Mesfer Alhayyani

This paper argues that al-Ghazali’s (1058–1111) distinction between taqlid (uncritical acceptance of authority) and ijtihad (independent reasoning) can offer a normative response to the contemporary challenge of fake news, thereby connecting a medieval epistemic framework to a pressing twenty-first-century problem. This study treats fake news as both an epistemic and an ethical challenge. Epistemically, fake news undermines the aim of belief, which is the aspiration toward truth, by introducing and sustaining falsehoods within the testimonial networks on which individuals depend for knowledge. Ethically, it constitutes a form of deception that manipulates audiences, corrodes intellectual virtues such as honesty, and disintegrates the trust between individuals and public institutions that is essential for collective life. Methodologically, this paper adopts an analytical–critical approach. It examines recent philosophical literature on the epistemology of misinformation, reconstructs al-Ghazali’s taqlid–ijtihad framework from his original texts, and then adapts it to the conditions of digital information environments. The resulting model distinguishes between digital ijtihad, the responsible and competent verification of online information, and justified digital taqlid, the legitimate reliance on credible digital authorities when independent verification is impractical. The findings suggest that this adapted framework not only enriches contemporary epistemic theory but also offers practical normative guidance for cultivating responsible belief formation, including in educational contexts where teaching itself functions as a structured form of testimonial exchange.

This paper focuses on the role played by doubt in shaping faith as a mental state in humans. In contemporary discussions on faith, doubt refutes a theory or supports another. However, the crucial question remains: is doubt an essential element inherent in faith? This paper argues that doubt is a fundamental and necessary component of faith, especially when considering faith as a virtue. The first part of this paper sets the framework for this study by addressing some crucial relevant questions, such as what the necessary aspects of faith are. Is faith a virtue? The second part argues that, given the account of faith developed in the first part of the study, doubt is a necessary element and component of faith for it to be considered a virtue. This study’s methodology is founded on critically examining primary and secondary sources relevant to faith as a virtue and engaging in conceptual and argumentative analyses.

This paper argues that Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, the allegorical fable by Ibn Tufayl, provides a rational defense for monotheistic religions by emphasizing that the human mind can realize the absolute reality of existence through its dependence on itself without the influence of society, scriptures, or prophets. From this position, Ibn Tufayl engaged in a viral debate among Muslim thinkers – and Andalusian thinkers in general – at that time. That is, does revelation provide the only path to grasp the ultimate truth of our existence? Ibn Tufayl, among others, argued that both revelation and the human mind are paths to realizing the ultimate truth. To do that, Ibn Tufayl argued that human reasoning leads to the same core position of monotheistic religions; the claim that only one God created everything. However, despite Ibn Tufayl's defense of monotheism, his concept of the natural progression of the mind toward truth is problematic. His view implies that only a few people have the natural intellectual capacity to grasp the ultimate truth by depending on their minds, which introduces the problem of intellectual elitism. Finally, this paper offers ways to overcome the challenge Ibn Tufayl’s view faces. In its methodology, this paper relies on critical examination of primary and secondary sources relevant to Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy Ibn Yaqazan.

Medieval philosophy has often been stereotypically characterized as rigidly reliant on authority and lacking originality. However, the present research challenges this perception by unveiling the lively debates among medieval philosophers in the Islamic World regarding the autonomy of thought for both esteemed scholars and everyday individuals. Rather than passively accepting authoritative doctrines, these philosophers contemplated the extent to which independent reflection should play a role. Surprisingly, their reflections resonate in the contemporary world as we grapple with parallel questions about the balance between authority and individual inquiry in our society. The first part of the paper introduces a timeless challenge faced by medieval Islamic philosophers: the formation of beliefs. This predicament persists today – how much should we rely on authority without critical examination, and when should we subject our beliefs to scrutiny? The paper introduces an Islamic classical tradition followed by Muslim jurists, theologians, and philosophers: the nuanced distinction between Taqlid (following authority) and Ijtihad (independent reasoning) to address this. The perspective of Al-Ghazali, a prominent representative of this tradition, is thoroughly examined, highlighting its contributions and challenges. In its methodological approach, this paper rigorously analyzes primary and secondary sources relevant to Al-Ghazali’s views in Arabic and English. This comprehensive analysis aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between authority and independent reasoning in the context of medieval Islamic philosophy.