چکیده:
This article attempts to find the answer to this question: Can the methods used by jurists in their inferences, including the details that pass through the jurist's mind, be discovered and simulated? If so, how? If inference (Ijtihad in jurisprudential terminology) is a systematic cognitive effort to discover the justification for a 'ruling' regarding the 'action of the obligated party,' and if the operation of inference and Ijtihad (the process of inference) consists of the actions and reactions that a jurist performs step-by-step to discover the legislator's view, moving from the starting point (encountering the problem) to the end point (issuing a fatwa); and if methodology and the presentation of an algorithm—which is the precise step-by-step determination and description of the process of solving a problem, such that the starting and ending points, the number of steps, the logical order of steps, and the executive instructions at each stage are described without gaps between instructions—is defined, then it seems that the operation of Ijtihad and inference can be described algorithmically. This can be achieved through two methods: first, through field induction of the jurists' performance and analyzing them with a discovery approach; and second, through deduction based on the causal requirements existing in the knowledge of Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh. Every jurist has an inferential method, and by analyzing their performance in their inferences, one can reach the details of their method to the extent they have used it, and based on that, place the different methods of jurists into comparative study. Additionally, based on the deductive method in discovering the inference process, one can validate each of their methods.
خلاصه ماشینی:
If inference (Ijtihad in jurisprudential terminology) is a methodical cognitive effort to discover the justification for a "ruling" regarding the "action of the obligated," and if the operation of inference and Ijtihad (the process of inference) is the actions and reactions that a jurist performs step-by-step to discover the legislator's view, moving from the starting point (encountering the problem) to the end point (issuing a fatwa); and if methodology and the provision of an algorithm—which is the precise step-by-step determination and description of the operation of solving a problem, such that the starting and ending points, the number of stages, the logical sequence of stages, and the executive instructions at each stage without gaps between instructions are described—then it seems that the operation of Ijtihad and inference can be described algorithmically.
If deduction is a methodical epistemological effort to discover the justification of the "Sharia ruling" for the "action of the obligated (mukallaf)" and if "methodology" means that the performed operation is based on a productive logical system—which contains established principles, in addition to the rule of decomposition and composition of concepts, such that it can provide the conditions for arguments that are considered productive at least in Aristotelian logic, whether the inputs of this logical system are essences, concepts, or conventions having a real source of validity, and whether the output is a definition, description, interpretation, proof, or critique—and if the regulations and conditions of production possess stages and an order without conceptual gaps; and if an "algorithm" is the description of the stages and a specific and finite order possessing regulations and conditions for solving a problem or performing a task, then deduction is capable of an algorithmic presentation.
(
, 
, 
)
