The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Artificial Intelligence and Islamic Thought: Two Distinctive Challenges
Abstract
Abstract: The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has presented novel questions across various intellectual and theological landscapes. This article seeks to explore two distinctive challenges that AI poses to Islamic thought. First, it examines the potential role of AI in Islamic knowledge production and scholarship, questioning the feasibility of an AI-powered religious authority, the concept of the iMufti and techno- madhhabs , along with capabilities to contribute to the chains of transmission and issue religious edicts ( fatāwā ). The second challenge delves into the implications of AI on the Qur'ān's claim of linguistic inimitability ( i'jāz ), investigating whether an AI, when taught the complexities of Arabic and literary composition, could potentially meet the Qur'ān's challenge to produce a text of comparable stature, thus probing the foundational assertions of the Islamic worldview. The article provides preliminary reflections aimed at spurring further scholarly inquiry into the intersection of AI and Islamic thought.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The authority to interpret is inseparable from processes of ethical formation and scholarly discipline, as well as institutional recognition and communal authorization.
“Accordingly, the authority to interpret is inseparable from processes of ethical formation and scholarly discipline [23], as well as institutional recognition and communal authorization [24].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The framework thus stabilizes AI's role as musāʿid (assistive analytic instrument) rather than muḥakkim (interpretive arbiter), anchoring legitimacy within recognized communities of validation rather than within the system itself.
“The framework thus stabilizes AI's role as musāʿid (assistive analytic instrument) rather than muḥakkim (interpretive arbiter), anchoring legitimacy within recognized communities of validation rather than within the system itself [15,24].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ahmad, H., & Ghafar, N. A. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01254-5 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Malik, S. A.
- Corresponding author
- Malik, Shoaib Ahmed
- ORCID
- Malik, Shoaib Ahmed
- Venue
- Journal of Islamic and Muslim Studies
- Publisher
- Indiana University Press
- Published
- 2023-11
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 108-115
- ISSN
- 2470-7066 (ISSN-L)
- 2470-7074
- OpenAlex
- W4399023980
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 7.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Islamic and Muslim Studies (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Qur’anic Interpretation Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Islamic Studies
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, Islamic thought, Islamic scholarship, ijma, mufti, fatwa, Quranic inimitability, Arabic language, literary composition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
