MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is God Obliged to Answer Prayers of Petition (<i>Du'a</i>)? The Response of Classical Sufis and Qur'anic Exegetes

2011· article· en· W1689999219 on OpenAlexaff
Atif Khalil

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExegesisIslamPhilosophyState (computer science)SufismEpistemologyTheologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The following article sets out to explore classical responses within the tradition of Qur’anic exegesis and Sufism to the theological problem of how it is that God responds to all prayers of petition. The basis of this problem rests on two Qur’anic verses in which such a guarantee is explicitly made. In Q 2:186, the Qur’an has God declare, “I answer the call [da‘wa] of the suppliant [da‘i] when he calls upon Me [da‘ani].” And in Q 40:60, the Qur’an has God state, “Call upon Me [ud‘uni], and I will answer.” The article presents an overview of the various strategies through which Muslim thinkers sought to resolve the underlying problem. In the process of exploring this question the article also demonstrates, by drawing on a wide range of classical texts, the interdependence of the Islamic subtraditions of Qur’anic commentary and Sufi thought, particularly in the latter’s more “practical” dimensions.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.023
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medieval Religious CulturesSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207