Feasibility of Attributing Crimes Caused by Artificial Intelligence to Human Agents from the Perspective of Imāmīyya Jurisprudence
Keywords:
Criminal Responsibility, Artificial Intelligence, Imāmīyya Jurisprudence, Human Agent, Causation, Initiative RuleAbstract
Artificial intelligence, as one of the leading technologies of the contemporary era, has created unprecedented challenges for legal and jurisprudential systems. Among the most significant of these challenges is the question of attributing criminal responsibility for acts committed by intelligent systems. Given that in Imāmīyya jurisprudence the default principle is the non‑responsibility of non‑humans, this research employs an analytical‑descriptive method to examine the feasibility of attributing crimes caused by artificial intelligence to human agents. The findings indicate that, based on Imāmīyya jurisprudential foundations such as the rule of lā yaḍman illā mā ʻamila (no liability except for one's own action), the rule of iqdām (initiative), and the rule of tasbīb (causation), criminal responsibility can be attributed to human agents at three levels: first, programmer liability for defective system design; second, user liability for improper exploitation; and third, supervisor and owner liability for failure to exercise necessary oversight. Additionally, secondary rulings such as lā ḍarar (no harm) and nafy al‑ʻusr wa al‑ḥaraj (negation of hardship) can be effective in limiting or expanding the scope of responsibility. Conversely, in cases where the intelligent system possesses complete autonomy and no human intervention exists in the commission of the crime, attributing responsibility to humans faces difficulties, necessitating reconsideration of jurisprudential foundations or the utilisation of new institutions such as strict liability or compensation funds.
References
1. Ḥusaynī, S.M.M. (2024). "The Rule of Tasbīb and Its Application to Emerging Technologies." Journal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence, 25(1), 89–112.
2. Riḍwānī, A. (2025). "From Direct Commission to Causation: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Indirect Criminal Liability." Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, 56(2), 141–168.
3. Ṣādiqī, M., & Riḍāʼī, A. (2023). "Civil Liability Arising from AI Performance in Iranian and EU Law." Comparative Law Studies Quarterly, 14(2), 45–72.
4. Morādī, R., & Karīmī, F. (2023). "Computer Crimes and the Challenges of Attributing Criminal Liability in the Light of Artificial Intelligence." Legal Research Journal, 87(3), 215–240.
5. Anṣārī, M. (2020). Farāʼid al‑Uṣūl (al‑Rasāʼil) (4th ed.). Qom: Majmaʻ al‑Fikr al‑Islāmī.
6. Ḥurr ʻĀmilī, M.B. (2021). Wasāʼil al‑Shīʻah ilā Taḥṣīl Masāʼil al‑Sharīʻah (2nd ed.). Qom: Muʼassasah Āl al‑Bayt.
7. Ṭabāṭabāʼī Yazdī, S.M.K. (2019). al‑ʻUrwah al‑Wuthqā (3rd ed.). Qom: Muʼassasat al‑Nashr al‑Islāmī.
8. Shahīd al‑Thānī, Z.D.M. (2020). al‑Rawḍah al‑Bahīyah fī Sharḥ al‑Lumʻah al‑Dimashqīyah (8th ed.). Qom: Dāwarī Bookshop.
9. Mūsavī Khomeinī, S.R. (2022). Taḥrīr al‑Wasīlah (5th ed., 3 vols.). Tehran: Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works.
10. Najafī, M.H. (2021). Jawāhir al‑Kalām fī Sharḥ Sharāʼiʻ al‑Islām (2nd ed., 43 vols.). Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʼ al‑Turāth al‑ʻArabī.
11. Basti, G., & Vitiello, A. (2023). Deontic higher‑order logic for ethical AI: A formal framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 33(4), 789–812.
12. Dodig‑Crnkovic, G., Basti, G., & Holstein, T. (2024). Delegating responsibilities to intelligent autonomous systems: Challenges and benefits. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2411.15147.
13. European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol). (2025). EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2025. Publications Office of the European Union.
14. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2022). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
15. International Islamic Fiqh Academy. (2025). Resolution No. 258 (3/26): Artificial intelligence: Its rulings, guidelines, and ethics. Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
16. Maoro, F., & Geierhos, M. (2025). Contestable AI for criminal intelligence analysis: Improving decision‑making through semantic modeling and human oversight. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1602998.
17. Meghdadi, Z., & Pourcheriki, M. (2025). Comparative study of criminal responsibility of AI in the legal framework of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Journal of Innovations in Computer Science and Engineering, 2(Special Issue), 87–93.
18. Moafa, F.A., & Almarri, H.S. (2025). The scope of criminal liability for crimes digitally committed by AI‑powered transportation: A study in light of Saudi laws. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self‑Government. Advance online publication.
19. Smith, A. (2025). AI‑enhanced criminal investigations and Ḥudūd offenses: A Sharīʿah compliance framework. Journal of Islamic Law and Technology, 12(2), 89–114.
20. Zanca, F., Cippitelli, C., & Scendoni, R. (2026). A review of crime at machine speed: Criminological aspects of artificial intelligence's industrialisation of deception. Forensic Sciences, 8(3), 54.
