Dejudicialization, as a strategy to reduce the volume of judicial cases and alleviate the burden on the judiciary, holds significant importance in criminal justice systems and has garnered the attention of many countries. The deep connection between the domestic legal system and Islamic jurisprudence highlights the necessity of aligning dejudicialization with jurisprudential sources and principles. This study aims to examine dejudicialization from a jurisprudential perspective, considering the role and position of the judiciary in the enforcement of punishments. An initial reading of jurisprudential texts may suggest a prohibition against delegating judicial matters to non-jurists. However, deeper reflection on jurisprudential foundations and principles such as the principle of necessity, the principle of no harm, and public interest reveals extensive potential for aligning this approach with Islamic rulings. These capacities not only enable the realization of criminal justice in the complex and dynamic conditions of society but also contribute to reducing the judiciary’s workload, enhancing public satisfaction, and facilitating the judicial process. This research is theoretical in nature and employs a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the study indicate that jurisprudential concepts such as concealing offenses, accepting repentance in hadd crimes, and reconciliation are examples of dejudicialization approaches within Islamic jurisprudence.