INTRODUCTION

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence as a dominant force in contemporary civilization raises questions that no generation before ours has faced in quite the same form. Machines now assist in judicial decisions, medical diagnoses, financial transactions, military targeting, and the shaping of public discourse. The speed of this transformation has outpaced the ethical frameworks that many societies have traditionally relied upon, leaving legislators, philosophers, and communities struggling to define the moral boundaries of intelligent machines. In this moment of moral urgency, it is both timely and necessary to ask whether the revelation delivered fourteen centuries ago to the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) has anything of substance to offer.

The Qur’an is not a book of technology. Yet it is, at its core, a book of principle a book that addresses the nature of the human being, the purpose of creation, the obligations of stewardship, and the conditions of justice. These are not peripheral concerns for AI governance; they are its very heart. The question is not whether Islam speaks to AI, but how its enduring principles may be recovered and applied with rigour and relevance. Classical Muslim scholars from al-Ghazālī to Ibn Khaldūn laboured to derive rules for governance, commerce, war, and social organisation from the Qur’an and Sunnah. That same labour is now demanded of contemporary Muslim thinkers in the domain of technology.

This paper proceeds through a structured inquiry. It first situates AI within the Qur’anic conception of human nature and divine trust. It then examines specific Qur’anic ethical principles and their application to AI governance. It addresses the problem of algorithmic injustice, the ethics of surveillance, autonomy in machines, and the question of digital inequality. It concludes with findings and recommendations grounded in both revealed principle and contemporary necessity. Throughout, the paper draws on classical Islamic scholarship and modern academic literature on AI ethics, seeking a conversation between tradition and modernity that honours both.

The methodology adopted here is one of principled derivation extracting from the Qur’an and its authoritative commentaries those ethical norms that bear directly on the governance of technology, and then applying them critically to the specific challenges posed by AI. This is not an exercise in superficial analogical reasoning, but a sustained engagement with the sources in their full depth [[1]].

The Qur’anic Conception of the Human Being and the Burden of Trust

Any serious engagement with Qur’anic ethics must begin with the Qur’an's account of the human being. The human is not, in Qur’anic thought, merely a biological organism driven by appetite and fear. Rather, the human being has been honoured with a dignity that no other creature shares. Allah says:

'And We have certainly honoured the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with definite preference [[2]]'.

This honour is not unconditional flattery; it is the ground of a corresponding responsibility. The human is honoured because the human has been entrusted.

The concept of Amanah trust occupies a central place in the Qur’anic account of the human condition. In Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, the Qur’an records that the heavens, the earth, and the mountains were each offered the divine trust and declined to bear it, but the human being accepted it:

'Indeed, We offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but man undertook it. Indeed, he is ever unjust and ignorant' [[3]].

The classical commentators were careful to note that the qualification 'unjust and ignorant' is not a condemnation of the human race but a warning about the weight of what has been assumed. The human accepted a trust whose gravity could break mountains.

Ibn Kathīr, explaining this verse, notes that the Amanah encompasses all the moral and legal obligations that Allah has placed upon the human being obligations that include the proper use of every faculty, resource, and capacity with which Allah has endowed creation. If the human hand is a trust, so is the human mind; and if the human mind is a trust, so are the tools that the human mind constructs. From this reasoning, one may conclude that Artificial Intelligence as the product of human intellect and a powerful extension of human agency falls squarely within the domain of Amanah. Its development, deployment, and governance are not morally neutral activities; they are exercises of a trust for which the human being will be accountable [[4]].

The concept of Khilafah vicegerency or stewardship reinforces this understanding.

When Allah declared His intention to place a Khalifah on earth [[5]].

He was not merely announcing the creation of a new species; He was designating the human being as a steward of creation, responsible for maintaining its order, justice, and integrity. Al-Ṭabarī explains that the Khalifah is one who acts in place of another in this case, one who manages the earth in accordance with divine will. Stewardship, unlike ownership, implies accountability. The steward does not own what he manages; he will be called to account for what he has done with it. This principle, applied to AI, implies that Muslim technologists and policymakers are not free agents in their deployment of intelligent systems; they are stewards who will answer for the justice or injustice of the systems they build and unleash upon human communities [[6]].

Adl Justice as the Governing Principle of AI Ethics

If Amanah and Khilafah define the nature of the human's relationship to AI, it is ʿAdl justice that defines the standard by which AI systems must be evaluated. The Qur’an is unwavering in its insistence on justice. Allah says:

'Indeed, Allah commands justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression' [^[7]].

In another verse, the command to justice is extended even to enemies:

'And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness' [[8]].

Justice, in the Qur’anic frame, is not merely procedural fairness; it is a comprehensive moral obligation that admits no exception on grounds of convenience, expedience, or power.

The application of this principle to AI is direct and urgent. One of the most well-documented failures of AI systems in the modern era is algorithmic bias the tendency of machine-learning models to reproduce, and sometimes amplify, the prejudices embedded in their training data. Studies have demonstrated that facial recognition systems perform with significantly less accuracy on darker-skinned faces; that predictive policing algorithms disproportionately target minority communities; and that AI-driven hiring tools have systematically disadvantaged women. From a Qur’anic standpoint, each of these failures is not merely a technical error but a moral violation a breach of the obligation of ʿAdl.

Al-Māwardī, the classical jurist and political theorist, wrote extensively on the conditions of legitimate governance, and prominent among them was the requirement that decisions affecting people must be grounded in equity and free from the distortion of bias or self-interest. He argued that the one entrusted with authority whether a caliph, a judge, or an administrator must ensure that his instruments of governance do not produce outcomes that contradict the demands of justice. Applied to AI, this classical standard would require that any algorithmic system used in governance, law enforcement, finance, or social services be rigorously audited for bias, transparently designed, and subject to correction when found wanting. The obligation of ʿAdl demands no less [[9]].

Contemporary scholars have begun to engage these questions with increasing seriousness. Tariq Ramadan has argued that Muslim communities must develop what he calls an 'ethics of participation' in the digital age an active engagement with technology that is grounded in Islamic values rather than a passive reception of systems designed without reference to those values. Similarly, Recep Şentürk has called for an Islamic humanist framework for technology governance that places the dignity and rights of the human person at the centre of all technological decision-making. These contemporary voices echo the classical tradition's insistence that justice is not an optional ideal but a mandatory condition of legitimate human activity [[10]].

Shūrā Participatory Governance and the Democratic Legitimacy of AI

Among the Qur’an's most politically significant principles is Shūrā mutual consultation. Allah says:

'And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is determined by consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend' [[11]].

This verse, which appears in a list of the defining characteristics of the believing community, places collective deliberation at the heart of communal governance. Decisions that affect the community must not be taken unilaterally; they must emerge from a process of genuine consultation that includes those who will be affected.

The governance of AI presents precisely this challenge. Decisions about which AI systems are deployed in public life, how they are designed, what data they use, and whom they serve are currently made by a small number of technology corporations, mostly based in wealthy Western nations, with minimal participation from the broader human communities that will bear the consequences. From a Qur’anic perspective, this concentration of decision-making power is ethically problematic. Shūrā requires that those affected by decisions have a meaningful voice in making them. In the context of AI governance, this translates into demands for democratic oversight, public consultation, community representation in AI ethics committees, and the inclusion of diverse cultural and religious perspectives in the design of intelligent systems.

Ibn ʿĀshūr, the great Tunisian scholar of the twentieth century, argued that Shūrā is not merely an advisory mechanism but a structural requirement of Islamic governance one that reflects the Qur’an's conviction that no individual or group is infallible, and that the best decisions emerge from the broadest possible deliberation. He drew a distinction between Shūrā as mere consultation and Shūrā as binding collective decision-making, favouring the latter interpretation in matters of public significance. Applied to AI governance, this would imply that decisions about the deployment of AI in sensitive domains criminal justice, healthcare, education, warfare should not be left to technical experts or corporate boards alone, but should be subject to broad democratic deliberation that includes religious scholars, ethicists, community representatives, and ordinary citizens [[12]].

Maṣlaḥah Public Interest and the Ethical Evaluation of AI Technologies

The principle of Maṣlaḥah public interest or welfare occupies a central place in Islamic legal and ethical reasoning. Al-Ghazālī defined Maṣlaḥah as the preservation of those essentials without which human life cannot flourish: religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property. He argued that any action or policy must be evaluated in terms of its contribution to or detraction from these five fundamentals. Al-Shāṭibī later developed this framework into a comprehensive theory of the objectives of Islamic law, arguing that all legal rulings can be understood as instruments for realising these fundamental human interests [[13]].

Applied to AI, the Maṣlaḥah framework provides a powerful tool for ethical evaluation. An AI system that accelerates medical diagnosis and makes healthcare accessible to populations previously denied it advances the preservation of life a clear Maṣlaḥah. An AI system that enables mass surveillance of citizens, suppresses political dissent, or facilitates the manipulation of public opinion threatens the preservation of intellect and religion a clear Mafsadah, or harm. The Maṣlaḥah framework does not require that AI be accepted or rejected wholesale; it requires that each application be evaluated carefully in terms of its actual effects on human welfare, with particular attention to its impact on the most vulnerable.

Contemporary scholars of Islamic bioethics and technology ethics have begun to apply this framework with increasing sophistication. Abdulaziz Sachedina has argued that Islamic bioethics, grounded in the objectives of the Sharīʿah, provides a coherent framework for evaluating biotechnologies that is both rigorous and flexible capable of engaging with new developments without abandoning its moral foundations [[14]]. The same approach, he suggests, can be extended to AI. Jasser Auda has further developed the Maqāṣid framework in ways that make it more responsive to complex modern realities, arguing that the objectives of the law must be understood not only at the level of individual rules but at the level of systemic social outcomes. His work suggests that an Islamic evaluation of AI must ask not only whether specific applications are permissible but whether the overall development trajectory of AI serves or undermines the fundamental conditions of human flourishing [[15]].

Privacy, Surveillance, and the Qur’anic Protection of Human Dignity

One of the most pressing challenges posed by AI to human society is the explosion of surveillance capacity. AI-powered facial recognition, social media monitoring, predictive behaviour analysis, and location tracking have given governments and corporations an unprecedented ability to observe, record, and analyse human activity at scale. The implications for privacy, autonomy, and freedom are profound. From a Qur’anic perspective, these developments raise fundamental questions about the inviolability of the private sphere.

The Qur’an explicitly prohibits spying and the exposure of others' private affairs. Allah says:

'O you who have believed, avoid much negative assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other' [[16]].

The Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) reinforced this in numerous traditions, warning against seeking out the faults of others and violating the sanctity of private life. Classical jurists drew from these texts a principle of ḥurmat al-khāṣṣah the sanctity of the private domain which placed strict limits on the permissible scope of state inquiry into the lives of citizens.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah wrote at length on the conditions under which intrusion into private life could be justified, concluding that the bar was exceptionally high and that speculative or precautionary surveillance monitoring people on the basis of suspicion rather than evidence was categorically prohibited. His reasoning anticipates by six centuries the modern debate about mass surveillance and the presumption of innocence. The AI-powered surveillance systems currently deployed by many states which monitor entire populations on the basis that some individuals within them may pose a threat violate precisely the principle that Ibn al-Qayyim articulated: that surveillance must be specific, evidence-based, and proportionate to a demonstrable need [[17]].

The implications for AI governance are clear. Muslim scholars and jurists must engage actively with debates about surveillance law and regulation, bringing the tradition's strong protections for private life to bear on the design of legal frameworks governing AI surveillance tools. The Qur’anic principle of dignity demands that every human being be treated as a moral agent deserving of respect, not as a data point to be harvested and analysed without consent.

Autonomous Weapons Systems and the Qur’anic Ethics of War

Perhaps no application of AI carries more immediate moral gravity than its use in military systems. The development of autonomous weapons machines capable of identifying and killing human targets without direct human involvement in the lethal decision represents one of the most profound ethical challenges of the current era. The Qur’an's framework for the ethics of war is sophisticated and demanding; it must now be brought to bear on a context that its original recipients could not have imagined.

Islamic ethics of war developed by jurists from al-Shaybānī through Ibn Rushd are built upon a series of strict conditions: war must be declared by legitimate authority, for a just cause, as a last resort, and must be conducted with strict discrimination between combatants and non-combatants [[18]]. Non-combatants women, children, the elderly, clergy, and farmers must not be targeted. Destruction of crops, livestock, and civilian infrastructure is prohibited. Prisoners must be treated with dignity. These conditions are not merely ideal aspirations; they are binding legal requirements [[19]].

Autonomous weapons systems are, by their very nature, incapable of satisfying these conditions with the reliability that Islamic law demands. A machine that identifies targets on the basis of pattern recognition cannot make the contextual moral judgements required to distinguish a combatant from a civilian in a complex battlefield environment. It cannot respond to pleas for mercy; it cannot assess intent; it cannot exercise the human responsibility that the Qur’anic ethics of war requires. The obligation of accountability that a human being must bear responsibility for each act of killing in war is dissolved when the lethal decision is delegated to a machine. From a Qur’anic standpoint, autonomous lethal systems are not merely technically problematic; they are morally inadmissible.

Digital Inequality and the Qur’anic Imperative of Social Justice

The benefits of AI are not distributed equally across the world's population. The technology is concentrated in wealthy nations and corporations; its profits flow predominantly to already prosperous societies; and its governance reflects the priorities and values of those with the power to shape it. The majority of the world's Muslim population concentrated in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East is largely excluded from both the benefits of AI and the governance processes that determine how it develops. This is not a technical observation but a moral one.

The Qur’an is explicit in its condemnation of the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of the few. Allah says:

'So that wealth is not circulated only among the rich from among you' [[20]].

This verse, though addressed in the context of distribution of war spoils, has been consistently interpreted by classical commentators as articulating a general principle: that the resources of the community must not be monopolised by an elite but must circulate in ways that benefit all. Ibn ʿĀshūr saw in this verse the foundation of an Islamic social economics committed to broad-based prosperity and the prevention of exploitative concentration. Applied to AI, this principle demands that Muslim-majority nations, scholars, and communities insist on equitable access to AI technologies, fair representation in global AI governance bodies, and the development of AI capabilities that serve the needs of their own populations [[21]].

The concept of Zakāt obligatory wealth redistribution and the Qur’anic concern for the poor, the traveller, and the marginalised all point in the same direction: that economic systems, including digital and technological economies, must be structured to serve the many rather than enrich the few. Muslim economists and policymakers must therefore engage seriously with questions of digital taxation, data sovereignty, technology transfer, and the rights of developing nations in global AI governance frameworks.

Accountability, Transparency, and the Qur’anic Ethic of Responsibility

Central to the Qur’anic moral vision is the principle of ultimate accountability. Every human being will stand before Allah and render an account of every deed, large and small. 'And we place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is the weight of a mustard seed, we will bring it forth. And sufficient are we as accountant' [[22]].

This vision of cosmic accountability shapes the Islamic understanding of human responsibility in every domain of life.

One of the most serious ethical problems with current AI systems is the opacity of their decision-making processes. So-called 'black box' algorithms make consequential decisions about creditworthiness, parole, medical treatment, university admission without being able to provide intelligible explanations for those decisions. This opacity violates the Qur’anic demand for accountability in two ways. First, it prevents those affected by AI decisions from understanding and challenging those decisions a violation of the principle of ʿAdl. Second, it dissolves the chain of human responsibility that the Qur’anic ethic of accountability demands: if no human being can explain why an AI system made a particular decision, it becomes impossible to hold any human being responsible for the harm that decision may cause.

The Islamic juristic tradition developed sophisticated doctrines of liability and accountability to address precisely the question of how responsibility should be assigned when harm results from complex chains of causation. Al-Qarāfī's distinction between direct and indirect causation, and his rules for assigning liability in complex cases, provide a framework that contemporary Muslim legal scholars could fruitfully apply to the question of AI liability. The obligation of accountability demands not only that AI systems be interpretable and explainable, but that clear chains of human responsibility be established for their consequences [[23]].

Towards an Islamic Framework for AI Governance

The foregoing analysis suggests that the Qur’an and the Islamic intellectual tradition provide substantial resources for addressing the ethical challenges of AI. These resources are not merely analogical — superficial resemblances between old texts and new problems — but structural. The Qur’anic principles of Amanah, Khilafah, ʿAdl, Shūrā, Maṣlaḥah, Ḥifẓ al-ʿAql, and accountability are not peripheral to AI governance; they speak directly to its central questions. The challenge is to mobilise them with the rigour and creativity that the moment demands.

An Islamic framework for AI governance would begin with the affirmation that all technological development is subject to the demands of divine trust and human stewardship. It would insist on justice as a non-negotiable standard for AI design and deployment, requiring that all AI systems be audited for bias, that their outcomes be equitable, and that their harms be attributed to identifiable human agents. It would require participatory governance structures that give affected communities a genuine voice in AI decisions. It would apply the Maṣlaḥah framework rigorously to evaluate AI applications, supporting those that advance human welfare and opposing those that cause harm. It would protect privacy and human dignity against surveillance overreach. And it would demand accountability and transparency from all who design and deploy intelligent systems.

Such a framework would not be merely Islamic in a sectarian sense. Many of its demands — for justice, accountability, participation, and the protection of human dignity — are shared by other ethical traditions and find expression in secular frameworks for AI ethics as well. But the Islamic framework has distinctive features that enrich the global conversation: its grounding in revealed principle rather than utilitarian calculation; its insistence on cosmic accountability; its tradition of juristic reasoning that is simultaneously rigorous and flexible; and its centuries-old concern for the welfare of the marginalised and the protection of essential human interests. These are contributions that the world needs, and that Muslim scholars are uniquely positioned to make. (M. Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, 2003, p. 351)

FINDINGS

1. The Qur’anic principle of Amanah establishes AI development as a moral trust for which human beings are accountable before Allah.
2. The concept of Khilafah frames the human role in AI governance as stewardship, not ownership, requiring care, responsibility, and answerability.
3. Algorithmic bias is a violation of ʿAdl and therefore a moral, not merely technical, failure requiring urgent rectification.
4. Shūrā demands participatory governance structures that include affected communities in AI decision-making.
5. The Maṣlaḥah framework provides a rigorous and flexible tool for evaluating AI applications in terms of their actual contribution to or detraction from human welfare.
6. Mass AI-powered surveillance violates the Qur’anic protection of privacy and the juristic principle of ḥurmat al-khāṣṣah.
7. Autonomous lethal weapons systems are morally inadmissible under Islamic ethics of war due to their incapacity for moral discrimination and accountability.
8. Digital inequality reproduces patterns of injustice condemned in the Qur’an and must be actively addressed by Muslim-majority states and institutions.
9. The opacity of AI 'black box' systems violates the Qur’anic demand for accountability and the juristic requirement of traceable human responsibility.
10. The Islamic intellectual tradition, from classical jurisprudence to contemporary Maqāṣid scholarship, provides substantial resources for a coherent and rigorous AI governance framework.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Muslim scholars, jurists, and technologists should convene to develop a formal Islamic Charter on AI Ethics grounded in Qur’anic principles and classical jurisprudence.
2. Islamic educational institutions should integrate AI ethics — grounded in Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah — into their curricula at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
3. Muslim-majority governments should establish AI audit mechanisms that evaluate algorithmic systems for compliance with principles of justice, equity, and non-discrimination.
4. Surveillance legislation in Muslim-majority states must be brought into conformity with the Qur’anic protection of privacy, establishing clear legal limits on AI-based monitoring of citizens.
5. Muslim states and institutions should demand equitable representation in global AI governance bodies, including those of the United Nations and international standards organisations.
6. Islamic finance institutions should develop ethical investment criteria that exclude AI companies whose systems cause demonstrable harm to vulnerable populations.
7. Muslim-majority states should campaign collectively for an international treaty banning autonomous lethal weapons systems, grounding their advocacy in both Islamic and universal humanitarian principles.
8. Technology companies operating in Muslim-majority markets should be required to conduct culturally sensitive AI ethics assessments, including consultation with Islamic scholars.
9. Academic research on the intersection of Islamic ethics and AI should be systematically funded by Muslim philanthropic institutions, universities, and governments.
10. Individual Muslims in technology professions should be guided by religious scholars to understand their personal moral obligations in the design, deployment, and governance of AI systems.

CONCLUSION

The encounter between Qur’anic ethics and Artificial Intelligence is not an encounter between the sacred and the secular, or between the ancient and the modern, or between the religious and the technological. It is an encounter between enduring moral principle and unprecedented practical challenge — a challenge that demands the full resources of the Islamic intellectual tradition. That tradition, at its best, was never content to recite old answers to new questions. It engaged its world with rigour, creativity, and fidelity to revealed principle, generating solutions to problems that its founders had never anticipated. That same spirit is required today.

The Qur’an did not foretell the microprocessor or the neural network. But it did lay down principles — of trust, justice, consultation, welfare, privacy, accountability, and stewardship — that speak to every domain of human activity, including the activity of building intelligent machines. These principles are not obstacles to technological progress; they are the moral compass by which progress may be directed towards the flourishing of all human beings, and the preservation of the earth that Allah has entrusted to our care.

As AI continues its rapid advance, the world needs voices that insist upon justice, dignity, accountability, and the common good. The Islamic tradition has long been such a voice. This paper has sought to demonstrate that it remains so — that the light of revelation, reflected through centuries of rigorous scholarship, can illuminate even the circuits and algorithms of the twenty-first century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Classical Sources

• Al-Ghazālī, M. (1982). Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn (Vol. 1, N. Faris, Trans.). Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah.
• Al-Ghazālī, M. (1993). Al-mustaṣfā min ʿilm al-uṣūl (Vol. 1). Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
• Al-Jawziyyah, I. Q. (2007). Al-ṭuruq al-ḥukmiyyah fī al-siyāsah al-sharʿiyyah. Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
• Al-Māwardī, A. (1983). Al-aḥkām al-sulṭāniyyah. Dar al-Fikr.
• Al-Qarāfī, A. (1998). Al-furūq (Vol. 1). Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
• Al-Shāṭibī, I. (1975). Al-muwāfaqāt fī uṣūl al-sharīʿah (Vol. 2). Dar al-Maʿrifah.
• Al-Shaybānī, M. (1997). Al-siyar al-kabīr (Vol. 1). Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
• Al-Ṭabarī, M. (2001). Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qur’an (Vol. 1). Dar al-Fikr.
• Ibn ʿĀshūr, M. T. (1984). Al-taḥrīr wa al-tanwīr (Vol. 28). Dar Saḥnūn.
• Ibn ʿĀshūr, M. T. (2006). Maqāṣid al-sharīʿah al-islāmiyyah (M. El-Mesawi, Trans.). Islamic Book Trust.
• Ibn Kathīr, I. (1997). Tafsīr al-Qur’an al-ʿaẓīm (Vol. 3). Dar al-Fikr.
• Ibn Rushd. (1982). Bidāyat al-mujtahid wa nihāyat al-muqtaṣid (Vol. 1). Dar al-Maʿrifah.

Contemporary Sources

• Auda, J. (2008). Maqasid Al-Shariah as philosophy of Islamic law: A systems approach. IIIT.
• Kamali, M. H. (2003). Principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Islamic Texts Society.
• Ramadan, T. (2012). Islam and the Arab awakening. Oxford University Press.
• Sachedina, A. (2009). Islamic biomedical ethics: Principles and application. Oxford University Press.
• Şentürk, R. (2007). Islam and human rights. ISAM.

[1] M. al-Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, vol. 1, trans. N. Faris, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1982, p. 57

[2] Qur’an, 17:70

[3] Qur’an, 33:72

[4] I. Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’an al-ʿAẓīm, vol. 3, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1997, p. 504

[5] Qur’an, 2:30

[6] M. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qur’an, vol. 1, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 2001, p. 199

[7] Qur’an, 16:90

[8] Qur’an, 5:8

[9] A. al-Māwardī, Al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1983, p. 15

[10] T. Ramadan, Islam and the Arab Awakening, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, p. 143; R. Şentürk, Islam and Human Rights, ISAM, Istanbul, 2007, p. 89

[11] Qur’an, 42:38

[12] M.T. Ibn ʿĀshūr, Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah al-Islāmiyyah, trans. M. El-Mesawi, Islamic Book Trust, Kuala Lumpur, 2006, p. 179

[13] I. al-Shāṭibī, Al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uṣūl al-Sharīʿah, vol. 2, Dar al-Maʿrifah, Beirut, 1975, p. 8, see also M. al-Ghazālī, Al-Mustaṣfā min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl, vol. 1, Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1993, p. 174.

[14] A. Sachedina, Islamic Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, p. 32

[15] J. Auda, Maqasid Al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law, IIIT, London, 2008, p. 201

[16] Qur’an, 49:12

[17] I. al-Jawziyyah, Al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah fī al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah, Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 2007, p. 8

[18] M. al-Shaybānī, Al-Siyar al-Kabīr, vol. 1, Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1997, p. 64

[19] I. Rushd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, vol. 1, Dar al-Maʿrifah, Beirut, 1982, p. 369

[20] Qur’an, 59:7

[21] M.T. Ibn ʿĀshūr, Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr, vol. 28, Dar Saḥnūn, Tunis, 1984, p. 98

[22] Qur’an, 21:47

[23] A. al-Qarāfī, Al-Furūq, vol. 1, Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1998, p. 207