University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali Entrance Exam Set

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically in situations where explicit textual guidance from the Quran or Sunnah is absent or ambiguous. The scenario presents a contemporary issue concerning digital currency, which did not exist during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or the early companions. Therefore, scholars must engage in *ijtihad* to derive rulings. The process of *ijtihad* involves several steps, including consulting the primary sources (Quran and Sunnah), examining analogous situations (*qiyas*), considering scholarly consensus (*ijma*), and applying principles of public interest (*maslahah*) and legal maxims (*qawa’id fiqhiyyah*). In the context of digital currency, scholars would analyze its nature, function, and potential impact on the economy and society. They would consider whether it aligns with the principles of Islamic finance, such as prohibition of *riba* (interest), *gharar* (excessive uncertainty), and *maysir* (gambling). The question asks about the most appropriate method for determining the Islamic permissibility of digital currency. Option a) correctly identifies the need for *ijtihad* by qualified scholars who can analyze the issue through the lens of Islamic legal principles. This involves a deep understanding of both the Sharia and the contemporary subject matter. Option b) is incorrect because relying solely on historical precedents without considering the unique characteristics of digital currency would be insufficient. While analogy is a tool in *ijtihad*, it must be applied judiciously. Option c) is incorrect because a consensus among all Muslims, while ideal, is not a prerequisite for establishing a ruling on a new issue. *Ijtihad* is often performed by qualified individuals, and their rulings may differ. Option d) is incorrect because simply prohibiting something due to its novelty or lack of explicit mention in early texts would be an overly restrictive approach that stifles adaptation to changing circumstances, contrary to the dynamic nature of Islamic jurisprudence. The emphasis at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, particularly in its Islamic studies and finance programs, is on rigorous scholarly engagement with contemporary challenges through established jurisprudential methodologies.

The core concept here revolves around the Islamic principle of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and its application within contemporary scholarly discourse, particularly in relation to the mission of an institution like Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali (UNISSA). *Ijtihad* is the process by which Islamic scholars derive legal rulings from the primary sources of Islam (the Quran and Sunnah) when there is no explicit text. It requires deep knowledge of Arabic, Islamic jurisprudence (*fiqh*), principles of jurisprudence (*usul al-fiqh*), and the context of the issues being addressed. In the context of UNISSA, which aims to be a leading institution in Islamic studies, research, and dissemination, fostering an environment that encourages rigorous and responsible *ijtihad* is paramount. This involves not just understanding the historical development of *ijtihad* but also its contemporary relevance and the methodologies scholars employ. The question probes the candidate’s understanding of how UNISSA, as an academic entity, can best facilitate and uphold the spirit of *ijtihad*. Option (a) correctly identifies the need for a robust framework that supports critical engagement with Islamic sources and contemporary challenges, emphasizing the development of scholarly expertise and ethical conduct. This aligns with the academic rigor expected at UNISSA. Option (b) is plausible but incomplete; while promoting interfaith dialogue is valuable, it doesn’t directly address the internal scholarly mechanisms for *ijtihad*. Option (c) focuses on historical preservation, which is important but secondary to the active practice and development of *ijtihad*. Option (d) is too narrow, focusing solely on translation without encompassing the broader intellectual and methodological aspects of *ijtihad*. Therefore, the most comprehensive and accurate approach for UNISSA to uphold the spirit of *ijtihad* is to cultivate a scholarly environment that encourages critical inquiry, rigorous methodology, and ethical application of Islamic legal reasoning.

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 University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario involves a researcher at the university facing a conflict between the principle of *maslahah* (public interest) and the principle of *darar* (harm). Specifically, the researcher has discovered a potential benefit of a new technology for the Bruneian economy, aligning with *maslahah*. However, preliminary findings suggest a significant, albeit unconfirmed, environmental risk associated with its widespread adoption, invoking the principle of *darar*. The task is to identify the most appropriate jurisprudential approach for resolving this conflict, considering the hierarchy of legal objectives (*maqasid al-shari’ah*) and established methodologies for weighing competing interests. The principle of *darar* (harm) generally takes precedence over *maslahah* (benefit) when the harm is certain and significant, especially when it affects fundamental aspects of life such as religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property, which are the core *maqasid al-shari’ah*. In this scenario, the environmental risk, while not yet definitively proven, is presented as potentially significant. Therefore, the most prudent and Islamically sound approach, aligning with the precautionary principle inherent in Islamic legal reasoning, is to prioritize the avoidance of potential harm until its nature and extent can be fully ascertained and mitigated. This involves suspending the implementation of the technology until further rigorous scientific investigation confirms its safety or establishes effective control measures. This approach reflects the Islamic legal maxim “preventing harm takes precedence over achieving benefit” (درء المفاسد أولى من جلب المصالح – *dar’ al-mafasid awla min jalb al-masalih*).

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 University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. Specifically, it tests the candidate’s ability to discern the appropriate methodology for deriving rulings when faced with novel situations not explicitly addressed in primary texts. The principle of *Qiyas* (analogical reasoning) is central here. When a new issue arises, scholars first attempt to find a precedent in the Quran or Sunnah. If a direct ruling is absent, they look for an existing ruling based on a specific *’illah* (effective cause or rationale). If the new issue shares the same *’illah* with the precedent, then the ruling of the precedent can be analogically applied to the new issue. The other options represent different, but less universally applicable or primary, methods of legal derivation in Islamic jurisprudence. *Ijma’* (consensus) is powerful but requires agreement among qualified scholars. *Istihsan* (juristic preference) allows for setting aside a strict analogy for a better alternative based on broader legal principles or public interest, but it is often considered a secondary tool. *Maslaha Mursalah* (unrestricted public interest) is used when a ruling is not found in the primary sources and there is no clear analogy, but it is subject to strict conditions to prevent arbitrary rulings. Therefore, when a new ethical challenge emerges, the systematic application of analogical reasoning, identifying the underlying cause, is the most fundamental and widely accepted first step in the absence of explicit textual guidance.

The core principle tested here is the understanding of the Islamic concept of *Maslahah Mursalah* (public interest considered independently of specific textual evidence) and its application in contemporary legal and ethical reasoning, particularly within an Islamic academic context like that of University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario presents a modern challenge – the ethical implications of advanced genetic editing for disease prevention. While *Maslahah Mursalah* allows for consideration of public welfare, its application is constrained by the overarching principles of Sharia. The key is to identify which proposed action most closely aligns with the careful, evidence-based, and ethically grounded application of *Maslahah Mursalah* as understood in Islamic jurisprudence. Option a) represents a cautious, phased approach, prioritizing thorough research and ethical deliberation before widespread implementation. This aligns with the spirit of *Maslahah Mursalah* which, while forward-looking, is not reckless. It emphasizes understanding potential harms and benefits, seeking expert consensus, and ensuring alignment with established Islamic ethical frameworks, thereby safeguarding against unintended consequences and upholding the sanctity of life and human dignity. This approach acknowledges the potential benefits of genetic editing for public health but insists on a rigorous process of evaluation that respects Islamic legal maxims and ethical considerations, making it the most appropriate application of *Maslahah Mursalah* in this context. Option b) is problematic because it advocates for immediate, broad implementation without sufficient prior investigation into the long-term societal and ethical ramifications, potentially violating the principle of avoiding harm (*darar*). Option c) focuses solely on individual autonomy without adequately considering the broader societal impact and potential for misuse, which is a crucial aspect of *Maslahah Mursalah*. Option d) suggests a complete prohibition based on a narrow interpretation of potential risks, which might overlook significant public health benefits that could be achieved through responsible application of the technology, thus failing to fully embrace the adaptive nature of *Maslahah Mursalah*.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) and their application in contemporary contexts, specifically within the academic framework of University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The core concept being tested is the hierarchy and application of sources of Islamic law when faced with novel situations not explicitly addressed in primary texts. The scenario involves a modern technological advancement, a drone delivery system for essential medical supplies in a remote area, which raises questions about its permissibility (halal) and ethical considerations within Islamic law. To determine the correct answer, one must consider the established hierarchy of Islamic legal sources: the Quran, Sunnah (teachings and practices of Prophet Muhammad), Ijma (consensus of scholars), and Qiyas (analogical reasoning). When a new issue arises, scholars first look for direct guidance in the Quran and Sunnah. If none is found, they then consider Ijma. If there is no consensus, Qiyas is employed, where a new issue is compared to an existing one with similar underlying causes (illah) that is established in the primary texts. In this scenario, the delivery of medical supplies via drone is a novel method. The underlying purpose is to save lives and alleviate suffering, which are universally recognized objectives (maqasid) in Islam. Therefore, the permissibility of the drone delivery system would be assessed by comparing its function and purpose to existing principles. For instance, the permissibility of transportation methods, the sanctity of human life, and the obligation to care for the sick are well-established. If the drone system does not violate any explicit prohibitions in the Quran or Sunnah, and its purpose aligns with the preservation of life and well-being, then analogical reasoning (Qiyas) would be applied. Scholars would likely analogize it to permissible forms of transportation that serve a beneficial purpose, provided there are no overriding prohibitions. The key is to ensure the method itself does not introduce any impermissible elements (haram) and that its benefits clearly outweigh any potential harms, aligning with the broader principles of public interest (maslahah) and avoidance of harm (mafsadah) that are integral to Islamic legal reasoning and emphasized in the academic discourse at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The other options represent less comprehensive or misapplied legal reasoning methods. Ijma, while a valid source, is unlikely to exist for such a specific modern technology. Istihsan (juristic preference) might be considered if Qiyas leads to an undesirable outcome, but Qiyas is the more direct method for establishing permissibility based on analogy. Istishab (presumption of continuity) is used to maintain the status quo in the absence of evidence of change, which is not the primary method for determining the permissibility of a new practice.

The question probes the understanding of the Islamic concept of *Maslahah Mursalah* (public interest) and its application in contemporary legal and ethical reasoning within an Islamic framework, a core tenet often explored in Islamic studies and law programs at institutions like Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. *Maslahah Mursalah* allows for the consideration of public welfare and benefit when no specific textual evidence from the Quran or Sunnah directly addresses a new situation. It involves discerning what is beneficial for the community and preventing harm, adhering to the overarching principles of Sharia. To arrive at the correct answer, one must analyze the scenario through the lens of *Maslahah Mursalah*. The introduction of a digital zakat collection system, while not explicitly detailed in classical texts, serves a clear public interest by enhancing efficiency, transparency, and accessibility in fulfilling a fundamental pillar of Islam. This aligns with the principles of facilitating worship and ensuring the equitable distribution of wealth, thereby promoting the welfare of the community. The system aims to streamline the process, reduce administrative burdens, and potentially increase zakat collection, all of which contribute to the broader good. The other options represent less appropriate applications or misinterpretations of Islamic legal principles. *Qiyas* (analogical reasoning) is applicable when a new case shares a common effective cause (*’illah*) with a case for which a ruling exists in the primary sources. While zakat collection has established principles, the digital system itself is a novel method of implementation, not a direct analogy to a pre-existing practice in the same way *Maslahah Mursalah* addresses novel societal needs. *Istihsan* (juristic preference) involves setting aside a ruling based on analogy for a more favorable one, often for reasons of public interest or ease, but *Maslahah Mursalah* is a more direct and foundational principle for establishing new beneficial practices. *Ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning) is a broader concept encompassing the exertion of effort to derive legal rulings, and while the development of such a system would involve *ijtihad*, *Maslahah Mursalah* is the specific principle that justifies the *purpose* and *benefit* of the system itself. Therefore, the most fitting justification for implementing a digital zakat collection system, considering its potential to serve the public good and streamline a religious obligation, is *Maslahah Mursalah*.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) concerning the interpretation of religious texts and the establishment of legal rulings. Specifically, it probes the concept of *Qiyas* (analogical reasoning) and its conditions, particularly the presence of a common effective cause (*’illah*) between the original case (*asl*) and the new case (*far’*) for a valid analogy. The scenario presents a situation where a ruling is derived for a new issue based on a precedent. The key is to identify which condition for valid *Qiyas* is most directly being tested. Let’s consider the conditions for *Qiyas*: 1. **The ruling in the original case must be established by a definitive text or consensus.** 2. **The effective cause (*’illah*) of the ruling must be ascertainable.** 3. **The effective cause (*’illah*) must be transferable to the new case.** 4. **The new case must be similar to the original case in the effective cause.** 5. **The ruling itself must be similar in both cases.** In the given scenario, the ruling for “consuming genetically modified fruits” is being derived from the ruling on “consuming naturally grown fruits that are harmful.” The crucial element is the *reason* or *cause* for the prohibition in the original case. If the prohibition is based on the *harm* itself, then the analogy would be valid if the genetically modified fruits are also demonstrably harmful. The question implies that the scholars are focusing on the *nature of the harm* as the common link. Therefore, the most critical condition being examined is the ascertainment and transferability of the effective cause, which is the *harm* in this context. The scholars are essentially asking: “Is the *harm* present in the genetically modified fruits the same kind of *harm* that made the naturally grown fruits impermissible?” This directly relates to the requirement that the effective cause (*’illah*) must be ascertainable and applicable to the new situation. Without a clear and shared *’illah*, the analogy would be invalid. The process of establishing the *’illah* and ensuring its presence in the new case is paramount.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) concerning the interpretation of religious texts and the establishment of legal rulings. Specifically, it probes the concept of ‘Ijma’ (consensus of scholars) and its role in legal reasoning, particularly when dealing with novel situations not explicitly addressed in the Quran or Sunnah. The scenario presents a contemporary issue – the ethical implications of advanced genetic editing for disease prevention – that requires scholars to derive rulings. While the Quran and Sunnah provide foundational principles, they do not offer direct rulings on such specific technological advancements. Therefore, the process of reaching a consensus among qualified scholars, based on their understanding of the established sources and principles, becomes the primary method for deriving a ruling. This consensus, when achieved, carries significant weight in Islamic legal tradition, acting as a secondary source of law. The other options represent different, less authoritative, or inapplicable methods in this specific context. ‘Qiyas’ (analogical reasoning) might be used to draw parallels to existing rulings, but it is often a precursor or component of Ijma, not the sole determinant of a ruling on a complex, multifaceted issue. ‘Istihsan’ (juristic preference) involves setting aside a direct analogy for a more favorable ruling based on broader legal principles or public interest, which is a more nuanced and sometimes debated method. ‘Ijtihad’ (independent reasoning) is the general process of striving to understand God’s law, and while Ijma is a form of collective Ijtihad, the question specifically asks about the *mechanism* of establishing a ruling for a new issue, which Ijma directly addresses. Therefore, Ijma is the most fitting answer as it represents the collective agreement of qualified jurists on a matter not explicitly found in the primary texts, which is precisely what would be required for a contemporary ethical dilemma like genetic editing.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, specifically concerning the permissibility of utilizing artificial intelligence in scholarly research within Islamic studies at an institution like University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The core of the issue lies in determining the source of authority and the methodology for deriving rulings when dealing with novel technological advancements. The concept of *ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning) is central, as is the role of *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) and *istihsan* (juristic preference) in adapting established principles to new contexts. The permissibility hinges on whether the AI’s output can be considered a reliable source of knowledge that aligns with the objectives of Sharia (*maqasid al-Shariah*), such as the preservation of intellect and religion, and whether its use undermines the human element of scholarly inquiry and the direct engagement with primary texts. A ruling would necessitate a careful consideration of the AI’s limitations, its potential for bias, and the ultimate responsibility of the human scholar. The most aligned approach, therefore, is one that emphasizes the human scholar’s ultimate oversight and critical evaluation, ensuring that the AI serves as a tool rather than a replacement for genuine understanding and independent legal reasoning, thereby upholding the integrity of Islamic scholarship.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) concerning the application of general legal principles to specific situations, particularly when dealing with matters of public welfare and the prevention of harm. The scenario presents a conflict between individual rights (freedom of movement) and the collective good (public health and safety during a pandemic). Islamic legal methodology emphasizes the principle of *maslahah* (public interest) and the prevention of *mafsadah* (harm). In situations where a general prohibition or permission exists, jurists may invoke secondary principles to adapt rulings to changing circumstances. The concept of *darurah* (necessity) allows for exceptions to normal rules when essential needs are threatened. Furthermore, the principle of *sad al-dhara’i’* (blocking the means to evil) suggests that actions that might lead to prohibited outcomes can themselves be prohibited. In this context, restricting movement, even if it infringes on an otherwise permissible activity, can be justified if it effectively prevents the spread of a deadly disease, thereby safeguarding the lives and well-being of the community. This aligns with the broader Islamic ethical framework that prioritizes the preservation of life (*hifz al-nafs*), which is one of the higher objectives of Sharia. Therefore, a ruling that permits temporary restrictions on public gatherings and movement, based on expert medical advice, is a valid application of these jurisprudential principles to protect the community from a significant threat, demonstrating the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of Islamic legal reasoning.

The scenario describes a student at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali (UNISSA) who is tasked with developing a community outreach program focused on promoting Islamic ethical principles in contemporary social issues. The core of the task involves translating abstract religious values into tangible actions that resonate with a diverse audience. The question asks to identify the most appropriate foundational approach for this program. The principles of *Maqasid al-Shari’ah* (Objectives of Islamic Law) provide a robust framework for understanding the underlying purposes and wisdom behind Islamic injunctions. These objectives, often categorized as the preservation of faith (din), life (nafs), intellect (aql), lineage (nasl), and property (mal), offer a comprehensive lens through which to analyze and address societal challenges from an Islamic perspective. Applying *Maqasid al-Shari’ah* allows the student to move beyond superficial adherence to specific rulings and instead focus on the higher aims of the Shari’ah, which are inherently concerned with human welfare and the common good. This aligns perfectly with the goal of a community outreach program aiming to foster ethical behavior and address social issues. Therefore, grounding the program in the *Maqasid al-Shari’ah* would enable the student to identify the core Islamic values relevant to the chosen social issues, articulate their significance in a manner that is both faithful to tradition and relevant to modern contexts, and design interventions that are purposeful and beneficial to the community, thereby fulfilling the broader mission of UNISSA in promoting Islamic knowledge and practice.

The question probes the understanding of the core principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, a key area of study at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario involves a researcher at the university facing a conflict between the pursuit of scientific advancement and the potential for societal harm. The core of the dilemma lies in the application of the principle of *maslahah* (public interest) and *mafsadah* (harm). The researcher is developing a novel genetic editing technique that could eradicate a debilitating inherited disease. However, preliminary studies suggest a low but non-zero probability of unintended, irreversible mutations in future generations, which could manifest as new, unforeseen health issues. This presents a classic case of weighing potential benefits against potential harms. The principle of *dar’ al-mafasid awla min jalb al-masalih* (averting harm is preferred over realizing benefits) is highly relevant here. While the potential benefit of eradicating a disease is immense (*maslahah*), the potential for causing greater, unknown harm (*mafsadah*) necessitates caution. The correct approach, therefore, involves a rigorous and transparent process of risk assessment, ethical deliberation, and consultation with relevant scholarly bodies and the wider community. This aligns with the emphasis at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali on integrating faith-based reasoning with scientific inquiry and societal responsibility. The researcher must not proceed unilaterally but engage in a process that prioritizes the long-term well-being of humanity, guided by Islamic ethical frameworks. This involves seeking scholarly consensus on the acceptable level of risk and exploring all possible mitigation strategies before any widespread application. The ultimate decision should reflect a careful balance, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge does not inadvertently lead to greater societal detriment, thereby upholding the Islamic imperative to protect life and well-being.

The core principle tested here is the understanding of the Islamic concept of *Maslahah Mursalah* (public interest) and its application in legal reasoning, particularly within the context of Islamic jurisprudence (*Usul al-Fiqh*). *Maslahah Mursalah* allows for the consideration of public welfare and benefit when there is no explicit textual basis in the Quran or Sunnah for a particular ruling. The scenario describes a contemporary issue – the need for robust data privacy regulations – that was not directly addressed by classical Islamic texts. However, the underlying principle of protecting individuals from harm and ensuring societal well-being is deeply embedded in Islamic teachings. The development of comprehensive data protection laws, such as those requiring explicit consent for data usage and establishing penalties for breaches, directly serves the *maslahah* (public interest) of safeguarding individuals’ privacy and preventing potential misuse of their personal information. This aligns with the broader Islamic objective of preserving life, intellect, lineage, property, and religion (*Hifz al-Khams*). By enacting such regulations, a society is acting to prevent potential harms (like identity theft, financial fraud, or reputational damage) that could arise from unchecked data collection and dissemination. Therefore, the most appropriate legal basis for such contemporary regulations, when viewed through the lens of Islamic legal theory, is *Maslahah Mursalah*, as it addresses a modern concern that contributes to the overall welfare and protection of the community, even in the absence of a specific precedent. The other options represent different, less applicable, or subordinate legal reasoning tools in this specific context. *Qiyas* (analogical reasoning) might be difficult to apply directly due to the novel nature of digital data. *Ijma* (consensus) is unlikely to be universally established for such a specific and evolving area. *Istihsan* (juristic preference) could be considered, but *Maslahah Mursalah* more directly captures the rationale of public benefit driving the regulation.

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 University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario involves a researcher at the university facing a conflict between the principle of public benefit (maslahah) and the potential harm to an individual participant in a study. The correct answer, “Prioritizing the preservation of individual dignity and informed consent, even if it means a slight delay in potential societal benefit,” aligns with the Islamic legal maxim that “harm must be removed” (darar yuzal) and the emphasis on individual rights within the broader framework of community welfare. Islamic ethics, particularly as taught at institutions like University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, stresses that the means to achieve public good should not violate fundamental human rights or ethical principles. While maslahah is a crucial consideration, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other established legal and ethical norms. The other options represent potential misinterpretations or incomplete applications of these principles. For instance, focusing solely on immediate societal benefit without adequate safeguards for the individual would contradict the meticulous ethical considerations inherent in Islamic scholarship. Similarly, invoking a general principle without specifying how it addresses the core conflict of individual rights versus collective good would be insufficient. The nuanced understanding required here is to recognize that while both individual dignity and societal benefit are important, the former often serves as a prerequisite or a non-negotiable boundary for pursuing the latter, especially in research contexts. This reflects the university’s commitment to rigorous ethical research practices grounded in Islamic values.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical principles governing Islamic finance, specifically in the context of investment. In Islamic finance, the prohibition of *riba* (interest) and *gharar* (excessive uncertainty or speculation) are foundational. Investments must align with Sharia principles, which emphasize social responsibility, ethical conduct, and the avoidance of industries deemed harmful (e.g., alcohol, gambling, conventional banking). The concept of *maslahah* (public interest) also plays a crucial role, guiding financial decisions towards societal benefit. Therefore, an investment that generates profit through a Sharia-compliant mechanism, such as profit-sharing in a real economic activity and avoids prohibited elements, is considered permissible. The scenario describes an investment in a sustainable agricultural project that utilizes ethical farming practices and aims for long-term community benefit, aligning perfectly with these core tenets. This demonstrates a nuanced understanding of how Islamic financial principles are applied in practice, moving beyond a simple prohibition of interest to encompass broader ethical and societal considerations central to the educational philosophy of institutions like University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali.

The core principle tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its role in adapting religious principles to contemporary contexts, a key aspect of Islamic scholarship at universities like UNISSA. The scenario presents a novel technological advancement (AI-driven legal analysis) that intersects with traditional Islamic legal methodologies. The correct approach, therefore, is to evaluate this technology through the lens of *ijtihad* principles, considering its potential to aid in the process of deriving rulings from primary sources (Quran and Sunnah) and secondary sources (Ijma and Qiyas). The question probes whether the AI’s output can be considered a direct source of law or a tool to facilitate human *ijtihad*. AI-generated legal opinions, while potentially sophisticated, do not possess the inherent authority or the nuanced understanding of context, intent, and the broader objectives of Sharia that a qualified human scholar brings to *ijtihad*. Therefore, the AI’s output is best understood as an advanced analytical tool that can support, but not replace, the human jurist’s role in the *ijtihad* process. It can process vast amounts of data and identify patterns, thereby assisting in the discovery of relevant precedents and legal analogies. However, the ultimate responsibility for formulating a ruling, considering the spirit of the law, and ensuring its applicability and benefit to the community rests with the human scholar. This aligns with the established understanding that *ijtihad* requires human intellect, ethical grounding, and an awareness of the evolving needs of society, which current AI, however advanced, cannot fully replicate. The AI can augment the *ijtihad* process by providing comprehensive data analysis and potential interpretations, but the final judgment and the nuanced application of Islamic law remain within the domain of qualified human scholars.

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 University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario involves a researcher at the university facing a conflict between the pursuit of scientific advancement and the potential for societal harm, specifically concerning the ethical implications of genetic modification technologies. The core of the dilemma lies in balancing the principle of *maslahah* (public interest/welfare) with the prohibition of *mufsida* (causing corruption or harm). To arrive at the correct answer, one must analyze the hierarchy of jurisprudential considerations. The principle of *darurah* (necessity) allows for the transgression of prohibitions when there is no viable alternative to avert severe harm. However, *darurah* is invoked only when lesser principles, such as *hifz al-din* (preservation of religion), *hifz al-nafs* (preservation of life), *hifz al-‘aql* (preservation of intellect), *hifz al-nasl* (preservation of lineage), and *hifz al-mal* (preservation of wealth), are at stake. In this scenario, the potential for misuse of genetic modification technology, leading to unforeseen societal disruption and ethical transgressions that could undermine the preservation of lineage and intellect, outweighs the immediate benefit of accelerated research. The concept of *sadd al-dhara’i’* (blocking the means to evil) is also highly relevant, suggesting that actions that could potentially lead to prohibited outcomes should be prevented. Therefore, prioritizing caution and seeking alternative, less ethically fraught research pathways aligns with the Islamic legal maxim that “preventing harm takes precedence over achieving benefit.” The researcher’s obligation is to ensure that the pursuit of knowledge does not inadvertently lead to greater societal detriment, thereby upholding the broader objectives of Sharia. The most prudent approach, therefore, involves a thorough ethical review and a commitment to research methodologies that minimize potential harm, even if it means a slower pace of discovery.

The core principle tested here is the understanding of the Islamic concept of *Maslahah Mursalah* (public interest) as a source of Islamic jurisprudence, particularly in the context of contemporary societal needs and governance, which aligns with the academic focus of University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. *Maslahah Mursalah* allows for the consideration of general welfare and public benefit when there is no explicit textual evidence from the Quran or Sunnah to guide a specific ruling. This requires careful deliberation to ensure that the proposed benefit is genuine, universal, and does not contradict established Islamic principles. Consider a scenario where the government of Brunei Darussalam, in alignment with the educational mission of University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, seeks to implement a new digital literacy program for all citizens to enhance their engagement with modern technologies and information. This initiative aims to bridge the digital divide and foster economic growth, a clear manifestation of public interest. However, there is no direct Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that specifically mandates or prohibits such a program. The juristic approach would involve evaluating whether this program serves a *maslahah* (public good) that is *mursalah* (unrestricted, i.e., not supported by specific textual evidence but also not contradicted by it). The process involves several steps: 1. **Identification of the need:** The program addresses a clear societal need for digital competence. 2. **Nature of the benefit:** The benefit is general welfare, impacting a broad segment of the population and contributing to national development. 3. **Universality:** The benefit is not specific to a particular individual or group but aims for widespread positive impact. 4. **Absence of contradiction:** The program does not violate any fundamental Islamic principles or established legal rulings. For instance, it does not promote haram activities or neglect religious obligations. 5. **Compatibility with Sharia objectives (*Maqasid al-Shariah*):** The program supports the preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property, all of which are key objectives of Islamic law. Enhancing digital literacy can lead to better economic opportunities (property), access to knowledge (intellect), and communication (preserving lineage and community ties). Therefore, the implementation of such a program would be permissible and even encouraged under the principle of *Maslahah Mursalah*, as it demonstrably serves the public interest without contravening established Islamic tenets. The correct answer is the one that accurately reflects this jurisprudential reasoning.

The question probes the understanding of the fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, specifically concerning the integration of technology in religious practice. The core concept being tested is the methodology of deriving rulings (hukm) from primary sources (Qur’an and Sunnah) and secondary sources (Ijma and Qiyas) when faced with novel situations not explicitly addressed in classical texts. The scenario involves a hypothetical digital platform designed to facilitate communal prayer (jama’ah) for Muslims worldwide, raising questions about the validity of such a prayer. To determine the correct answer, one must consider the conditions for a valid congregational prayer. A fundamental requirement is the physical presence and proximity of the worshippers, allowing for a shared spiritual experience and synchronized movements. The concept of “ittihad al-makān” (unity of place) is crucial here. While modern communication technologies can bridge geographical distances, they do not replicate the physical co-location essential for the congregational prayer as understood in traditional Islamic scholarship. The digital platform, by its nature, creates a virtual, rather than a physical, congregation. Therefore, a prayer conducted solely through a digital interface, without any physical co-presence, would likely be considered invalid according to established jurisprudential principles. The other options represent plausible but incorrect interpretations. Option b suggests that the intention (niyyah) alone is sufficient, overlooking the essential physical and communal aspects of congregational prayer. Option c proposes that the consensus of online scholars validates it, but Ijma requires specific conditions of scholarly agreement that a digital forum might not adequately fulfill, and it doesn’t override fundamental requirements of the act of worship itself. Option d focuses on the accessibility and inclusivity aspect, which is a commendable goal but cannot supersede the foundational legal requirements of the prayer. The validity of the prayer hinges on adherence to its established conditions, not solely on the intent or the perceived benefits of technological facilitation.

The scenario describes a situation where a student at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali (UNISSA) is tasked with developing a community outreach program focused on fostering Islamic ethical principles in digital citizenship. The core challenge lies in selecting an approach that aligns with UNISSA’s mission of integrating faith with knowledge and promoting societal well-being through Islamic values. The student’s proposed program aims to educate young Muslims on responsible online behavior, emphasizing concepts like *amanah* (trustworthiness), *ikhlas* (sincerity), and *adab* (etiquette) in their digital interactions. The question asks to identify the most appropriate foundational principle for this program, considering UNISSA’s academic and ethical framework. Option a) focuses on the comprehensive integration of Islamic teachings into all aspects of life, including modern technological engagement. This aligns directly with UNISSA’s objective of producing graduates who can apply Islamic principles to contemporary challenges. The program’s goal of instilling ethical digital citizenship through Islamic values is a direct manifestation of this holistic approach. Option b) emphasizes the acquisition of technical skills for digital platforms. While important, this is a secondary outcome and not the primary ethical or philosophical underpinning for an Islamic-centric program. UNISSA’s focus is on the *why* and *how* from an Islamic perspective, not just the *what* of technology. Option c) highlights the importance of interfaith dialogue in the digital space. While valuable, the primary focus of this specific program, as described, is on the internal development of ethical digital citizenship within the Muslim community, guided by Islamic principles. Interfaith dialogue might be a subsequent phase or a related initiative, but it’s not the core principle for this particular outreach. Option d) centers on the economic benefits derived from digital innovation. This is a pragmatic consideration but does not address the ethical and spiritual dimensions that are paramount in an Islamic educational institution like UNISSA. The program’s intent is to cultivate moral character, not solely economic advancement. Therefore, the most fitting foundational principle is the comprehensive application of Islamic teachings to contemporary life, which directly supports the program’s objective of promoting ethical digital citizenship rooted in Islamic values, reflecting UNISSA’s core educational philosophy.

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 describes a modern dilemma concerning digital currency, which requires a jurist to engage in *ijtihad*. The process involves identifying the underlying principles of Islamic finance (e.g., prohibition of *riba* – interest, *gharar* – excessive uncertainty, and the requirement for tangible assets or services in transactions), analyzing the nature of the digital currency in question, and then deriving a ruling based on these principles. The correct answer, “Applying the principles of *usul al-fiqh* to derive a ruling on the permissibility of digital currencies based on their underlying economic functions and risks,” accurately reflects this process. *Usul al-fiqh* (principles of jurisprudence) provides the methodology for *ijtihad*. The explanation emphasizes analyzing the “economic functions and risks” of digital currencies, which is crucial for determining their compliance with Islamic financial ethics. For instance, if a digital currency is backed by a tangible asset and its transaction mechanism avoids *riba* and excessive *gharar*, it might be permissible. Conversely, if it functions purely as a speculative instrument with inherent uncertainty, it might be deemed impermissible. This approach aligns with the dynamic nature of Islamic legal reasoning, which allows for adaptation to new circumstances while remaining grounded in established sources and methodologies. The other options, while touching on related concepts, do not fully encapsulate the comprehensive jurisprudential process required for such a contemporary issue. For example, simply referencing *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) is insufficient without the broader framework of *usul al-fiqh* and the specific analysis of the new phenomenon. Similarly, focusing solely on historical precedents or the technological aspects without the jurisprudential lens misses the core of the question.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its application in contemporary contexts, which is a cornerstone of scholarly discourse at universities like Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The question probes the candidate’s ability to discern the appropriate methodology for addressing novel legal questions that arise from modern advancements, such as bioethics or financial technologies, which were not explicitly addressed in classical texts. The correct answer emphasizes the necessity of grounding such reasoning in the foundational sources of Islam (Quran and Sunnah) while also acknowledging the role of scholarly consensus (*ijma’*) and analogical reasoning (*qiyas*), alongside other established principles like *maslahah* (public interest) and *urf* (custom). This integrated approach ensures that new rulings are both relevant to current societal needs and remain faithful to the spirit and letter of Islamic law. Incorrect options might overemphasize one aspect of jurisprudence while neglecting others, or propose methods that are not universally accepted within the scholarly tradition, thereby failing to reflect the nuanced and rigorous approach expected in advanced Islamic legal studies. For instance, relying solely on custom without reference to primary sources, or prioritizing individual opinion over established methodologies, would be considered unsound reasoning. The ability to synthesize these various elements is crucial for scholarly contribution and ethical practice in fields influenced by Islamic principles, a key expectation for students at Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) within Islamic jurisprudence, specifically its role in addressing novel issues not explicitly covered in the primary texts (Quran and Sunnah). The scenario presents a contemporary challenge – the ethical implications of advanced genetic editing for disease prevention. In the absence of direct scriptural rulings on such specific technologies, scholars must engage in *ijtihad*. This process involves employing established methodologies such as *qiyas* (analogical reasoning), *istihsan* (juristic preference), and considering the overarching objectives of Sharia (*maqasid al-Shariah*), which prioritize human welfare and the prevention of harm. The question probes the candidate’s ability to recognize that a direct, pre-existing ruling is unlikely and that the appropriate scholarly approach involves rigorous reasoning based on established Islamic legal principles to derive a permissible or impermissible judgment. The other options represent less accurate or incomplete understandings of the jurisprudential process. Simply relying on historical precedents without adaptation to new contexts, or solely on the consensus of early scholars without considering contemporary advancements, would be insufficient. Furthermore, a purely literal interpretation without considering the spirit and objectives of Islamic law would also fail to address the nuances of such a complex issue. Therefore, the most accurate response highlights the necessity of applying *ijtihad* to contemporary challenges, drawing upon the established tools of Islamic legal reasoning to ensure rulings align with the foundational principles of the faith while remaining relevant to modern scientific advancements.

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 University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario involves a researcher at the university needing to decide whether to publish preliminary findings that, while potentially beneficial for public health, have not yet undergone rigorous peer review and could be misinterpreted. This situation directly engages with the Islamic legal maxim of “preventing harm (darar) before achieving benefit (manfa’ah),” a principle deeply embedded in the objectives of Sharia (Maqasid al-Sharia). The calculation, while not strictly numerical, involves weighing potential harms against potential benefits within an Islamic ethical framework. Potential Harm: Misinformation leading to incorrect public health practices, damage to the researcher’s and university’s reputation, erosion of public trust in scientific research. Potential Benefit: Early dissemination of potentially life-saving information, fostering public awareness. The principle of *maslaha* (public interest) is central here, but it must be balanced against *mafsada* (harm). Islamic legal scholars emphasize that the prevention of a greater harm takes precedence over the attainment of a lesser benefit. In this case, the potential for widespread misinformation and its negative consequences on public health and scientific integrity represents a significant potential harm that outweighs the speculative benefit of early, unverified disclosure. Therefore, adhering to the established scientific and ethical protocol of completing peer review before publication is the most prudent and Islamically sound approach. This aligns with the emphasis at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali on responsible scholarship and the ethical application of knowledge, ensuring that research contributes positively and without undue risk to society. The core concept tested is the prioritization of preventing harm when faced with uncertainty, a critical skill for future scholars and professionals in fields like Islamic studies, law, and health sciences.

The question probes the understanding of the fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as applied to contemporary ethical dilemmas, specifically concerning the integration of technology in religious practice. The scenario involves a hypothetical Islamic scholar at Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali (UNISSA) developing an AI-powered system to assist in fatwa issuance. The core issue is the epistemological basis for relying on such a system within the established framework of Islamic legal reasoning. The correct answer hinges on identifying the most appropriate source of Islamic legal authority and methodology when faced with novel technological applications. Islamic jurisprudence traditionally relies on the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (consensus of scholars), and Qiyas (analogical reasoning) as primary sources. When a new issue arises, scholars engage in Ijtihad (independent reasoning) to derive rulings, often by applying established principles to new contexts. An AI system, while a tool, does not possess independent consciousness or divine revelation. Its output is derived from the data it is trained on and the algorithms it employs, which are human creations. Therefore, attributing definitive legal authority to the AI itself would be problematic. The AI’s role would be that of a sophisticated assistant, providing information, analysis, and potential interpretations based on existing Islamic legal texts and scholarly opinions. The ultimate responsibility for the fatwa, and thus the final legal determination, must remain with qualified human scholars who can exercise critical judgment, consider the broader context, and ensure adherence to the spirit and letter of Islamic law. The process of developing and validating such an AI system would require rigorous scrutiny by Islamic legal experts to ensure its outputs are consistent with established Usul al-Fiqh. This involves verifying the integrity of the data used for training, the soundness of the algorithms in reflecting legal methodologies, and the scholarly oversight of the AI’s recommendations. Therefore, the most sound approach is to view the AI as a supplementary tool that aids human scholars in their Ijtihad, rather than a source of independent legal pronouncements. The scholar’s role in critically evaluating and ultimately approving the AI’s output is paramount, aligning with the principle that legal authority rests with qualified human intellects grounded in divine revelation and established jurisprudence.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, specifically concerning the interpretation and application of religious texts in contemporary contexts, a crucial aspect of Islamic studies at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. The scenario presents a modern dilemma: the use of digital currency, which has implications for concepts like *riba* (usury) and *gharar* (uncertainty) in financial transactions. Islamic scholars often engage in *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) to address new issues. When evaluating digital currencies, scholars would consider whether they embody prohibited elements. For instance, if a digital currency’s value is inherently unstable or if its creation or transfer involves speculative elements that could be construed as *gharar*, or if it facilitates interest-based transactions (*riba*), its permissibility would be questioned. However, if the digital currency functions as a medium of exchange, holds intrinsic value (or is backed by a tangible asset), and its transactions are transparent and free from prohibited elements, it could be deemed permissible. The question probes the candidate’s ability to apply foundational Islamic financial ethics to a novel technological development, reflecting the university’s commitment to integrating faith with modern challenges. The correct answer, therefore, focuses on the rigorous scholarly process of evaluating such innovations against established Islamic legal principles, rather than a simple yes/no answer or a focus on technological aspects alone. The process involves detailed textual analysis, consideration of scholarly consensus (or lack thereof), and the application of analogical reasoning (*qiyas*) to existing rulings. The permissibility hinges on whether the digital currency’s underlying mechanisms and economic functions align with the overarching objectives of Islamic law (*maqasid al-shari’ah*), which prioritize justice, welfare, and the prevention of harm.

The core concept here revolves around the Islamic principle of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and its application within a contemporary academic context, specifically at an institution like University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali. *Ijtihad* is the process by which qualified scholars derive legal rulings from the primary sources of Islam (Quran and Sunnah) when a clear ruling is not readily available. This requires deep knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence (*fiqh*), Arabic language, and the principles of legal derivation (*usul al-fiqh*). In the context of modern academic disciplines, particularly those that intersect with Islamic studies or ethics, the spirit of *ijtihad* translates to critical inquiry, innovative problem-solving, and the development of new perspectives grounded in foundational principles. For advanced students at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, understanding the nuances of *ijtihad* is crucial for engaging with complex issues in fields such as Islamic finance, bioethics, comparative religion, or Islamic law. It signifies an ability to move beyond rote memorization and engage in scholarly discourse that addresses contemporary challenges through an Islamic lens. The ability to synthesize knowledge from diverse sources, apply rigorous analytical methods, and formulate well-reasoned arguments are hallmarks of this intellectual tradition. Therefore, a question that probes the application of *ijtihad* principles to modern academic challenges directly assesses a candidate’s potential to contribute meaningfully to the university’s intellectual environment and its mission to integrate faith and knowledge. This demonstrates an understanding of how Islamic intellectual heritage informs contemporary scholarship and practice.

The core principle tested here is the understanding of the Islamic concept of *Maslahah Mursalah* (public interest considered in the absence of specific textual evidence) and its application within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence (*Usul al-Fiqh*). When a new situation arises that is not explicitly covered by the Quran or Sunnah, jurists may invoke *Maslahah Mursalah* to derive a ruling, provided it serves a clear and universally recognized public benefit, does not contradict established Islamic principles, and is not already covered by other established legal maxims. In this scenario, the development of advanced AI for educational purposes at University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, while not directly addressed in classical texts, can be seen as a means to enhance the dissemination of Islamic knowledge and improve learning outcomes. This aligns with the broader Islamic objective of seeking knowledge and benefiting the community. Therefore, the most appropriate legal reasoning would be to consider its permissibility based on *Maslahah Mursalah*, as it serves a significant public interest in education and knowledge advancement, without violating any fundamental Islamic tenets. Other principles like *Istihsan* (juristic preference) might be considered if there’s a conflict with a weaker analogy, but *Maslahah Mursalah* is the primary tool for addressing novel matters of public welfare. *Qiyas* (analogical reasoning) is less applicable here as there isn’t a clear, directly analogous precedent. *Ijma* (consensus) is not relevant as this is a novel issue.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) and its role within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly in contexts where established texts might not offer explicit guidance for novel situations. The scenario describes a contemporary issue – the ethical implications of advanced genetic editing for disease prevention – that requires a reasoned approach based on Islamic legal maxims and principles. The correct answer, “Applying principles of *maslahah* (public interest) and *sadd al-dhara’i’* (blocking the means to evil) to assess the permissibility of genetic interventions,” directly addresses this by invoking key jurisprudential tools. *Maslahah* allows for consideration of the overall benefit and welfare, which would be central to evaluating disease prevention. *Sadd al-dhara’i’* is crucial for anticipating and preventing potential negative consequences or misuse of the technology. This approach aligns with the dynamic nature of Islamic legal thought, which seeks to provide guidance for evolving societal challenges. Other options, while touching upon related concepts, are less precise or comprehensive. “Strict adherence to historical interpretations of medical practices” would likely be insufficient for a novel technology. “Prioritizing individual autonomy over communal well-being” contradicts the Islamic emphasis on collective responsibility and welfare. “Seeking consensus solely through literal interpretations of ancient texts” overlooks the necessity of *ijtihad* for contemporary issues. The University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali Entrance Exam, with its focus on Islamic studies and modern challenges, would expect candidates to demonstrate an understanding of how Islamic legal methodology adapts to new scientific advancements.