The Beginnings of Islamic Law: Late Antique Islamicate Legal Traditions. By Lena Salaymeh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep and stark divisions haunt the scholarship that seeks to understand the history of the first two centuries of Islamic law. On the one hand are those who uncritically accept the dominant narrative of the first centuries of Islamic law that Sunnī jurists later espoused as part of their larger project of creating a stable Sunnī theo-political orthodoxy in Muslim lands. At the other extreme are those scholars who, recognizing the ideological basis that informed the writings of later Sunnī authors, dismiss the historicity of the Arabic literary sources they preserved and their attribution to persons living in the first two centuries of Islam. In between, of course, are the majority of scholars who are neither willing to credit the medieval Sunnī about the history of Islamic law in its first two centuries of existence, nor dismiss it out of hand. Professor Lena Salaymeh’s new book wades into this controversy boldly, arguing that whatever separates these scholarly positions, they share a deep agreement regarding the nature of historical inquiry, and how this structures their research as scholars of Islamic history. The deeper methodological agreement to which Professor Salaymeh points lies in a shared positivist approach to history combined with an implied, or even explicit, evolutionary theory of historical change whose contours are determined by the “origins” of the observed phenomenon—in this case, Islamic law. This historical determinism is akin to genetics: just as knowledge of a person’s genome allegedly informs us about the future potentialities and outcomes of that person, knowledge of the “origins” of Islamic law is assumed to determine, at least broadly speaking, its future. The “origin” of Islamic law fixes its essence, and as a result, its subsequent history is no more than an unfolding of what was already present in its “origins.”
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".