Legislature sets down the law, encompassing the major contexts and outcomes it deems desirable. Jurists learn and understand the letter of this law, as well as its underlying purposes. In applying the law to a particular context, they may apply the text as directly applicable... But what if there has been a change in context? A textualist will say, "Congress is free to adapt the law to the new context," so no. This is the only justification for textualism.

In Islam, there is no longer a functioning Congress to whom we defer. It's just the jurists. We adapt the laws alone, and we take responsibility alone. Congress (the Prophet) may have instructed a man in a certain way, but would he still instruct him so today? If Congress were still in session, we could send the bill and tally the votes. No need for dynamic interpretation or purposivism. But Congress has said what it had to say, confident in the jurists' ability to discern. So either the jurists sit on their hands in fear of mistake, or they dutifully take up their responsibility (there have been dramatic changes in context). So who are the jurists, where are they, and are they doing their job?

Point 2. In addition to the jurists, there are the academics. There is no reward for saying an existing law actually is quite good, and other legal systems just dont cut it. The academic earns his keep by introducing keen questions into an area of his own law which may need re-addressing. This is her primary function. She will present both sides, and issue a recommendation (it may be to uphold the status quo upon deliberation). Who are the academics, where are they, and are they doing their job? I only know of one - he's in California.

And finally, how can we review the work of the jurists and academics? In American law, I know where exactly to go. Where do I go here? Without this, the system does not function. Those of you with confidence in the system - direct me.