The Applications of Intention (Qaedat al- Umu:r bi Maqasidaha) in Saudi Law: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aims to tackle the theoretical understanding of intention as between Sharia and law. It addresses the similarities and differences in the analysis of interpretation of intention across sharia law and law. The paper contrasts between the two ways of dealing with the concept of intention that is both technical and intuitive, across law and religion. Starting from the hypothesis that the concept of intention in sharia law originated in classical contextual realities different from the contemporary realities of Saudi Arabia and become outdated, the study attempts to answer the following questions: How can the concept of intention be adapted to the new socio-economic realities of Saudi Arabia with its new vision toward the world? How can the concept of intentionality adopt by sharia benefits from the analysis of law theory relating to intention? In order to answer the questions of the study, the study adopts the comparative law methodology through which concept of intention is comparatively examined in both sharia and law. The research investigates the historical and cultural context that gives rise to the concept of intentionality in both sharia law and law, as it helps reflect on aspects of similarity and differences and how gap between the sharia law and law can be bridged. The collected data is obtained through comparing sharia law in Saudi Arabia to the law applied in the West. The study has reached a conclusion that the sound methodological application of the concept of intention in sharia law requires the integration of elements and concepts from the Western law concept of intention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".