The Debates of the Createdness of the Qur’an and its Impact to the Methodology of Qur’anic Interpretation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it