Examination of the View of John Burton Concerning the Relationship between Abrogation and Collection of the Qurʾān
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Qurʾānic researcher, John Burton, believes that the extant Qurʾān was organised and approved by the Prophet of Islam himself. The role of the Prophet of Islam in collection and promulgation of the Qurʾān was negated in favour of the concept of abrogation. Abrogation of both wording and ruling and abrogation of wording, but not of ruling are ideas fabricated by Muslim jurists attempting to base their juristic decrees on the Qurʾān even though the Qurʾānic text lacked any reference to such decrees. If the Prophet of Islam had, in fact, edited, checked, and promulgated the Qurʾānic document, jurists could no longer speak of such omissions or abrogations of texts in the extant Qurʾān. Their solution was to falsify traditions in order to exclude the Prophet of Islam from the history of collection of the Qurʾānic text, suspending such collection until after his death. John Burton’s treatment of the relationship between abrogation and collection of the Qurʾān demonstrates the rigour of his research in Qurʾānic and Islamic sources. On the basis of his book, traditions dealing with collection of the Qurʾān developed in the third century AH. One thing he did not consider was whether historical evidence confirms his depiction of the development of these traditions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".