LEGAL DISCOURSE OF DAGESTANI THEOLOGIANS OF THE 17TH-19TH CENTURIES (BASED ON THE MANUSCRIPT FROM THE BAGUZHALAV AL-MACHADI’S COLLECTION)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents an analysis of a unique manuscript identified in the book collection of a prominent Dagestani theologian Baguzhalav al-Machadi. It comprises 9 works compiled in the form of questions and answers, which reflect the theological discourse on various legal aspects. The discussion was attended by such reputed theologians as Dawud al-Usishi, Sheikh Izz ad-Din Tayyib, Said al-Makki, Muhammad-haji al-Uradi, Muhammad al-Aliji, Sheikh as-Sijini, Hadith al-Machadi, Muhammad al-Hifnawi and Muhammad al-Aymaki. Some of them were Dagestanis, while others – of the Middle East origin. Their works are written in a form of answers of a number of Middle Eastern theologians to the questions of Dagestanis on various topical issues of that time. The works were compiled in the second half of the 17th – first quarter of the 19th centuries, which allows to trace to a certain extent the development of the legal tradition of Dagestan of that period. They are also a valuable source on the history of everyday life, economic and socio-political development of Dagestan society. The range of questions and answers considered in the theological discourse is extremely diverse, and concerns the various aspects of everyday life. As we believe, Dagestani theologians, turning to their more authoritative compatriots, as well as to scholars from the Middle East, sought to legitimize adat norms through Sharia texts. At the same time, addressing the latter, Dagestani theologians sought to use the unspoken priority in favor of their opinion that existed in the Muslim world. Moreover, the identified Arabic-language sources clearly demonstrate how closely Dagestan was included in the unified legal field of the Arab-Muslim 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".