Huqūq Allāh and Huqūq al-'Ibād: A Legal Heuristic for a Natural Rights Regime
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article shows that early Muslim jurists often created rules that had no foundation in the Qur'ān or Sunna. Their successors adopted these views as authoritative precedent, but not without further justifying them. Their justificatory reasons reflected background values concerning inherent qualities of the individual and the goods society must uphold in order to give substantive content to their legal determinations. Recourse to these values, whether implicit or explicit, illustrates how Muslim jurists incorporated naturalistic reasoning in their juridical analyses. To prove their implicit naturalism, this article focuses on how Sunnī Muslim jurists primarily from the 2nd/8th-10th/16th centuries used the conceptual heuristic of "rights of God" and "rights of individuals" (huqūq Allāh, huqūq al-i'ibād) as an interpretive mechanism to frame their naturalistic assumptions and apply them in legal analysis to create and distribute rights, duties, and public commitments.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it