Jurist?, Scholar?, Professor?, Teacher? Or All of the Above?

As a law student, I have often seen many fellow law students often referring to a professor as a teacher. I have seen even more students call a professor a scholar. And then there are even more students that refer to a professor as a jurist. Now the question arises, why is there so much confusion over these terms? Why can't law students be able to properly recognize who is a teacher, who is a professor and then finally who are scholars and jurists. They are all interpreted and applied as the same type of person. In some rare cases, there does exist such a man who is a professor, who is also a very good scholar and also the same person is a jurist. But most of the time, there are professors who are not scholars or jurists for that matter but are referred to as such. This is a grave misunderstanding which often causes a lot of potential consequences such as the professor's work being referred to as scholarly or groundbreaking when in reality, his work is not up to par and the genuine scholar or jurist who has made groundbreaking work being horribly ignored. Hence, in order to make sure that such a grave misunderstanding does not arise again, we will first discuss who are teachers, who are professors and finally, who are scholars and jurists? So, without further ado, let us begin.

A teacher can refer to a lot of things. He is a person who is teaching a particular subject, usually at a children's school. He can also be referred the same way as someone's mentor and idol. But what about a professor? Isn't he supposed to be the same thing as a teacher? Nay! a professor is not just a teacher of a particular subject, he is also an academic, a researcher. He doesn't just teach students. He also studies a lot. He writes a lot. They publish not just academic papers but also books. Many of our famous philosophers and jurists were in fact professors in universities. There are numerous examples. The names of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer who are famous philosophers were in fact professors, while the names of Hart, Dworkin, Fuller among many who were famous jurists were in fact professors. Of course, this doesn't mean that each and every professor is in fact a philosopher or a jurist. It just means that there were many great academics who with their brilliant intellect and resilience became jurists and philosophers respectively.

Now that we've understood the distinction between a teacher and a professor, let us now attempt to understood who is a scholar? A scholar is basically an even more better academic than a professor. A scholar has researched and gained knowledge in a particular field of study such that he has surpassed the professor. He is even more of a specialist then a professor. His knowledge and intellect far surpasses the professor. Of course, it should be noted that a scholar is not a separate profession. In fact many scholars are in fact professors. A scholar's level of knowledge has become such that it has attracted a wider audience at an international level. Many scholars today are in fact called for international conferences, have their papers and books published by foreign and elite publishers, and their research product in the form of research articles and books are famous among the top academics of the elite top universities in the world. The only distinction between a professor and a scholar is the level of research skills and ability and as well as the knowledge gained due to that increased level of research. It makes the scholar the superior academic. There are even people who are not professors but due to a very specialized field and the profession they have, the amount of knowledge they gain due to research ranks them as a scholar. An example can be of a particular judge, who in his spare time does research on such a level that his overall knowledge has increased far beyond the basic knowledge of a judge. For our purposes, let us take the example of a law professor who's devoted a lot of time and effort to research which has led to a severe amount of knowledge being gained and as well as superior research abilities being gained.

Now let us move on to the main dish. What do we mean by a jurist? What exactly is a jurist? Well, quite simply, a jurist is a legal philosopher. His knowledge of law is such that he surpasses the basic level scholar. You can even consider him an even more elite scholar. His research ability and as well as the devotion of time and effort to the same has his knowledge at a level far more higher then the average professor or scholar. But it does not just stop there! Not only does a jurist have an extreme knowledge of law, he usually comments on several different aspects of law and in fact in most cases, establishes and presents his own theory of law. His knowledge of law or to a particular branch of law has led to the point that he can make his own theory of it. An example can be Hart who gave his famous theory of the "Rule of Recognition". Or we can even use the examples of the founders of the various schools of thought, the likes of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Maliki, Imam Shafi & Imam Hanbali who with their increased knowledge of Shari'ah gave their own understanding of the Shari'ah which led to the revolutionary development of Islamic jurisprudence as a whole. Hence, a jurist is someone with extraordinary knowledge of law or a specialized branch of law who has developed a legal theory or is following a particular legal theory. And of course, this does not just apply to professors, although in most cases, it is a usually a professor who becomes an elite scholar and then a jurist. There are even many judges who were renowned for their expert knowledge of law, thereby being dubbed as a jurist. Examples can be of Lord Denning, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Justice Imam Abu Yusuf who was the student of Imam Abu Hanifa. Even Imam Abu Hanifa's other student and Imam Abu Yusuf's junior, Imam Al-Shaybani was also a great jurist in his own right. Hence, the jurist's level of knowledge has a legacy beyond compare. They do not just attract an international audience but they attract an audience of different ages. That is to say their work will pass on for several years and even centuries as noted in the cases of the founders of the schools of thought respectively. Their legacy is thus unsurpassable.

Now that we've understood what and who are a teacher, a professor, a scholar and a jurist, we shall now once again answer the main question, that are a teacher, a professor, a scholar and jurist the same thing? The answer is No! The first two are not just separate by profession, but also in terms of ability and skill. As for the latter two, they are not professions but they are terms used for anyone with an extraordinary level of knowledge of law or a branch of law and of course, with a profound and original legal theory, or he will follow a particular legal theory. But of course, if we consider from the perspective of a mentor, then a very good professor can also be a very good teacher, the same goes for the other two categories. But a professor in a university while he's mainly an academic and a researcher, he is also a teacher. He has to make sure that the knowledge that he has gained is passed on in a effective manner with positive implications in terms of producing a future potential lawyer, judge, academic etc. But let us assume that such a person is also a scholar. His level of knowledge and research has reached such a level. But of course, he still being a professor has to teach as well as conduct research. But how lucky are the students are to have a scholar as a teacher! How much positive impact this might have! Now let us assume if such a person has reached the level of jurist? The impact! It will be causing academic earthquakes! Hence, in such a case, the four terms mentioned and discussed hereinabove can be the same thing but it all depends on the knowledge of said person. If the person does not have the knowledge and research ability needed to be such a person, then he shall be called as he is by the level of knowledge that he has. But of course things might change in the future if such a person with great resilience researches and acquires the requisite knowledge. But till then, let such a person be a teacher or a professor before jumping the bandwagon and straight away calling him a scholar or a jurist. It is the insult of a genuine scholar or jurist who has put in a lot of time and effort to be able to acquire the requisite knowledge and research ability to be able to considered as a scholar or a jurist to call someone who has not made the same level of effort or devoted the the same amount to time to gain the superior research abilities and requisite knowledge a scholar or a jurist.