Deaf Muslims' Inclusion in Religious Spaces: Islamic Legal Analysis of Accountability and Communal Obligation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This thesis explores the ethical and theological dimensions of Deaf Muslims’ limited access to Islamic teachings, an issue previously unexplored in scholarship. It aims to demonstrate, through Islamic rulings, that Deaf Muslims possess the cognitive capacity to learn and understand religious obligations, affirming their status as mukallafūn (religiously accountable). Additionally, it underscores the community’s farḍ kifāya (communal obligation) to ensure equitable access to religious knowledge and services. The findings reveal that because of the insufficient practical means for Deaf Muslims to access Islam, the maqāṣid al-sharī’ah (objectives of Islamic law) are not being achieved. This study presents an overview of Islamic ethical and theological teachings regarding moral and religious accountability, as well as communal responsibility. It then applies these principles to the lived experiences of Deaf Muslims, which is followed by an exploration of themes and narratives drawn from focus groups with fourteen Deaf and Hard of Hearing Muslims in North America, focusing on their experiences accessing Islam. While centered on the Canadian context, the study also considers global initiatives to address these challenges.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".