PHILOSOPHY OF LEGISLATION IN AL-FĀRĀBĪ'S VIEW BASED ON KITĀB AL-MILLAH AND SIYĀSAT AL-MADANĪYAH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main issue in this paper is whether it is possible to derive a coherent system of legislation in Fārābi's philosophy or not? This paper argues that the issue of legislation in Fārābī's philosophy is obvious, and the topic of legislation was discussed in Fārābī's philosophy coherently. The meaning of coherence is that the need for law, the sources of law, the method of legislation, and the purpose of legislation can be extracted in Fārābī's view. Fārābī's theories in these four axes are philosophy of legislation. In addition, this research paper aims to discuss and examine these four axes, which will ultimately lead to the presentation of the philosophy of legislation. All of these four axes are found in two of Fārābī's books. First, Kitāb al-Millah, and second, Siyāsat al-Madanīyah. Furthermore, in the sources of law, the theory of natural law, in the method of legislation, the theory of aristocracy, and in the purpose of legislation, the theory of happiness can be inferred. In doing so, the philosophy of legislation in Fārābī's point of view is based on the natural law and innate nature (FiÏrah) for achieving happiness, and it is codified by someone wise. The main goal of the study is to accurately understand Al-Farabi's philosophical and social foundations to extract his legal theory as an approach to the philosophy of law with descriptive-analytical methods. This study fills a gap by systematizing Fārābī’s legislative philosophy into four axes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".