Duality, Opposition and Typology in the Qur'an: The Apocalyptic Substrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article highlights two features of Qur'anic style and content: duality/opposition and typological figuration, which can be seen as providing a continuous and consistent ‘narrative stream’ through the Qur'an. It is of some interest that both of these features have been singled out as distinctive of apocalypse as a genre in the study of numerous religious and cultural traditions. As debate on whether or not the Qur'an is a bona fide example of apocalyptic literature quietly continues, the interplay of conceptual and substantive oppositions and dualities is discussed in order to highlight the importance of this prominent feature to both the form and contents of the Book. It is suggested that its function is profoundly related to the typological figuration indispensable to the Qur'anic depiction of, for example, the character of the prophets and therefore prophethood. Whether or not this represents a genuine instance of apocalyptic literature, it nonetheless remains that the prominence of the motif renders the Qur'an susceptible of a reading expressive of something called an apocalyptic imagination. It is hoped that this article succeeds in demonstrating that in fact these apparently familiar subjects are stimulated to new life by considering them as defining, interlocking, structural elements of a distinctive Islamic apocalypse.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".