Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, I examine the networks and activities of transnational Shāfiʿī scholars in reformulating the madhhab and reviving the legal tradition of the Shāfiʿī school of law for contemporary Muslims. The discussion builds on recent debates in two overlapping fields. The first field argues that new modern communications media and technology have greatly fragmented the authority relationship in Islamic law; the second field centers on the perceived dissolution of the madhhab as a result of the widespread rejection of the authority of classical jurists. I argue that the same new media technology also provides a rationale and an instrument that enable Muslims to reformulate legal doctrines and revive the structure of legal authority as reflected in the school’s tradition. By shifting the operation of the madhhab into cyberspace, these Shāfiʿī scholars have creatively responded to changes in communication technology and have effectively reformulated and refashioned the legal tradition of the madhhab as a practical reference for present-day Muslims. The ongoing presence of the madhhab , in this case, does not necessarily represent a zero sum game in the encounter with the legal reality of the modern nation-states.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".