How can one respond to those who accuse the jurisprudents and scholars of forbidding something while doing the opposite, or of advocating asceticism while living in luxury, claiming that this is mere "brainwashing," and that what matters most is performing the pillars of religion with peace of heart, while citing examples of actions by some religious individuals who "preach what they do not practice"?

The fundamental principle is that a Muslim is presumed innocent and righteous until proven otherwise, and ill-conjecture is a grave error. Scholars are of three types: scholars of the faith (who adhere to the rulings of Allah and His Messenger), scholars of the state (who issue rulings according to the whims of the ruler), and scholars of the people (who follow the desires of the masses).

The ultimate proof lies in the infallible revelation from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and no one is an authority over Islam. Islam is undermined by the slip of a scholar, the disputation of a hypocrite using the Scripture, and the rule of misleading imams.

If "sufficiency in the pillars of faith" means performing obligatory acts and refraining from prohibitions without including supererogatory acts, then this is correct. However, if it means abandoning whatever one wishes from the laws of Islam and committing whatever prohibitions one desires, then this is false; for Allah condemned those who believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part. One must enter into all the laws of the faith and not follow the footsteps of Satan.