The Debates of the Createdness of the Qur’an and its Impact to the Methodology of Qur’anic Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The status of the Qur'an as the verbatim words of God has become undisputed belief among Muslims. However, beyond the agreement on this fundamental doctrine, they differed from interpreting the nature of "the Qur’an" whether it is eternal and co-existent with God or created by God like other beings in this world? Throughout Islamic history, there are at least two major trends in interpreting the nature of the Qur’an as God words, i.e. scholars who believe in the eternity of the Qur’an and those who believe in the createdness of the Qur’an. A number of Muslim thinkers since three decades ago have adopted the concept of the createdness of the Qur’an to support their methodological principles developed in interpreting the Qur’an. This paper will explore further the origin of the doctrine of eternity and the createdness of the Qur’an, the debate on this issue in classical and contemporary Islamic thoughts and its methodological implications on the interpretation of the Holy Scripture. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20414/ujis.v19i2.357
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 | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".