Revising the Assumption that Ḥadīṯ Studies Flourished in the 11th/17th-Century Ḥiǧāz: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s (d. 1101/1690) Contribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Ḥiǧāz in the 11th/17th century has long been considered the center of a “revival” movement in ḥadīṯ studies. This assumption has spread widely among scholars of the 11th-/17th- and 12th-/18th-century Islamic world based on the fact that the isnāds of many major ḥadīṯ scholars from almost all parts of the Islamic world from the 11th/17th century onward return to a group of scholars in the Ḥiǧāz. The scholarly group that is assumed to have played a critical role in the flourishing of ḥadīṯ studies in the 11th/17th-century Ḥiǧāz is called the al-Ḥaramayn circle or network. However, to date, there have been no studies that investigate what was actually happening in that century concerning ḥadīṯ studies. Examining the actual ḥadīṯ studies of one of the scholars at the core of al-Ḥaramayn circle, i.e. Ibrāhīm b. Ḥasan al-Kūrānī, will unpack the main interest of Ḥiǧāzī scholars in ḥadīṯ literature, reveal previously unstudied aspects of ḥadīṯ studies in the 11th/17th-century Ḥiǧāz, correct some unexamined assumptions, and situate the ḥadīṯ efforts of scholars of the 11th/17th-century Ḥiǧāz within a general framework of developments within ḥadīṯ studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".