Source Authorization and the Limits of Delegating Qur’anic Interpretive Authority in AI Mediation
Abstract
This article sets out to define the conceptual boundary between authorized source mediation and the delegation of interpretive authority. It employs an integrative conceptual synthesis, drawing purposively on scholarship in Qur’anic exegesis, digital religion, human–machine communication, automation, and AI accountability. The analysis compares units of claim, distinguishes levels of evidence, and tests the resulting classification against hypothetical comparative cases offered strictly as illustrations. Three distinctions follow: the legitimacy of a source is not the same as the legitimacy of an answer; computational discretion is not the same as an interpretive mandate; and influence over users is not the same as institutional delegation. Delegation is framed as a relationship that requires an identifiable mandating party, room for interpretive decision-making, and recognition of the output’s standing on behalf of that party. Control and correction are treated as accountability dimensions to be assessed on their own terms. The article proposes a claim-type evaluation that separates verse retrieval, reproduction of exegesis, synthesis of views, and normative application. Its contribution is an evidentiary framework that keeps technical capability, user trust, and religious legitimacy from being conflated. The framework is the product of conceptual analysis; applying it to a particular institution or application will require operational and reception evidence not tested here.
Keywords
Qur’anic interpretationartificial intelligencereligious authoritytafsirReferences
Ananny, Mike, and Kate Crawford. “Seeing Without Knowing: Limitations of the Transparency Ideal and Its Application to Algorithmic Accountability.” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645.
Bender, Emily M., Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922.
Bowen, Glenn A. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9, no. 2 (2009): 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Burrell, Jenna. “How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms.” Big Data & Society 3, no. 1 (2016): 2053951715622512. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512.
Campbell, Heidi. “Who’s Got the Power? Religious Authority and the Internet.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no. 3 (2007): 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00362.x.
Campbell, Heidi A., and Giulia Evolvi. “Contextualizing Current Digital Religion Research on Emerging Technologies.” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2, no. 1 (2020): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.149.
Cheong, Pauline Hope. “The Vitality of New Media and Religion: Communicative Perspectives, Practices, and Changing Authority in Spiritual Organization.” New Media & Society 19, no. 1 (2017): 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816649913.
Diakopoulos, Nicholas. “Algorithmic Accountability: Journalistic Investigation of Computational Power Structures.” Digital Journalism 3, no. 3 (2015): 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411.
Elish, Madeleine Clare. “Moral Crumple Zones: Cautionary Tales in Human-Robot Interaction.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 5 (2019): 40–60. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2019.260.
Eltanbouly, Sohaila, Salam Albatarni, Shaimaa Hassanein, and Tamer Elsayed. “Can LLMs Directly Retrieve Passages for Answering Questions from Qur’an?” In Proceedings of the Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference, 203–210. Suzhou, China: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.arabicnlp-main.16.
Faraj, Samer, Stella Pachidi, and Karla Sayegh. “Working and Organizing in the Age of the Learning Algorithm.” Information and Organization 28, no. 1 (2018): 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005.
Floridi, Luciano, and Massimo Chiriatti. “GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences.” Minds and Machines 30, no. 4 (2020): 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1.
Floridi, Luciano, Josh Cowls, Monica Beltrametti, Raja Chatila, Patrice Chazerand, Virginia Dignum, Christoph Luetge, et al. “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations.” Minds and Machines 28, no. 4 (2018): 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
Gebru, Timnit, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé III, and Kate Crawford. “Datasheets for Datasets.” Communications of the ACM 64, no. 12 (2021): 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723.
Guzman, Andrea L., and Seth C. Lewis. “Artificial Intelligence and Communication: A Human–Machine Communication Research Agenda.” New Media & Society 22, no. 1 (2020): 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691.
Hagendorff, Thilo. “The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines.” Minds and Machines 30, no. 1 (2020): 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8.
Hjarvard, Stig. “The Mediatization of Religion: A Theory of the Media as Agents of Religious Change.” Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook 6, no. 1 (2008): 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1386/nl.6.1.9/1.
Jaakkola, Elina. “Designing Conceptual Articles: Four Approaches.” AMS Review 10, nos. 1–2 (2020): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0.
Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein. “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work: Human-AI Symbiosis in Organizational Decision Making.” Business Horizons 61, no. 4 (2018): 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007.
Ji, Ziwei, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. “Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation.” ACM Computing Surveys 55, no. 12 (2023): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730.
Jobin, Anna, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. “The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines.” Nature Machine Intelligence 1, no. 9 (2019): 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
Kellogg, Katherine C., Melissa A. Valentine, and Angèle Christin. “Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control.” Academy of Management Annals 14, no. 1 (2020): 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174.
Kitchin, Rob. “Thinking Critically about and Researching Algorithms.” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 1 (2017): 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154087.
Krügel, Sebastian, Andreas Ostermaier, and Matthias Uhl. “ChatGPT’s Inconsistent Moral Advice Influences Users’ Judgment.” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (2023): 4569. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31341-0.
Lee, J. D., and K. A. See. “Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance.” Human Factors 46, no. 1 (2004): 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.
Matthias, Andreas. “The Responsibility Gap: Ascribing Responsibility for the Actions of Learning Automata.” Ethics and Information Technology 6, no. 3 (2004): 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.
Mitchell, Margaret, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. “Model Cards for Model Reporting.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596.
Mittelstadt, Brent. “Principles Alone Cannot Guarantee Ethical AI.” Nature Machine Intelligence 1, no. 11 (2019): 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4.
Nyholm, Sven. “Attributing Agency to Automated Systems: Reflections on Human–Robot Collaborations and Responsibility-Loci.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24, no. 4 (2018): 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9943-x.
Parasuraman, Raja, and Victor Riley. “Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse.” Human Factors 39, no. 2 (1997): 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886.
Pink, Johanna. “Tradition, Authority and Innovation in Contemporary Sunnī Tafsīr: Towards a Typology of Qur'an Commentaries from the Arab World, Indonesia and Turkey.” Journal of Qur'anic Studies 12, nos. 1–2 (2010): 56–82. https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2010.0105.
Purnomo, Bagus. “LPMQ Susun Roadmap Kajian Al-Qur’an dan Pengembangan Aplikasi Lima Tahun Ke Depan.” Lajnah Pentashihan Mushaf Al-Qur’an, September 19, 2024. https://lajnah.kemenag.go.id/info-lpmq/berita-dan-artikel/berita/lpmq-susun-roadmap-kajian-al-qur-an-dan-pengembangan-aplikasi-lima-tahun-ke-depan.html.
Raisch, Sebastian, and Sebastian Krakowski. “Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox.” Academy of Management Review 46, no. 1 (2021): 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072.
Reed, Randall. “A.I. in Religion, A.I. for Religion, A.I. and Religion: Towards a Theory of Religious Studies and Artificial Intelligence.” Religions 12, no. 6 (2021): 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12060401.
Saleh, Walid A. “Preliminary Remarks on the Historiography of Tafsīr in Arabic: A History of the Book Approach.” Journal of Qur'anic Studies 12, nos. 1–2 (2010): 6–40. https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2010.0103.
Santoni de Sio, Filippo, and Jeroen van den Hoven. “Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018): 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015.
Snyder, Hannah. “Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines.” Journal of Business Research 104 (2019): 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
Copyright & License
© 2026 Aban Al-Hafi, Rahmad Hidayat Ajrul Iman (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.