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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".