La vocation défensive du jihād, son histoire et sa réalité juridique contemporaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considéré comme le concept le plus controversé – et souvent mal compris – de la religion musulmane, lejihādse trouve, depuis de nombreuses années, au centre de tous les débats et analyses. Cet article se propose de revisiter l’évolution historique du concept dujihāddéfensif pour confirmer l’existence d’une tendance doctrinale stable, continue et majoritaire qui limite lejihādà cette vocation défensive (jihād al-dafāa) aussi bien dans la doctrine juridique musulmane classique que dans les écrits des juristes et théologiens musulmans depuis la période dite de la renaissance. Cette stabilité doctrinale nous permet, ensuite, de défendre l’idée selon laquelle lejihādpeut être assimilé à une forme spécifique de légitime défense qui se rapproche, à certains égards, de celle développée par le droit international contemporain et que l’adhésion des pays musulmans aux différents instruments du droit international ne peut pas être complètement dissociée de cette évolution historique dujihāddéfensif.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".