Khul' in Imāmī Law: Women's Prerogative in Divorce and the Moral Order of the Jurists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \n \n \nKhul‘ in Imāmī Law: Women’s Prerogative in Divorce and the Moral Order of the Jurists. Taymaz Garadjalou \n \nThis thesis explores obligatory khulʿ divorce (al-khulʿ al-wājib) in Imāmī Shīʿīsm. By “obligatory divorce” is meant an offer by a wife of negotiated payment in return for divorce which cannot be refused by the husband; it is more usual that khulʿ divorce cannot go forward without the husband’s consent. The method employed in this work is an overview of the main texts of explanatory law (al-fiqh al-istidlālī) in Imāmīsm. The work first gives a general account of marital dissolution in Islamic law, along with a detailed outline of the basic elements of khulʿ. Possible parallels with Jewish notions of divorce that appear to be similar to khulʿ and in particular its obligatory form are also noted. The work then outlines the opinions of the minority of Imāmī jurists, both classical and modern, who allowed women to receive khulʿ divorces without the consent of their husbands. Finally, the significance of this data is discussed in light of the patriarchal moral order of the jurists who compose and control the law. I argue that the controversial nature of obligatory khulʿ is not (primarily) due to ambiguities in the Imāmī legal texts, but is rather the result of negotiations between male jurists on 1) how to maintain male authority and power over matters of family law and 2) how to deal with a wife’s extreme discontent and even adultery as possible results of the non-availability of divorce and potential threats to male authority and control over women’s sexuality. The work concludes by providing an account of obligatory khulʿ by a prominent modern clerical reformist, Ayatullah Yūsuf Ṣāniʿī of Iran. Although his legal opinion and method may seem novel, this work demonstrates that they are, on the contrary, in line with classical Imāmī legal thought.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".