Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Maghreb Review, Vol. 40, 3, 2015 © The Maghreb Review 2015 This publication is printed on longlife paper THE QUR’ĀNIC STORY OF JOSEPH AS A ‘HISTORY’ OF THE HUMAN SOUL MOHAMMED RUSTOM∗ INTRODUCTION The point of departure in this article will be the classical principle which says that some parts of the Qurʾān explain other parts of the Qur’ān (al-Qur’ān yufassiru bafiḍuhu bafiḍan). 1 My basic assumption is that, as a self-contained text, the Qur’ān not only suggests that we see its verses in light of other verses and passages, but it demands that we do so. And, if this applies to the use of words and phrases, then the same holds true for clusters of key Qur’ānic ideas, concepts and themes. I will here be concerned with relating this abovementioned intertextual principle to two sections of the Qur’ān, namely the story of Joseph (12:3–101) and parts of Sūrat al-Tīn, ‘The Fig’ (95:4–6). More specifically, an attempt will be made to demonstrate that the Qur’ānic story of Joseph serves as a perfect ‘commentary’ upon the relevant verses of Sūrat al-Tīn, with respect to both structure and meaning. But to see the story of Joseph in this light, one must assume a symbolic perspective as opposed to the more literary and dramatic approaches that are commonly applied to the story, and often with considerable insight and interest. 2 My approach to the story of Joseph is thus informed by and somewhat akin to the more ‘esoteric’ interpretations it has traditionally received in texts of Sufism and Islamic philosophy. 3 ∗ Carleton University, Canada This article has benefited from the critical comments of a number of colleagues. Particular thanks go to Waleed Ahmed, Yousef Casewit, William Chittick, Aasim Hasany, Hany Ibrahim and Todd Lawson. 1 For a general treatment of this principle, see Muhammad Abdel Haleem, Understanding the Qur’an (London: I.B. Tauris, 1999), ch. 12. 2 See, in particular, Anthony Johns, ‘Joseph in the Qur’ān: Dramatic Dialogue, Human Emotion and Prophetic Wisdom’, Islamochristiana , Vol. 7, 1981, pp. 29–55; Todd Lawson, ‘Typological Figuration and the Meaning of “Spiritual”: The Qur’anic Story of Joseph’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 132, No. 2, 2012, pp. 221–244; Mustansir Mir, ‘Irony in the Qur√ān: A Study of the Story of Joseph’, in Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur√ān, edited by Issa Boullata (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000), pp.173– 187; Mir, ‘The Qur’anic Story of Joseph: Plot, Themes, and Characters’, The Muslim World, Vol. 76, No. 1, 1986, pp. 1–15; James Morris, ‘Dramatizing the Sura of Joseph: An Introduction to the Islamic Humanities’, Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol. 18, 1994, pp. 201– 224. 3 Some representative materials and pertinent secondary scholarship can be found in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. ‘Joseph i.: In Persian Literature’ (by Asghar Dadbeh) and Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. ‘Joseph ii.: In Qur√ānic Exegesis’ (by Annabel Keeler). One may also consult Paul Nwyia, ‘Un cas d’exégèse soufie: l’Histoire de Joseph’, in Mélanges offerts à Henry Corbin, edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Tehran: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, Tehran Branch, 1977), pp. 407–423 and my commentary upon Sūra 12 in The Study Quran (for which, see the following note). THE QUR’ĀNIC STORY OF JOSEPH AS A ‘HISTORY’ OF THE HUMAN SOUL 281 SOME PREPARATORY REMARKS Qur’ān 95:4–6 reads as follows: ‘Truly We created man in the most beautiful stature [95:4], then We cast him to the lowest of the low [95:5], save those who believe and perform righteous deeds; for theirs shall be a reward unceasing’ (95:6).4 A common explanation of 95:4 is that human beings were created in the image of God, in accordance with the Prophetic saying, ‘God created Adam in His form’.5 And 95:5 can be interpreted as the general state of disbelief from which only those mentioned in 95:6 are excluded.6 According to the great philosopher-mystic Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 1274...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".