Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contemporary Muslims face the challenge of how a legal system that was formulated in the classical period of Islam can respond to the multitudinous challenges that present-day Muslims encounter. Is there a need for reformation in Islam? If so, where should it begin and in which direction should it proceed? Addressing this gap in Western scholarship, and contributing to the ongoing debate in Islamic scholarship, Shi‘ism Revisited: Ijtihad and Reformation in Contemporary Times (1) explores how modernity has impinged on the classical formulation of Islamic law, and (2) analyzes how Shi‘i jurists have responded to the intersection of shari’a (Islamic law) and modernity. The study is original and groundbreaking in that it seeks to tackle issues such as how Islamic law is being revised by Shi‘i scholars on cases such as human rights, gender equality, the rights of non-Muslim minorities, and reconfiguring the rational and moral basis of Islamic law. Such questions have required scholars to apply ijtihad (independent reasoning) in providing solutions to the pressing questions in the religious and social fields. By examining the principles and application of Islamic legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and reformation in Shi‘ism, as well as the current discourse on juristic hermeneutics and the basis of a new ijtihad, this research addresses topics that have attracted much public attention. Since such issues have been largely neglected by Western scholarship, this book provides a unique analysis of ijtihad and reformation in the Shi‘i world.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".