Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article focuses on explaining F. Rahman’s humanist and historical approach to the Quran. Pakistani thinker criticizes the concept of Quran as “uncreated” as it was established in the Islamic world after the rejection of Mu‘tazila. He states that in this view Quran is separated from the actual history and lives of people and thus cannot become the spiritual guidance it is supposed to be. The author demonstrates that F. Rahman continues the Neomodernist tendency in Islam and creatively employs the ideas of his predecessors. In particular, he does not argue with the revelationist idea of the Quran, but he urges to analyze it in context of historical revelation and consider the situational nature of particular physical articulation of ayahs performed by the Prophet. Author also notes that in order to perform a novel interpretation of Quran F. Rahman has to rethink the traditionalist legalistic ordinances for believers as they are set to regulate life only externally. Rahman also criticizes atomistic method, which implies separation of the Quran and its meaning from all the other Quranic ideas, and strives for holistic method in hermeneutics of Quran. Historical critique applied to the Quran by F. Rahman serves to understand it in its historicity, and in doing so clarifies the embodiment of universal ethical concepts in particular instances.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".