ijtihad*. Blindly following precedent without considering new contexts is *taqlid* (imitation), not *ijtihad*. Relying solely on personal opinion without scholarly grounding or adherence to legal methodology would be considered subjective and potentially erroneous. Similarly, attempting to reinterpret foundational texts without proper linguistic and jurisprudential expertise would undermine the integrity of the process. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for a scholar at Kadiri Islamic University would be to engage in a comprehensive, principle-based *ijtihad* that respects both tradition and the exigencies of the modern world.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its application in contemporary contexts where new challenges arise that were not explicitly addressed in foundational texts. The scenario presents a modern dilemma concerning digital currency and its permissibility. Islamic finance scholars, when faced with such novel issues, engage in a rigorous process of *ijtihad*. This involves consulting the primary sources of Islamic law (Quran and Sunnah), applying established legal maxims (*qawa’id fiqhiyyah*), and considering the objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shari’ah*). The permissibility of digital currencies hinges on whether they meet the criteria for a valid medium of exchange in Islamic finance, such as having intrinsic value (or being backed by an asset with intrinsic value), being tangible in some form (even if digital representation), and not involving prohibited elements like *riba* (usury) or excessive *gharar* (uncertainty). The process of determining this involves analogical reasoning (*qiyas*) and consideration of public interest (*maslahah*). Therefore, the most appropriate approach for Kadiri Islamic University, known for its commitment to integrating traditional Islamic scholarship with contemporary challenges, would be to convene a council of qualified scholars to conduct thorough *ijtihad* on the matter, drawing upon the established methodologies of Islamic legal reasoning to arrive at a reasoned ruling that aligns with the spirit and principles of Sharia. This process ensures that rulings are not arbitrary but are grounded in a deep understanding of Islamic legal tradition and its adaptability.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinion) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to the development of legal rulings in response to evolving societal contexts. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both tradition and contemporary relevance, would expect its students to grasp these nuances. The scenario of a new form of financial transaction, like a decentralized digital asset exchange, necessitates a jurisprudential approach. *Ijtihad* is the process by which a qualified scholar derives a legal ruling from the primary sources of Islam (Quran and Sunnah) and secondary sources (like consensus of scholars and analogical reasoning). It requires deep knowledge of Arabic, Quranic exegesis, Hadith sciences, principles of jurisprudence (*usul al-fiqh*), and the objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shari’ah*). In the context of a novel financial instrument, an individual or a council of scholars would engage in *ijtihad* to determine its permissibility (*halal*) or impermissibility (*haram*), and the specific rulings governing it. This involves analyzing the transaction’s characteristics against established legal principles, such as the prohibition of *riba* (usury), *gharar* (excessive uncertainty), and *maysir* (gambling). *Taqlid*, conversely, involves following the opinion of a recognized jurist or school of law without necessarily delving into the original sources or reasoning. While essential for the general populace and for maintaining legal consistency, it is not the primary method for addressing entirely new phenomena that were not explicitly addressed by earlier scholars. Therefore, when faced with a completely new financial mechanism, the most appropriate and rigorous approach, aligned with the spirit of Islamic legal development and the academic rigor expected at Kadiri Islamic University, is to engage in *ijtihad*. This allows for a reasoned determination based on the foundational texts and principles, ensuring that the ruling is both sound and applicable to the modern context. The other options represent either a passive acceptance of existing rulings that may not apply, or a less rigorous form of reasoning.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinions) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to the evolving socio-legal landscape relevant to Kadiri Islamic University’s curriculum. The scenario presents a contemporary issue concerning digital currency, which requires a jurist to engage in *ijtihad* rather than simply relying on pre-existing rulings for physical currency. The process involves: 1. Identifying the core legal question: Is digital currency permissible (*halal*) or prohibited (*haram*)? 2. Examining the underlying principles of Islamic finance and contract law: Does it possess characteristics of wealth, can it be used for exchange, does it involve *gharar* (excessive uncertainty) or *riba* (usury)? 3. Consulting the primary sources of Islamic law (Quran and Sunnah) for relevant analogies or general principles. 4. Considering the consensus (*ijma*) of earlier scholars, if any, though unlikely for a novel technology. 5. Engaging in *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) by comparing digital currency to existing forms of currency or assets. 6. Consulting the opinions of contemporary scholars who have specialized in Islamic finance and technology. The most appropriate approach for a scholar at Kadiri Islamic University, committed to both tradition and contemporary relevance, would be to undertake a rigorous, evidence-based *ijtihad* process. This involves a deep dive into the nature of the digital asset, its underlying technology, its economic function, and its potential implications for Islamic ethical principles. Simply applying rulings on physical cash would be insufficient due to the fundamental differences in form and function. Blindly following a single contemporary opinion without critical analysis would also fall short of the scholarly rigor expected. Therefore, a comprehensive *ijtihad* that synthesizes textual evidence, established jurisprudential principles, and an understanding of the technology is paramount.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinion) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges and the educational mission of an institution like Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario presents a hypothetical situation where a new technological advancement, a bio-engineered food source, raises questions about its permissibility (*halal* status). To determine the most appropriate approach for the university’s scholars, we must consider the methodologies employed in Islamic legal reasoning. *Ijtihad* is the process by which qualified scholars derive rulings on new matters not explicitly addressed in the Quran or Sunnah. This requires deep knowledge of the foundational texts, principles of jurisprudence (*usul al-fiqh*), and the context of the issue. *Taqlid*, on the other hand, involves following the established opinions of recognized jurists. In the context of a novel and complex issue like bio-engineered food, a purely *taqlid*-based approach, simply relying on existing fatwas without critical analysis, might be insufficient. While respecting past scholarship is crucial, the unique nature of the technology necessitates a fresh examination. Therefore, a rigorous process of *ijtihad* is required. This *ijtihad* would involve: 1. **Identifying the relevant legal principles:** Scholars would look for principles related to food purity, permissible sources of sustenance, the concept of *istihalah* (transformation of substances), and potential harm (*darar*). 2. **Examining the source and process:** The origin of the genetic material, the method of bio-engineering, and any potential contamination or alteration would be scrutinized. 3. **Consulting contemporary scientific expertise:** Given the technological nature, collaboration with scientists would be essential to understand the process accurately. 4. **Deriving a ruling based on the evidence:** The scholars would then synthesize this information to arrive at a reasoned judgment, considering the objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shari’ah*), such as the preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property. The most effective approach for Kadiri Islamic University, aiming to foster intellectual rigor and address modern issues within an Islamic framework, would be to engage in a collective and systematic *ijtihad*. This involves a council of qualified scholars from various relevant disciplines (Islamic jurisprudence, biology, food science) to deliberate, research, and collectively arrive at a well-substantiated ruling. This process upholds the dynamism of Islamic law and its capacity to provide guidance for evolving societal needs, aligning with the university’s commitment to scholarly excellence and relevance.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a researcher, Aisha, who discovers a novel method for preserving perishable goods that could significantly reduce waste and improve food security. However, this method involves a process that, while not explicitly forbidden, has not been directly addressed by classical jurists due to the absence of the technology at the time. The core of the question lies in identifying the most appropriate methodology for determining the permissibility of such an innovation within an Islamic legal framework. The principle of *Istihsan* (juristic preference) allows for the setting aside of a strict analogy (*Qiyas*) in favor of a ruling that is considered more beneficial or equitable for the community, provided it does not contradict established textual evidence. In Aisha’s case, the potential societal benefit of reducing food spoilage and enhancing food security, when weighed against the lack of explicit prohibition and the absence of a clear, universally applicable analogy to a forbidden practice, makes *Istihsan* a strong candidate for justification. The method, while novel, does not inherently involve any substance or action that is unequivocally declared unlawful in the Quran or Sunnah. *Maslaha Mursalah* (consideration of public interest) is also relevant, as the preservation method clearly serves a public good. However, *Istihsan* often comes into play when there’s a need to deviate from a strict analogical ruling that might lead to hardship or negate a greater benefit. *Ijma* (consensus) is not applicable here as it’s a novel issue. *Qiyas* (analogy) might be difficult to apply definitively without a clear, comparable ruling on a similar process. Therefore, the most nuanced and appropriate approach for Aisha’s research, balancing innovation with Islamic legal principles, is *Istihsan*, which allows for flexibility based on demonstrable benefit and the absence of clear prohibition, thereby upholding the spirit of Islamic law in addressing new realities.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established legal interpretations) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges and the educational mission of an institution like Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario presents a hypothetical situation where a new technological advancement, a bio-integrated neural interface, raises ethical and legal questions not explicitly addressed in classical texts. The student is expected to analyze the most appropriate methodology for addressing such a novel issue within an Islamic legal framework. *Ijtihad* is the process by which qualified scholars derive rulings on new matters by consulting the primary sources (Quran and Sunnah) and applying established legal methodologies (*usul al-fiqh*). This requires deep knowledge of the sources, the principles of interpretation, and the context of the issue. *Taqlid*, while important for accessibility and consistency, involves following the rulings of recognized scholars. However, for unprecedented technological developments, a rigid adherence to existing *taqlid* might not adequately address the unique ethical dimensions. The development of a bio-integrated neural interface, which could potentially alter human consciousness or memory, necessitates a careful consideration of principles such as the preservation of intellect (*hifz al-‘aql*), the prohibition of causing harm (*darar*), and the concept of human dignity (*karamah insan*). These principles are derived from the primary sources and form the basis for *ijtihad*. Therefore, the most robust approach for Kadiri Islamic University, committed to scholarly rigor and addressing modern issues, would be to engage in rigorous *ijtihad* by a council of qualified scholars who can apply these foundational principles to the new technology. This process would involve extensive research, consultation, and reasoned deliberation to arrive at a ruling that is both Islamically sound and relevant to the contemporary context.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinion) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both traditional scholarship and modern relevance, would expect students to grasp the nuances of these concepts. The scenario presents a situation where a new technological advancement, the development of a sophisticated AI capable of generating legal opinions, directly challenges the established methodologies of Islamic legal reasoning. The AI’s ability to process vast amounts of textual data and derive conclusions mirrors, in a superficial way, the process of *ijtihad*. However, true *ijtihad* requires not only knowledge of texts but also an understanding of the underlying objectives (*maqasid al-shari’ah*), the context of revelation, and the ability to apply principles to novel situations with wisdom and ethical consideration. An AI, while capable of data processing, lacks the human elements of consciousness, intention, and the lived experience necessary for comprehensive legal judgment. Therefore, while the AI might produce outputs that resemble legal opinions, it cannot replace the role of a qualified human scholar. The human scholar’s *ijtihad* is grounded in a holistic understanding of Islamic sources and the realities of human life, guided by ethical principles and accountability. Blindly accepting the AI’s output would represent an extreme form of *taqlid* to a non-human entity, bypassing the established scholarly chain and the rigorous process of validation. Conversely, outright rejection without considering the AI’s potential as a tool for research or preliminary analysis would be an uncritical dismissal. The most appropriate approach, aligning with the spirit of Islamic legal development and the educational philosophy of an institution like Kadiri Islamic University, is to critically engage with the AI’s output, using it as a supplementary resource while maintaining the primacy of human scholarly oversight and the established methods of jurisprudence. This involves rigorous verification, contextualization, and the application of human discernment, ensuring that any legal opinion remains firmly rooted in the established sources and objectives of Islamic law. The AI can be a powerful assistant, but the ultimate responsibility for legal interpretation rests with qualified human scholars.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence and its application in contemporary contexts, particularly concerning the ethical considerations of scientific advancement. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on integrating traditional Islamic scholarship with modern intellectual inquiry, would expect its students to grasp the nuances of how Islamic legal principles are adapted to new challenges. The scenario involves a hypothetical medical breakthrough, gene editing, which raises profound questions about human nature, creation, and the permissibility of altering it. The permissibility of gene editing in Islam is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of established Islamic legal maxims and principles. A key principle is *maslaha* (public interest or welfare), which allows for actions that promote general benefit and prevent harm, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Quran or Sunnah. However, this principle is balanced against the prohibition of causing corruption (*fasad*) or altering God’s creation without a compelling reason. In the context of gene editing, the permissibility hinges on the intent and outcome. If gene editing is used to cure debilitating genetic diseases, thereby alleviating suffering and restoring health, it aligns with the principle of *maslaha* and the Islamic emphasis on preserving life and health. This would be considered a permissible form of *ijtihad*, where scholars apply established principles to a novel situation. The reasoning would involve drawing parallels to established practices like organ transplantation or the use of medicine, which also involve intervention in the natural order for therapeutic purposes. The emphasis would be on the therapeutic intent and the avoidance of frivolous or harmful alterations. Conversely, if gene editing were proposed for non-therapeutic enhancements, such as altering physical appearance or cognitive abilities beyond what is considered natural or necessary for health, it would likely be viewed with greater caution, potentially falling under the prohibition of altering God’s creation without a valid justification. The concept of *taghyir khalq Allah* (changing Allah’s creation) is a significant consideration. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for a student at Kadiri Islamic University would be to recognize that the permissibility is conditional and dependent on the specific application, prioritizing therapeutic benefits and the prevention of harm. This reflects a nuanced understanding of Islamic legal methodology, which allows for flexibility and adaptation while remaining grounded in core ethical and theological principles. The process involves identifying the relevant legal principles, assessing the *maslaha* and *mafsada* (harm) of the proposed action, and making a reasoned judgment based on the overall objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shari’ah*).

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a core area of study at Kadiri Islamic University. The scenario involves a researcher facing a conflict between the principle of *maslaha* (public interest) and the prohibition of causing harm (*darar*). Specifically, the development of a new medical treatment that, while promising significant public health benefits, carries a small but non-negligible risk of adverse effects for a subset of patients. The core of the dilemma lies in balancing potential widespread good against individual potential harm. The principle of *istihsan* (juristic preference) allows for a departure from strict analogical reasoning (*qiyas*) when it serves a greater good or prevents greater harm. However, *istihsan* is not a license for arbitrary decision-making; it must be grounded in established legal principles and serve a clear, demonstrable benefit that outweighs the deviation. In this context, the researcher must meticulously assess the *maslaha* (the potential to cure a widespread disease) against the *darar* (the risk of adverse effects). The concept of *sad al-dhara’i’* (blocking the means to evil) is also relevant, as it involves prohibiting an action that is permissible in itself if it is likely to lead to a forbidden outcome. However, in this case, the primary action (developing the treatment) is intended for good, and the harm is a potential side effect, not a direct intended consequence. The most appropriate approach, therefore, involves a rigorous evaluation of the *maslaha* and *darar*. This requires not just a qualitative assessment but also a quantitative one, where possible, to understand the magnitude and probability of both the benefits and the risks. The researcher must consider the severity of the disease being treated, the efficacy of the proposed treatment, the nature and likelihood of the adverse effects, and the availability of alternative treatments. If the *maslaha* demonstrably and significantly outweighs the *darar*, and if appropriate safeguards and informed consent procedures are in place to mitigate the risks, then proceeding with the research and development, while adhering to strict ethical guidelines, would be permissible. This aligns with the Islamic legal maxim: “The greater good is preferred over the lesser good, and the lesser harm is preferred over the greater harm.” The decision-making process must be transparent, evidence-based, and consult with relevant experts in both Islamic jurisprudence and medical ethics.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and *taqlid* (adherence to established scholarly opinion) within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as they relate to contemporary challenges. Kadiri Islamic University, with its emphasis on both tradition and innovation, would expect its students to grasp the nuanced application of these concepts. The scenario presents a hypothetical situation where a new medical procedure, not explicitly addressed in classical texts, raises ethical questions concerning the sanctity of life and bodily integrity. To determine the most appropriate approach for a Muslim physician at Kadiri Islamic University, one must consider the methodologies available for deriving rulings. *Ijtihad* allows for the application of Islamic legal principles to novel situations, requiring deep knowledge of the Quran, Sunnah, analogical reasoning (*qiyas*), consensus (*ijma*), and the principles of jurisprudence (*usul al-fiqh*). This process is rigorous and typically undertaken by qualified scholars. *Taqlid*, on the other hand, involves following the established rulings of recognized jurists. In a situation with significant ethical and medical implications, relying solely on *taqlid* might be insufficient if the existing juristic opinions do not adequately address the specifics of the new procedure. The question tests the candidate’s ability to discern when a situation necessitates a fresh legal deliberation (*ijtihad*) or a careful re-evaluation of existing precedents within the framework of Islamic legal methodology. The most appropriate approach for a physician, especially one educated at an institution like Kadiri Islamic University that values both scholarly tradition and contemporary relevance, would be to engage in a process that combines informed adherence to established principles with the necessity of addressing novel issues. This involves consulting with qualified scholars who can perform *ijtihad* or provide expert guidance based on their understanding of the relevant jurisprudential sources. Therefore, seeking a scholarly opinion that synthesizes established principles with an analysis of the new situation, effectively a form of guided *ijtihad* or a well-reasoned application of existing principles to a new context, is the most sound approach. This aligns with the university’s commitment to producing scholars and professionals who can navigate complex ethical dilemmas with intellectual rigor and spiritual grounding.