Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the views of the jurists of the four schools of thought about the value of the Islamic nisab in theft. The author reviewed Sharia texts and the views of jurists in a descriptive and analytical method. The reviews of jurists are different in determining the quorum that takes place in hand cutting. According to the majority of jurists, the completion of the nisab in hand cutting is a condition according to the indications of the Shariah texts and the consensus of the Companions. The amount of nisab in the Hanafi School is ten dirhams or one dinar. According to the Shafi'is, a quarter (1/4) of a dinar or what the price is a quarter of a dinar. Imam Malik considers the nisab to be a quarter of a dinar if the stolen property is gold and three dirhams, if it is silver, while most of the Hanbalis consider the nisab to be three dirhams or a quarter of a dinar and for some reasons. They refer to hadiths. Rajeh's view is the view of the majority (Shafi'is, Malikis and Hanbalis) who consider the nisab to be a quarter of a dinar or three dirhams. What is obtained through this research is that the majority of jurists consider the existence of nisab of the stolen property as a condition, and they do not consider the amount of theft to be applicable if it is less than the nisab; However, they have two views in determining the nisab: the first view considers a quarter of a dinar or three dirhams as the nisab, and the second view considers the nisab to be one dinar or ten dirhams. The valid point of view, based on the validity and strength of the reasons, is the same point of view of the Republicans. Dinar and dirhams that are cut off must be multiplied.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".