Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the four school of thoughts came into existence, a little bit conflict appeared between their thinking on the basis of arguments due to follow one particular “Imam’’ of the Muslims are all over the world facing problem due to opinion they adopted in the books of fiqh. Three of them agreed on the point that no marriage is allowed without consent of father of a girl but Imam Abu Hanifa is on the other side has opposite opinion that the girl consent must be considered. This is the main facts between Judgement in different way. In this article Islamic point of views and the court decisions have been presented as comparative deep study of Islamic law. A number of fruitful conclusions can be derived from this research to save ourselves from negative differences and conflicts. When somebody report something or matters about others, we should investigate first then we should take action. Natural type of difference in opinions are unavoidable phenomenon so it should be on the basis of authentic proves and positivity. Differences between Imam are not personal but they are all have arguments, knowledge of Quran and Sunnah and proves. This article will open new ways to understand the marriage with or without consent of Wali and the various arguments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.970 | 0.969 |
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".