Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Quran, due to its unique rhythmic style of expression, seems to have a deep connection with music and elegance of voice, on the other hand, Islam has various teachings regarding the prohibition of music and songs. In this context, there has been a debate among Islamic scholars as to whether it is permissible to use the principles of music, Muqāmāt and melodies in the recitation of the Quran? Some scholars are convinced of the Sharīʻah legitimacy of the use of music, Muqāmāt and melodies in the recitation of the Quran but some scholars do not consider it permissible. This study is an attempt to discover the factual Sharʻīah stance on the subject by analyzing the arguments of both groups of scholars. It supports the viewpoint of the opponents, but also tries to reconcile the two positions. It maintains that there is nothing wrong with reciting the Quran in a beautiful voice but it must be free from those forms of music which are not adored in Islamic Sharīʻah.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.923 | 0.936 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".