MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110482433

Manhaj Abi Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi fi ikhtiyaratihi al-fiqhiyah min khilal kitabihi "'Aridat al-ahwadhi" : kitab al-taharah namudhajan = Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi's methodology for juristic opinions in his book 'Aridat al-ahwadhi, using "The book of purification" as a data sample / Qusay ibn Muhammad Karyim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Malaya Students Repository · 2010
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiqhIslamVariety (cybernetics)Inductive methodQuarter (Canadian coin)Islamic philosophyPreference
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explains Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi’s juristic choices in “The Book of Purification” from his work ‘Aridat al-Ahwadhi, and his methodology for doing so. This researcher has used an inductive methodology, surveying the works of Ibn al-‘Arabi as well as other books, particularly books of fiqh and usul al-fiqh, and then analyzing Ibn al-‘Arabi’s choices and comparing them with the legal opinions of other jurists. The study also undertakes a concise biography of Ibn al-‘Arabi and an overview of his book ‘Aridat al-Ahwadhi and the general methodology he employed in it. After that it focuses on extracting his fiqh opinions from “The Book of Purification”, studying them and comparing them with the legal opinions of other jurists from his own school of thought, the Maliki madhhab, as well as those of jurists from other madhhabs. It then explains his methodology for making those choices and his methods of expressing them. The results of the study are that Ibn al-‘Arabi has made more than ١٣٠ choices [as to the weightiest of variant opinions] on fiqh issues in “The Book of Purification” and that he relies on the various sources of the Shari‘ah in doing so, such as the Qur’an and Sunnah, consensus (ijma‘) the practice of the Sahabah, and other classes of evidence. He uses a variety of ways to express his preferences, sometimes explicitly stating them and sometimes not. He frequently gives preference to the opinions of his school of thought, the Maliki madhhab, but he also frequently opposes them (in approximately one quarter of the issues). He also takes an independent stance on a number of issues. All of that is based upon his ijtihad and his interpretation of the relevant evidence, as is treated in detail in the thesis. This indicates that he was, indeed, a mujtahid, a jurist qualified to reason independently in fiqh issues. Mujtahids of this caliber would operate within the evidentiary methodology (usul) of a particular well established madhhab but were distinguished by their independent stances on detailed fiqh issues. This was only because of their vast knowledge and sophisticated understanding.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0210.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Malaya Students RepositoryFrench-language works237,207