Juhūd al-Fuqahāʾ fī Taʾṣīl al-Manhaj al-Naqlī wa Ibtikār al-Manhaj al-ʿAqlī: Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd min Khilāl Kitābih "Bidāyat al-Mujtahid" Namūdhaj
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to clarify Ibn Rushd's approach to establishing the transmitted approach and innovating the rational approach through his book Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid. The study employs an inductive and analytical descriptive approach, utilizing library research to analyze relevant books and articles concerning the transmitted and rational methods. The findings reveal that Ibn Rushd integrated textual reasoning and rationality in his legal methodology. He recognized that reason is the foundation of obligation and a key tool for understanding. He understood that reason enables the comprehension of texts and transmitted knowledge and facilitates understanding of the Sharia. Consequently, Ibn Rushd employed reason as a tool in conducting ijtihad on controversial issues, utilizing it to achieve goodness and happiness. This paper concludes that Ibn Rushd's approach involved collecting transmitted knowledge and applying rational reasoning in matters of ijtihad. He utilized reason as a critical tool in addressing controversial issues, aiming to achieve goodness and happiness.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".