The Custom ( <i>ʿurf</i> ) Based Assumptions Regarding Gender Roles and Norms in the Islamic Tradition
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
This article critically examines certain custom ( ʿurf) based assumptions and theories regarding gender roles and norms in Sunni Islamic tradition and law. First the article considers how scholarship should conceptualize Islamic tradition. Next, the processes through which the concept of ʿurf has entered into the Islamic tradition and Islamic law in particular are considered. The ʿurf based assumptions regarding the nature of gender roles and norms in (neo)-traditional Muslim thought are based on what I term a “gender oppositionality” thesis. I argue that the gender oppositionality thesis has strongly influenced the manner in which the Qurʾān and Sunna have been interpreted with respect to gender issues and on the basis of which patriarchal traditional Islamic law (and ethics) have been constructed. In particular, I highlight and problematize the conceptual link between women as “ fitna” (sources of chaos), male honor ( ʿird) and sexual jealousy ( ghairāt) in discourses in (neo-)traditional interpretations of the Islamic tradition. Finally, the article articulates how traditional Qurʾān–Sunna hermeneutics failed to recognize the importance of “comprehensive contextualization” of the Qurʾān–Sunna on the basis of which we can question the validity of gender-oppositionality based interpretations of the Qurʾān and Sunna present in (neo-)traditional discourses that were incorporated into Islamic law through the concept of custom.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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