Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originally intended as a short textbook codifying the existing knowledge ofIslamic political thought, Patricia Crone’s God’s Rule developed into a fullerand more comprehensive examination of the first six centuries of governmentand Islam. Crone, perhaps better known for her more controversialworks, such as Hagarism (Cambridge: 1977), God’s Caliph (Cambridge:1986), and Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Oxford: 1987), is nostranger to Islamic political theory, having written Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge: 1980). In her present book, thereader will find an accessible, readable, and scholarly contribution that islargely devoid of controversy while retaining a healthy skepticism of thesources, as one would expect from an historian.Primarily written for the non-specialist, the intention is to render thecontextual theory, practice, and development of political thought during theearly centuries of Islam (c. 622-1258) intelligible to the general reader.Divided into four sections, Crone seeks to cover the broader trends andthemes in the transition from the Prophet’s polity to that of the Buyids andthe Seljuqs. Along the way, she guides the reader through the complex webof Islamic history, starting, in part 1, with the basic Muslim conceptualunderstanding of government and state up to the first civil war, sect formation,and the Umayyad period. Here, the central importance was the leader,as successor to the Prophet, who weds truth and power and thereby rightlyguides the Muslim community by providing legal legitimacy and a moralexample. The question of legitimacy came to the fore during the first civilwar, which resulted in the formation of various sects and the rise of theUmayyad dynasty ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".