Document Type : Research

Authors

• Fateme Sadat Nabavi ¹
• Hosein Kamkar ²
• Zinat Ayatollahi ³
• Alireza Shahbazi ⁴

¹ Assistant Professor of Qom University Mathematics

² Mesh kat houze

³ PhD in Philosophy of Logic, Tarbiat Modares University z

⁴ Level 4 student of Qom seminary

Abstract

When formalizing the Islamic legal reasoning system, we encounter various categories of justifications which require different logical operators. For instance, certain ones possess a certain epistemic value; thus, accepting them necessitates accepting the accompanying causal and logical ramifications. However, there are other types of justifications that hold significance only within a legal system. These justifications may not necessarily have any direct bearing on truth or knowledge but are instead concerned with establishing the rules of institiuation
This article presents an axiomatic logical framework based on the "Count As" logic (logic of institutions) and non-monotonic logic, as well as the justification logic. This framework can represent the logical properties of two category of valid justifications in the Islamic Legal Reasoning, namely, Amaarat and Osul-al-Amaliyyah. In fact, the legal consequences of both as well as the rational consequences of Amaarat are valid, but the rational consequences of Osul-al-Amaliyyah are not accepted. Our framework can represent this difference.

Keywords

• Formal representation of principles of Islamic legal reasoning
• Count As logic
• Non-Monotonic logic
• Justification logic
• Amaarat
• Osul-al-Amaliyyah

Main Subjects

• Philosophical Logic