Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mise en Scènemise en scène Yet over the centuries, the clear and unencumbered plains of God's Holy Word had slowly but steadily been encroached upon from beyond the horizon, and foreign troops had come to occupy many a Muslim thinker's mind.The mass translation of Greek and Hellenistic medical, scientific-but especially philosophical-texts into Arabic from the time of the Abbasid caliph al-Maʾmūn in the early third/ninth century onward brought a host of new and strange ideas and modes of thinking into the Muslim intellectual landscape.The works on logic, metaphysics, and other disciplines by Aristotle and various Neoplatonic thinkers fascinated and enticed, yet also discomforted and repelled; for here was a sophisticated, brilliantly exposited view of the world, carefully elaborated over the course of centuries by some of the most brilliant minds the world had ever known.Provocatively, it was a view of the world, a vision of reality, that pretended to far-reaching coherence and comprehensiveness and that presented itself, quite compellingly, as based on, as growing out of, as being derived from nothing less than reason itself.And what cause was there for worry?For does not the Qurʾān itself, in numerous passages, beseech its followers to reflect, to ponder, to exploit their God-given intellects, to employ their minds that perchance they might better fathom the purpose of their existence?"A-fa-lā yaʿqilūn" (Will they not then understand?);1 "A-fa-lā yatadabbarūn" (Do they not consider [the Qurʾān] with care?);2 "Laʿallahum yatafakkarūn" (Perchance they may reflect).3 Yet what to make of it were one to comply with God's behest to use one's intellect only to discover, unsettlingly, that what reason has delivered is somehow discordant with what God-Creator of all things, including man and his intellect-has Himself declared in revelation?For the Greeks spoke of man as well.They too spoke of the heavens and the earth, and of God.Reason, Aristotle tells us, perceives that God is a perfect being.Now, all may agree that God is perfect.But reason, Aristotle tells us further, judges that a perfect being must be, among other things, perfectly simple, indivisible, non-composite.So, while revelation may very well seem to predicate certain qualities or attributes of God-such that He is living (ḥayy), self-subsisting (qayyūm), mighty ( jabbār), lovingly kind (wadūd), omniscient (ʿalīm), all-seeing (baṣīr), and all-hearing (samīʿ)-reason, for its part, avers that God cannot in reality possess any such attributes, for then He would no longer be perfectly simple, as reason requires 1 Q.Yā Sīn 36:68.All translations in this work, whether from Arabic or from European languages, including translations of the Qurʾān and ḥadīth, are mine except where otherwise indicated.2 Q. al-Nisāʾ 4:82 and Muḥammad 47:24.(Trans.ʿAbdullāh Yūsuf ʿAlī, The Meaning of the Holy Qurʾān.Hereafter Yusuf Ali.) 3 Q.al-Aʿrāf 7:176, al-Naḥl 16:44, and al-Ḥashr 59:21.Him to be, but composite; that is, He would be "composed" of His uniquely indivisible essence and His alleged attributes or qualities.Similarly, we are told, the dictates of sound reason affirm that God cannot be held to have knowledge of any particular, individual, instantiated thing in the world, as all such things are impermanent, springing into existence one day only to succumb to their demise the next.It follows by rational inference, therefore, that God cannot be held to know any such ephemera, for to know them would imply a relational change (and therefore an imperfection) in His knowledge.But, does not God Himself say in revelation, "Wa-mā tasquṭu min waraqatin illā yaʿlamuhā" (And not a leaf falls but that He knows it)?4 Indeed, He does.And so the lines are drawn, and the battle is on.4 Q.al-Anʿām 6:59.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".