Pendekatan Munasabah Psikologiah Muhammad Ahmad Khalafullah: Analisis Kisah Luth dan Kaumnya dalam Al-Qur’an
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
One of the most important ways the Koran uses to convey the messages of God is to use stories. In the Qur’an, the mention of stories fulfills a quarter of the number of verses; there are recorded 1,453 to 1,600 verses. One of the stories in the Koran is the story of Lut and his people. The purpose of the present story is as a guide, warning, threat to humans. But some commentators have been ‘fascinated’ by revealing the reality of historical events, thus leaving the essence of the meaning contained. Khalafullah, in contrast to the others, tried to study the stories in the Koran by using literary methods. In his method, he revealed a psychological muna>sabah between stories and the conditions of the prophet or society when the Qur’an was revealed. This research found that, according to Khalafullah, the stories used by the Koran as an effective way to attract the interest and attention of Muslims at that time; found the relationship between the story of Lut and his people with the psychological condition of the Prophet and his followers, and there is a relation between the story of Lut and the psychological atmosphere of the Prophet’s opponents at that time. This research reinforces the theory that the context of the Prophet and his people when the Qur’an was revealed is a very important element to consider as someone tries to understand the message of the Qur’an.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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