Explaining the Rule of Misguidance in Educational Jurisprudence with Emphasis on Semantics

Educational jurisprudence in the course of its growth and development requires the development of its surrounding domains such as "educational rules" because the rules of jurisprudence are useful and used extensively to understand profound "educational concepts". Misguiding others is one of the topics that can be applied to educational policies, actions and methods in the sense that they can be considered manifestations of misguidance. The present article seeks to discuss the truth of misguidance and to explain the various angles of the concept of misguidance and its relation with similar concepts. The method of this article is descriptive-inferential and sampling is done in a purposeful way (conceptual explanation of misguidance and similar concepts and the analysis of a network of concepts)  based on qualitative content analysis. After studies, it became clear that misguidance has two general and specific meanings; the specific meaning includes only cognitive and ideological misguidance, and in this sense it can be termed as "teaching misguidance" and casting doubt. We also came to know that misguidance is a non-intentional concept and what is intended is current and practical misguidance as well as the occurrence of misguidance and it is not specific to ideological misguidance. Concerning the relation of the concept/rule of misguidance with similar concepts, we have also come to the conclusion that misguidance, in terms of the principle of causation, is a kind of deceiving others and putting them in the darkness of ignorance and helping them commit a sin. However, in terms of causation, it refers more to banditry. We also came to know that the relation between misguidance and "teaching misguidance" and "casting doubt" is that of a general and specific one.