MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901375863 · doi:10.1017/s1356186318000494

Persian Poetry, Sufism and Ismailism: The Testimony of Khwājah Qāsim Tushtarī’s<i>Recognizing God</i>

2018· article· en· W2901375863 on OpenAlexaff
Shafique N. Virani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetrySufismMysticismFaithContext (archaeology)PersianIslamLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyTheologyReligious studiesArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Khwājah Qāsim Tushtarī’s recently discovered Recognizing God ( Maʿrifat-i Khudāy taʿālā ) is one of the only texts known to have survived from the early Alamūt period of Ismaili Muslim history. This article analyses the work in the context of the “new Invitation” ( daʿwat-i jadīd ) to the Ismaili faith that al-Shahrastānī (d. 548/1153) tells us was inaugurated by the Fāṭimid Imam al-Mustanṣir billāh (d. 487/1094) and championed by Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ (d. 518/1124). The text emphasises that the ultimate purpose of human existence is to know God, and that the path to this knowledge is through the Imam of the Time. The concepts of the ‘true teacher’ ( muʿallim-i ṣādiq ) and ‘sage’ ( ḥakīm ) are examined and the literary culture fostered at the Ismaili fortresses, particularly Girdkūh, is explored. Significantly, the article draws attention to the position of Sanāʾī Ghaznawī (d. circa 525/1131) in Persian Ismaili literature and to the very early development of pious, devotional and homiletic poetry as well as the “ mathnawī metre” in Ismaili environments, which may have helped set the stage for some of the most significant poetic achievements of mystical Islam: the writings of Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (d. circa 618/1221) and Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. 672/1273).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Asiatic SocietySame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207