MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1120437293 · doi:10.1353/ecu.2015.0034

Der Freund Gottes: Abraham im Islam by Martin Bauschke (review)

2015· article· de· W1120437293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helene Ijaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ecumenical studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamRevelationPhilosophyTheologyReligious studiesCultJudaismEmigrationHospitalityGermanHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Der Freund Gottes: Abraham im Islam by Martin Bauschke Helene Ijaz Martin Bauschke, Der Freund Gottes: Abraham im Islam. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2014. Pp. 200. €29.95. This book by German theologian and religious scholar Bauschke is a revised and expanded version of his 2008 book on the same topic. In twenty-five of the 114 suras of the Qur’ān, 208 verses make reference to Abraham (Ibrahim). Read chronologically according to their presumed revelation to Muhammad, they uncover an intriguing connection between the life experiences and the spiritual journeys of both Abraham and Muhammad. Sporadic references to Abraham’s legendary hospitality during the early phase of Muhammad’s Meccan activities (610–15 c.e.) are followed by increasingly frequent references to Abraham during the middle-Meccan phase (615–20 c.e.) alongside other figures from the Jewish-Christian tradition, such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Mary, and Jesus. Allusions to his confrontation with the astral religion of his contemporaries mirror Muhammad’s conflicts with the polytheistic cults of the Meccans of his day. In the qur’ānic verses revealed during the late-Meccan phase (620–22 c.e.), Abraham’s struggles escalate and come to a head in the break with his polytheistic father, the rejection of the paganism of his ancestors, and his emigration. They are mirrored in Muhammad’s struggle with his opponents in Mecca and his eventual emigration to Yathrib (Medina). During the remainder of Muhammad’s life, his activities become increasingly shaped by Abraham as a model. They culminate in Muhammad’s freeing the sanctuary of the Ka’ba in Mecca—founded and [End Page 350] renovated by Abraham together with his first-born son Ishmael—from its polytheism and rededicating it to Allah, the one and only God. As in the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish traditions, and the Christian Testament (Jas. 2:23), the Qur’ān refers to Abraham as the “friend of God.” In all three religions, Abraham represents an exemplar of monotheistic faith. While Judaism includes some of Abraham’s more dubious character traits—such as, when seeking to protect himself, he pretends to the Pharaoh and to King Abimelech that Sarai is his sister rather than his wife (Genesis 12 and 20)—Islam idealizes Abraham as a model for the Prophet Muhammed, with both representing what it means to be a perfect Muslim. Bauschke points out that the Islamic perspective on Abraham represents, as do the Jewish and the Christian perspectives, a perspective of faith rather than a historically accurate portrait of Abraham. He argues that, while in recent years Abraham has been increasingly drawn upon as a symbol of mutual understanding and reconciliation in a trialogue of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Abraham is a rather ambivalent figure. His willingness to slaughter and sacrifice his son has produced different, including questionable, interpretations of the concept of sacrifice in the three religions, such as the justification for the September 11, 2001, attacks by suicide bomber Mohamed Atta. Meticulously researched, Bauschke’s book provides enlightening new information on the story of Abraham and on how essential aspects of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths have evolved from it. [End Page 351] Helene Ijaz Markham, ON, Canada Copyright © 2015 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ecumenical studiesSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207