Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ethical analysis reveals limits of large language models in Islamic jurisprudence, indicating AI must remain an assistive tool rather than an interpretive authority.
The rise of artificial intelligence, particularly large language models, poses a unique epistemic challenge to Islamic interpretive authority. This paper explores the notion of the “Algorithmic Mujtahid,” an AI system capable of engaging with foundational texts in ways resembling legal reasoning.Footnote1 We argue that AI forces a reconsideration of core concepts such as qasd, taqwā, and ḥikmah. By contrasting classical ijtihād's spiritual, teleological reasoning with machine learning's statistical logic, the study reveals both promise and limitation. Case studies in finance and bioethics show risks to scholarly hierarchy, concluding that AI must remain a subordinate, assistive tool rather than a replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zainab Amin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: