Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 - Associate Professor Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, institute for Islamic Studies in Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. -Associate Professor, Department of Theology, Faculty of Law and Theology,
2 Assistant professor of private law, Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, Institute for Islamic Studies in Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Highlights
**Conclusion**
Justice is a dynamic and multidimensional concept that must perpetually harmonize with the exigencies of time while preserving its foundational principles. In its comprehensive sense, justice is the path that guides humanity to the sublime station of true human virtue. This path originates with individual justice, where a person, through adherence to the principles and ordinances of sacred Islamic law (*Shari'ah*), embodies moderation and balance in all facets of life.
In delineating the criterion for justice (*'Adalah*) within Imami jurisprudence, it can be stated that justice—meaning the placement of everything in its rightful position—is a term with gradations (*lafdh mushakkik*), possessing varying levels and degrees of intensity and weakness. Consequently, the degrees of justice stipulated by the Lawgiver (*al-Shari'*) for different positions and rulings vary relative to the importance of each position.
The evaluation of "the correct performance of an algorithm"—based on observable and controllable processes, and in complete conformity with Sharia requirements and justice-centric metrics—materializes at the procedural (*tariqati*) level. It is equivalent to those same apparent criteria used for assessing human justice. As numerous jurisprudential (*fiqhi*) cases demonstrate, at the procedural level, the ascription of justice is not conditional upon inner spiritual qualification (*ittisaf nafsi*), but is based on the precision of an action within the bounds of its duties and outward discipline. This ascription can, therefore, be extended to the outputs of intelligent systems (which lack human will and inner self).
Thus, it is permissible to entrust responsibility to limited Artificial Intelligence in positions where the required justice is of the procedural type, lacking the complexities of moral and human judgment, and which are more executive and administrative in nature—such as a witness (*shahid*), scribe (*katib*), agent for collecting zakat (*'amil fi al-zakat*), and similar roles. However, in positions where the condition of justice has a substantive (*mawdu'i*) aspect, the entrustment of responsibility is not possible.
In the current era, the realization of justice through general or superintelligent AI faces significant challenges, as these systems possess high complexity and autonomy and may operate outside defined frameworks.
In the present age, with the emergence of new technologies, the concept of algorithmic justice has also entered the arena. Algorithmic justice originates from a human and relative foundation, whereas Sharia justice is rooted in divine revelation and encompasses extensive creedal, ethical, and social dimensions.
Despite apparent differences, a constructive connection can be established between algorithmic justice and Sharia justice. They share the principle of "placing everything in its appropriate place." When algorithmic justice is designed and implemented in such a way that artificial intelligence is positioned in its appropriate role and realizes procedural justice, it can intersect with Sharia justice. In its current state, algorithmic justice cannot constitute a complete instance of substantive (*mawdu'i*) Sharia justice; rather, it is an analogous and supplementary instrumental concept for realizing justice in the digital sphere.
Keywords
Main Subjects
In Persian and Arabic
Āl ʿUṣfūr al-Baḥrānī, Y. b. A. b. I. (1985). Al-Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍirah fī aḥkām al-ʿitrah al-ṭāhirah [The blooming gardens regarding the rulings of the pure family]. Islamic Publications Office of the Qom Seminary Teachers Society.
Al-Baḥrānī, H. b. S. (1995). Al-Burhān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān [The proof in the interpretation of the Qur'an]. Al-Ba'thah Institute, Department of Islamic Studies
Al-Ḥāʾirī, S. M. M. Ṭabāṭabāʾī. (1879). Al-Qawāʿid wa al-fawāʾid wa al-ijtihād wa al-taqlīd (Mafātīḥ al-uṣūl) [Principles, benefits, ijtihād, and emulation (The keys to the principles)]. Āl al-Bayt Institute.
Al-Ḥillī, Miqdād b. ʿA. al-Suyūrī. (2009). Kanz al-ʿirfān fī fiqh al-Qurʾān [The treasure of gnosis in the jurisprudence of the Qur'an]. (A. ʿAqīqī Bakhshāyishī, Trans.). Navīd-i Islām.
Al-Khūʾī, S. A. al-Q. (1997). Al-Tanqīḥ fī sharḥ al-ʿurwat al-wuthqā [The refinement in the explanation of "The Firmest Bond"]. Under the supervision of Mr. Lufṭī.
Al-Kulaynī, M. b. Y. (1990). Uṣūl al-Kāfī [The sufficient principles]. (Muṣṭafawī, Trans.). ʿIlmīyah Islāmīyah Bookstore.
Al-Najafī, M. Ḥ. (Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir). (1984). Jawāhir al-kalām fī sharḥ sharāʾiʿ al-Islām [The jewels of discourse in the explanation of the Islamic codes]. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī.
Al-Narāqī, Mullā A. (1999). Miʿrāj al-saʿādah [The ascent to happiness]. Payām-i Āzādī.
Al-Qumī, ʿA. b. I. (1989). Tafsīr al-Qumī [The interpretation of al-Qumī]. Dār al-Kitāb.
Al-Ṭabarsī, F. b. Ḥ. (1993). Majmaʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān [The compendium of elucidation in the interpretation of the Qur'an]. Nāṣir Khusrow.
Al-Ṭarīḥī, F. al-D. b. M. (1996). Majmaʿ al-baḥrayn [The confluence of the two seas]. Murtaḍawī Publication.
Al-Ṭūsī, M. b. al-Ḥ. (1993). Al-Amālī [The dictations]. Dār al-Thaqāfah.
Al-Yazdī, S. M. K. Ṭabāṭabāʾī. (1995). Suʾāl wa jawāb [Question and answer]. Center for the Publication of Islamic Sciences.
Al-Yazdī, S. M. Muḥaqqiq Dāmād. (1999). Waṣīyat, taḥlīl-i fiqhī va ḥuqūqī [Bequest, a jurisprudential and legal analysis]. Center for the Publication of Islamic Sciences.
Al-ʿĀmilī, M. b. M. (al-Shahīd al-Awwal). (1990). Al-Lumʿat al-dimashqīyah fī fiqh al-Imāmīyah[The Damascene flash in Imami jurisprudence]. Dār al-Turāth - al-Islāmīyah.
Bustānī, F. A. (1996). Farhang-i abjadī [Alphabetical dictionary]. Islāmī.
Dizfūlī Anṣārī, M. (1994). Rasāʾil fiqhīyah [Jurisprudential treatises]. The World Congress in Honor of Shaykh-i Aʿẓam Anṣārī.
Gīlānī Shafīī, S. M. B. (1989). Tuḥfat al-abrār al-multaqaṭ min āthār al-aʾimmah al-aṭhār [The gift of the pious, gleaned from the works of the pure Imams]. Masjid Sayyid Publication.
Karīmī, M. T. (2012). An introduction to the indicators of political justice in the Islamic-Iranian model of progress. Political Knowledge, 4(2), 25-44.
Khomeinī, S. R. (2003). Tawḍīḥ al-masāʾil [Clarification of matters]. Islamic Publication Office of the Qom Seminary Teachers Society.
Khomeinī, S. R. (2004). Taḥrīr al-wasīlah [The liberation of the means]. (ʿA. Islāmī, Trans.). Islamic Publication Office of the Qom Seminary Teachers Society.
Muṭalibī Karbakandī, Ḥ., & Bunyānī, M. (2015). Investigating the function of weak AI in the types of knowledge and awareness based on the epistemological foundations of the Ṣadrā'īs. Religious Thought, 15(55), 1-26.
Qāḍawī, S. M., & Wāʿiẓī, A. (2023). The relationship between different approaches to the mind and the possibility of strong artificial intelligence. Journal of Criticism and Opinion, 28(3), 158-187.
Qureshī, S. ʿA. A. (1992). Qāmūs al-Qurʾān [Dictionary of the Qur'an]. Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyah.
Ṣarfī, Z., & Pūrkāvyān, Z. (2022). Individual justice in the letters of Amīr al-Muʾminīn Imām ʿAlī to his agents in Nahj al-Balāghah. Alawī Research Journal, 13(1), 31-58.
Ṭayyib, ʿA. (1990). Aṭyab al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān [The most exquisite elucidation in the interpretation of the Qur'an]. Islām.
In English
Abonamah, A. A., Tariq, M. U., & Shilbayeh, S. (2021). On the commoditization of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 696346.
Alhajeri, R., & Alhashem, A. (2023). Using artificial intelligence to combat money laundering. Intelligent Information Management, 15(4), 284-315.
Balch, A. (2024). Why Algorithms Remain Unjust: Power Structures Surrounding Algorithmic Activity [arXiv preprint]. arXiv.
Birhane, A., & Cummins, F. (2019). Algorithmic injustices: Towards a relational ethics [arXiv preprint]. arXiv.
Carreras, J., & Nakamura, N. (2024). Artificial Intelligence, Lymphoid Neoplasms, and Prediction of MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 Gene Expression Using a Pan-Cancer Panel in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. Hemato, 5(2), 119-143.
Chandra, R., Sanjaya, K., Aravind, A. R., Abbas, A. R., & Gulrukh, R. (2023). Algorithmic Fairness and Bias in Machine Learning Systems. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 399, p. 04036). EDP Sciences.
Cui, T., Li, W., Li, Y., Wang, W., Wang, K., & Wang, F. Y. (2024). From foundational models to the foundation of intelligent industries: A survey of the applications of large AI models. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 11(6), 1177-1205.
Danks, D., & London, A. J. (2017). Algorithmic bias in autonomous systems. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 4691-4697).
Das, K., Cockerell, C. J., Patil, A., Pietkiewicz, P., Giulini, M., Grabbe, S., & Goldust, M. (2021). Machine learning and its application in skin cancer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 13409.
Davis, N. J. (2022). Artificial intelligence in higher education: A catalyst for new competencies and skills. Journal of Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 1-15.
Defrance, M., & De Bie, T. (2023). Maximal fairness. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 851-880).
Green, B. (2022). Escaping the impossibility of fairness: From formal to substantive algorithmic fairness. Philosophy & Technology, 35(4), 90.
Isabelle, D. A., & Westerlund, M. (2022). A review and categorization of artificial intelligence-based opportunities in wildlife, ocean and land conservation. Sustainability, 14(4), 1979.
Kadhim, R. J. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence technologies in increasing awareness and educating users through electronic social networks (survey study on a sample of thi qar university students). Conhecimento & Diversidade, 16(41), 507-525.
Kaminski, M. E. (2018). Binary governance: Lessons from the GDPR's approach to algorithmic accountability. Southern California Law Review, 92, 1529.
Karakose, T., & Tülübas, T. (2024). School Leadership and Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Recent Developments and Future Prospects. Educational Process: International Journal, 13(1), 7-14.
Kontiainen, L., Koulu, R., & Sankari, S. (2022). Research agenda for algorithmic fairness studies: Access to justice lessons for interdisciplinary research. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 882134.
Kulikova, E., Sulimin, V., & Shvedov, V. (2023). Artificial intelligence for ambient air quality control. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 419, p. 03011). EDP Sciences.
Lisaldy, F., Ismail, I., & Iryani, D. (2024). Lex AI: Solution for Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Indonesia. DiH: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 50-67.
Lyons, H., Velloso, E., & Miller, T. (2021). Conceptualising contestability: Perspectives on contesting algorithmic decisions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-25.
Marrone, R., Taddeo, V., & Hill, G. (2022). Creativity and artificial intelligence-A student perspective. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 65.
Peta, S. (2023). Journey of artificial intelligence Frontier: A comprehensive overview. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 23(D2), 9-36.
Privitera, F., Arcoraci, A., & Scardina, G. (2024). AI and the legal system: A comprehensive review. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology, 4(2), 65-72.
Rafiq, A. (2021). Militarisation of Artificial Intelligence and Future of Arms Control in South Asia. Strategic Studies, 41(2), 49-63.
Raschka, S., Patterson, J., & Nolet, C. (2020). Machine learning in python: Main developments and technology trends in data science, machine learning, and artificial intelligence [arXiv preprint]. arXiv.
Ruksakulpiwat, S., Kumar, S., & Prakash, C. (2024). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Business and Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 16(10), 4053.
Strümke, I., & Slavkovik, M. (2022). Explainability for identification of vulnerable groups in machine learning models [arXiv preprint]. arXiv.
Tajouri, S., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2024). Subjective fairness in algorithmic decision-support [arXiv preprint]. arXiv.
Yulia, A., Saputra, N. A. C., & Roisah, K. (2021). Building Fairness on The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for The Development of Creative Industries in Indonesia. Law Development Journal, 3(2), 263-272.
Završnik, A. (2021). Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice settings. European Journal of Criminology, 18(5), 623-642.