docs(review-path): the scholarly-review stance — not reviewed, path defined (#289)

[eaitbrahim]

What & why

Closes #289. Decides the scholarly-review question the honest way the issue demands: keel offers option 3, said out loud — no scholarly review has occurred — in the README's first screen and in a new "Scholarly review status" section of docs/fiqh-basis.md. Alongside the disclaimer, the review path is fully defined (option 2's machinery, documented as a path, not a claim): what a review will cover, what a reviewer is and is not endorsing, how a review is recorded as a dated addendum that can only ratchet from not-reviewed to reviewed-with-a-named-scope, and the outreach shortlist (IIUM, INCEIF, Durham, Islamic fintech practitioners) with a ready-to-send note. The approach itself is the operator's action and is stated as not taken.

Tests-first evidence

tests/test_scholarly_review.py written first: red run showed 8 failed / 1 passed (the negative no-false-claims test passes trivially before any doc exists — it exists to guard afterwards). After the two insertions (README paragraph after the boundary blockquote; the status section between "How to disagree" and "Sources index"): 9 passed. The pinned no-review sentence — "No scholarly review of keel's fiqh basis has occurred" — is asserted identically in the README first screen and the status section, and the negative test scans README/CONTRIBUTING/fiqh-basis for affirmative overstatement phrasings ("scholar-approved", "reviewed and approved", "certified", "endorsed by", …) so the claim can never quietly soften or inflate.

Gates

• uv run ruff check keel tests packages — All checks passed!
• uv run mypy — Success: no issues found in 234 source files
• uv run pytest -q — 2832 passed, 1 skipped

Scope check

• No rail, rule, or default classification is touched — documentation and pinning tests only.