With the rapid advancement of modern technologies-particularly artificial intelligence-new questions have emerged across various domains, including legal and jurisprudential systems. One of the most significant and novel of these is the question of whether artificial intelligence can legitimately serve as a judge, especially in the context of Iran's legal system, which is rooted in Shi’a jurisprudence (Fiqh al-Imamiyyah). This research, using a descriptive-analytical method and based on library sources, seeks to examine the permissibility and feasibility of AI-based judicial decision-making from the standpoint of Shi’a jurisprudence. To this end, the study first explores the concept of adjudication and the essential conditions for judicial authority, such as justice, intellect, maturity, faith, ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and the capacity to issue binding rulings. The analysis then turns to the role of human will in the process of judgment and the jurisprudential challenges posed by a non-human judge. According to the prevailing view in Shi’a jurisprudence, judicial authority is divinely ordained and must be held by qualified jurists with religious legitimacy. Nevertheless, alternative perspectives are also considered, particularly those that treat certain conditions as instrumental rather than essential, allowing for AI to assist in pre-judgment procedures.

Findings indicate that full judicial decision-making by AI lacks legitimacy in Shi’a jurisprudence, except as a supportive tool under the supervision of a human judge. Due to its interdisciplinary approach to an emerging issue, this research contributes novel insights to comparative jurisprudence, legal technology, and future-oriented Islamic legal studies.