An axiomatization for different levels of Islamic legal justification, using nonclassical conditionals.

Nabavi, Fateme Sadat; Kamkar, Hosein; Ayatollahi, Zinat; Shahbazi, Alireza

doi:10.30465/lsj.2024.47195.1453

An axiomatization for different levels of Islamic legal justification, using nonclassical conditionals.

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

10.30465/lsj.2024.47195.1453

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

Subjects

Philosophical Logic

[1] Artemov, Sergei, & Fitting, Melvin. (2019). Justification logic: Reasoning with reasons (Vol. 216). Cambridge University Press.

[2] Artosi, Alberto, Governatori, Guido, & Rotolo, Antonino. (2002). Labelled tableaux for nonmonotonic reasoning: Cumulative consequence relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(6), 1027-1060.

[3] Governatori, Guido, Gelati, Jonathan, Rotolo, Antonino, & Sartor, Giovanni. (2002). Actions, institutions, powers: preliminary notes.

[4] Governatori, Guido, & Rotolo, Antonino. (2008). A computational framework for institutional agency. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16(1), 25-52.

[5] Grossi, Davide, & Jones, Andrew. (2013). Constitutive Norms and Counts-as Conditionals. In D. Gabbay, J. H. null, R. van der Meyden, X. Parent, & L. van der Torre (Eds.), Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 407-441). College Publications, London.

[6] Hansson, Bengt. (1969). An analysis of some deontic logics. Noûs, 373-398.

[7] Jones, Andrew, & Sergot, Marek. (1996). A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 4(3), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/4.3.427

[8] Kraus, Sarit, Lehmann, Daniel, & Magidor, Menachem. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44(1), 167-207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5

[9] Lewis, David. (2013). Counterfactuals. John Wiley & Sons.

[10] Strasser, Christian, & Antonelli, G. Aldo. (2019). Non-monotonic Logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/

[11] بجنوردی, حسن. (1377). القواعد الفقهیة. نشر الهادی.

[12] صدر, محمدباقر. (1418ق). دروس فی علم الأصول. موسسة النشر الإسلامی.