When AI Ustadzah Was Mistaken for a Real Preacher

Recently, a female preacher, or ustazah, went viral on social media. Her face was beautiful, with dimples adorning both cheeks. Her gaze was sharp. Her messages were touching. It was therefore unsurprising that her followers reached 997,000 on TikTok, with her videos watched millions of times. Without observing the mismatch between her lip movements and spoken words, or her head and hand gestures, many netizens believed she was a real preacher. That was until the X account thanksfortoday revealed the truth: Ustazah Hajar is not human. She is an AI-generated character. The public had been deceived. Discussions about the sophistication of AI immediately surged, as technology has now proven capable of creating a fake preacher that appears completely authentic.

Times have changed rapidly. In the past, people asked religious questions to kiai at Islamic boarding schools, to ustaz or ustazah at mosques, or to religious teachers at school. Now, one simply opens a proliferating AI application, types a question, and the answer appears instantly. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has highlighted this phenomenon. They acknowledge that AI is popular among the younger generation. However, they stress that AI is merely a tool. Artificial intelligence is not a replacement for scholars and cannot be used as a primary reference. Especially in matters of religion, it cannot be relied upon in that way. The use of AI must be limited because its answers are not automatically correct. Every AI output must be verified and validated first; it cannot be swallowed whole. This is particularly true if the source is merely a virtual character like Ustadzah Hajar, who has no scholarly chain of transmission whatsoever.

Islamic knowledge is complex. It is not just a series of texts. There is the context in which a scriptural evidence was revealed, a methodology for understanding the sacred texts, and wisdom in applying the law to reality. All these elements require deep understanding and years of scholarly experience. Technology does not possess this. Therefore, for matters of law and for fatwas, the public must return to the ulama and to religious institutions that hold scholarly authority.

Examining the Root of the Problem

AI is a digital platform. It works by collecting data from the internet. This data is processed by an algorithm and then presented as an answer, just like the case of Ustadzah Hajar, who was presented with a human-like face and voice. The problem lies here: not all data on the internet is true. There are hoaxes, opinions packaged as facts, and outdated information that still circulates. There are even entirely fabricated figures who are believed to be real. If the source itself is impure, how can the result be pure? The logic is simple: AI is not even fit to be a trusted source of information for general matters, let alone for matters of religious law concerning halal and haram, sin and reward, heaven and hell. This is not a trivial matter; it concerns the afterlife of human beings. The case of Ustadzah Hajar proves how easily the ummah can be deceived, with hundreds of thousands of people following religious content from a figure who never even existed.

There is a deeper problem. AI is not created in a vacuum. It is designed by humans and supervised by the state. Its algorithms are compiled based on specific criteria, policies, and security standards. What does this mean? The answers produced by AI have already gone through a selection process; they have been sorted and formulated according to the interests of the parties who designed it. Similarly, a character like Ustadzah Hajar is shaped according to the algorithm’s taste and market demand, not according to the correct principles of da’wah. This is not pure knowledge born of piety. It is a product of policy, a product of interest, and potentially a mere commercial product. Imagine if the ummah entrusted matters of fatwa to such a system. It would be the same as handing religion over to parties with hidden agendas, replacing sincere scholars who act for the sake of Allah with machines that obey the commands of their creators. This is a great danger, one that is often not realised because it is wrapped in technological sophistication and a convincing face.

Comprehensive Islam: Return Fatwas to the Experts

Islam has clearly regulated the sources of law. There are four main pillars: the Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma’ (consensus), and Qiyas (analogical reasoning). These are explored through ijtihad. Ijtihad is not a haphazard task; it requires strict conditions, a sharp mind, and a deep understanding of the religion, known as faqih fid din. Who has this capacity? The ulama. Not machines, not algorithms, and not virtual characters like Ustadzah Hajar, no matter how viral or convincing her face may be. Ulama issue fatwas based on syar’i evidence. Every word that comes out of their mouths is accounted for before Allah. A sense of fear underlies every fatwa: fear of being wrong, fear of misleading the ummah, and fear of committing a grave sin by speaking about religion without knowledge. This fear is not possessed by machines. A digital platform has no intellect, no consciousness, and no fear of Allah. It merely executes commands and runs program code. The figure of Ustadzah Hajar is the same: she is just a digital face without a soul, without faith, and without fear of the Creator. The logic is therefore very clear: something that has no intellect and no consciousness can never replace the position of the ulama. Allah affirmed this long ago. In Surah An-Nahl verse 43, Allah commands to ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know. The meaning of ‘people of the Reminder’ here is clear: people of knowledge, people who understand the religion deeply. Not machines, not digital systems, and not fabricated characters made for the sake of views and followers. The Muslim ummah needs a living reference, a reference with intellect, a reference that is responsible, and a reference that fears Allah in every fatwa it issues. AI does not have any of this and never will. The case of Ustadzah Hajar should serve as a harsh lesson, so that the ummah does not easily trust a digital face while forgetting the importance of a clear chain of scholarly knowledge. Let AI remain in its proper place: merely as a tool, not a replacement.