Legal Benefit: A Comparative Study between Legislation and Islamic Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study dealt with the legal benefit in both: the legislations, specifically the Jordanian law, and the Islamic jurisprudence through the jurisprudence magazine. The study dealt with how to deal with the legal benefit in these legislations to reach the result of a discrepancy between these legislations and Islamic jurisprudence, it concluded that what is stated in Islamic jurisprudence is the best to apply. Results also showed the following: the Jordanian legislator did not provide for taking it into any of the unified or dual legal systems if the work is mixed, which caused a difference in the provisions of the judiciary The texts related to interest in Jordan are texts distributed between the Ottoman Murabaha system, the law of usury, the Jordanian trade law, the law of the Central Bank of Jordan, the Jordanian civil law and the Jordanian Code of Civil Procedure. All of the laws referred to above allow for the application of interest except the Civil Code, as article 640 states that: "If the loan contract provides an additional benefit to the contract, it is only to document the lender's right to the condition and validity of the contract", that is, the interest rate in loans is not considered. The provisions of the special laws referred to in respect of interest are applicable, without regard to the title of either party to the contract (that is, whether a trader or a non-trader), without regard also to the transactions of the parties to the contract by commercial transactions or related to the merchant's business needs or not related to those transactions especially considering some of the provisions of these special laws acts of banks as a commercial operation of banks and their customers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".