The Protection and Empowerment of People With Disabilities in Islamic Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around the world, the experience of people with disabilities, like many marginalized classes, does not always align with the promises codified in statues and case law. However, inclusive ideals are found in even the earliest of Islamic legal texts, where people with disabilities are included within etymology, storytelling, the duty of almsgiving, and the influence of physiognomy on Islamic Law. People with disabilities are also integrated in contemporary Islamic legal principles, including penal, family, and municipal Islamic law. While it is tempting to contrast the everyday experiences of people with disabilities against the principles declared in laws or religious creeds, this type of analysis requires a sophisticated blend of sociology, theology, psychology, and even anthropology. This Comment seeks instead to survey the protections and power granted to people with disabilities within Islamic law. While this is a primarily legal analysis, the overlap of theology, morality, and scholarship inherent in Islamic law renders sifting out the solely legal principles affecting people with disabilities nearly impossible. In addition to highlighting the work of contemporary scholars such as Vardit Rispler-Chaim and Mohammed Ghaly, this Comment examines classical sources and early works of Islamic jurists.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".