Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction It should by now be clear that, between the early years of the nineteenth century and the second decade of the twentieth, the Sharīʿa – which had dominated the legal scene for over a millennium in the central lands of Islam, and for centuries in other regions – was largely reduced in scope of application to the area of personal status, including child custody, inheritance, gifts and, to some extent, waqf . In the Malay States and the Indonesian Archipelago, its sphere was even narrower, partly due to the adat which had long prevailed in some of these domains, and partly due to the metamorphosis of some Sharīʿa laws into English law (as happened in the law of waqf ). The present chapter follows the fortunes (indeed misfortunes) of Islamic law in the subsequent period, roughly from the end of the Second World War until the dawn of the twenty-first century. It goes without saying that it is impossible here to provide an account of every new code and statute promulgated in Muslim countries, much less to offer a meaningful analysis of their details. I shall instead describe and analyze trends, movements and themes that can be identified as having played central roles in twentieth-century legal history, and the way they anticipated or paved the grounds for the emerging Muslim will to (re-)instate what is perceived to be Islamic law.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".