The application of religious law in North American courts: a case study of_<i>mutʿa</i>marriages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tradition of marriage has long been a fundamental aspect of religious societies. As with most religious traditions, Islam has texts, found in the Qurʾan and Sunna, that govern this contractual relationship in some detail. Various schools of thought within the Shiʿi tradition differ from Sunni traditions with regard to the contractual relationship of mutʿa, or temporary, marriages. There is much controversy over the use of mutʿa marriage contracts in North America, and scholars, both Sunni and Shiʿi, are unable to agree on the legality and terms of this unique relationship. Within the last few years, Western courts have grappled with the complex interpretation of Islamic law in the context of these mutʿa marriages. This comparative study examines the legal requirements for marriage in Islam as well as the legal requirements for mutʿa within Shiʿi traditions. The article compares the two concepts based on their religious mandates, discussing advantages and disadvantages of both permanent and temporary marriages and analyses approaches to mutʿa taken by courts in the United States and Canada, as well as exploring the differences between permanent and temporary marriages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".