The Need for Shari’ah-Compliant Awqāf Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bridging global economic inequalities calls for effective financial alternatives such as awqāf banks to better attend to the needs of the poor and underprivileged. This is expected to address the root causes of poverty and ensuing economic gaps, improving much of the living standards whether pertaining to education, health, shelter, employment or basic social services while reducing the state’s economic and financial burden. We envision awqāf banks as institutions which are established through cash awqāf and which operate multiple awqāf funds alongside an assortment of financial instruments. The main use of their awqāf funds are the issue of low-cost credit to the poor, economically disadvantaged and underprivileged, instead of focusing solely on generating and maximizing shareholder profits. This is to support the economy through of steady and sustainable growth, effectively raising the lower bar on per capita income and lifting multitudes out of poverty and need. This paper explores how low-cost credit can be provided to the poor or lower income demographics through awqāf banks, while addressing relevant issues such as Shari’ah compliance, services rendering, investment and awqāf distribution. This paper also examines current studies on awqāf in relation to finance and banking, the basic functions, and characteristics of the Shari’ah-compliant awqāf bank, as well as evaluations of awqāf banks. Current studies show that there is a legitimate need for Shari’ah-compliant awqāf banks which not only providing services for its beneficiaries but also manage investments and awqāf funds that contribute to overall national development and economic growth. This study would be of high relevance to experts, practitioners, financial managers, regulators, and policy makers in the fields of awqāf, banking and finance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".