Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dance relates to “Fine Arts", a branch of contemporary Sciences and is considered to be favorite type of arts amongst moderate mentality all over the world. However, in Islam, dance is not considered a positive thing for humanity, as its results are undesirable, especially the “women’s dance” before the “men” which is considered to be the worst kind of dance. The eventual result of this kind of dance is often vulgarity, nakedness and other unfavorable things prohibited in Islam. Most of the Jurists of each school of thought are of the opinion that dance is prohibited act (haram) in Islam and orthodox ulamas of every age remark it as a vital sin. This research paper is a critical study of different approaches of Muslim scholars. Some opposing thoughts like Imam Ibn-e-Jozi and Ibn-e-Taymia, some favoring views like opinion of Ghazali and some opinions keeping in view the circumstances, motives and situations for prohibiting, allowing or considering it the natural act, have been discussed in detail to find the Islamic approach about this act which is considered to be the mean of entertainment, spiritual progress or just wastage of the sources and time amongst the different classes of the society. This research paper is a study to analyze that which kind of dance is prohibited in Islam and which types is allowed or is not considered to be a sin Islam.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.970 | 0.958 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".