عالمية الدعوة القرآنية للسلام وسبل تقريبها: قراءة في التفسير المنهاجي للإمام عبد السلام ياسين

The problem statement of this research is about Imam Yassine’s thought in his reading of Islamic past and present and Western intellectual trends, and about his long experience in the field of Da’wah, as Imam Yassine urged Muslims to be capable of handling the mission of the holy Quran. It becomes more complicated with Al-Tafsir al-Minhaji as an approach to interpret the holy Quran and ease it for Muslim youth understanding in Imam Yassine’s books about thought, education, Da’wah, mysticism and civilization. This research aims to explain how Al-Tafsir al-Minhaji concerns about the method of practicing Quranic interpretation in Da’wah for Muslim Ummah renaissance. The research also aims to highlight that achieving global peace is one of main Quranic objective that Muslim thinkers are paying a great attention to its role in dialogue between variant sectarianists and theologians. Researchers followed the descriptive and inductive methods to explore Yassine’s views about peace, civilization and argumentation. Some findings of this research: Imam Yassine confirms the necessity of coincidence between the Quranic objectives and political objectives; and calls for dialogue based on Quranic objectives and its component of wisdom and dynamic argumentation, which leads to peace. To understand the fluctuation of history in the light of Quranic exegesis, Imam Yassine scrutinized the Quranic objectives of peaceful coexistence and cultural exchange.

Enforcing Sets of Formulas in Structured Argumentation

Enforcement, adjusting an argumentation framework such that a certain set of arguments becomes acceptable, is an important research topic within the study of dynamic argumentation, but one that has been little studied for structured argumentation. In this paper we study enforcement in a general structured argumentation setting. In particular, we study conditions on the argumentation setting and the knowledge base that ensure (or prevent) the acceptability of sets of formulas for structured argumentation frameworks.

Towards Transparent Human-in-the-Loop Classification of Fraudulent Web Shops

We propose an agent architecture for transparent human-in-the-loop classification. By combining dynamic argumentation with legal case-based reasoning, we create an agent that is able to explain its decisions at various levels of detail and adapts to new situations. It keeps the human analyst in the loop by presenting suggestions for corrections that may change the factors on which the current decision is based and by enabling the analyst to add new factors. We are currently implementing the agent for classification of fraudulent web shops at the Dutch Police.

An Efficient Algorithm for Skeptical Preferred Acceptance in Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks

Though there has been an extensive body of work on efficiently solving computational problems for static Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs), little work has been done for handling dynamic AFs and in particular for deciding the skeptical acceptance of a given argument. In this paper we devise an efficient algorithm for computing the skeptical preferred acceptance in dynamic AFs. More specifically, we investigate how the skeptical acceptance of an argument (goal) evolves when the given AF is updated and propose an efficient algorithm for solving this problem. Our algorithm, called SPA, relies on two main ideas: i) computing a small portion of the input AF, called "context-based" AF, which is sufficient to determine the status of the goal in the updated AF, and ii) incrementally computing the ideal extension to further restrict the context-based AF. We experimentally show that SPA significantly outperforms the computation from scratch, and that the overhead of incrementally maintaining the ideal extension pays off as it speeds up the computation.