Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines Sayyid Ḥaydar Āmulī’s occult narratives of sainthood ( al-walāya ) with a focus on his Naṣṣ al-nuṣūṣ fī sharḥ al-fuṣūṣ , a voluminous commentary on Ibn al-ʿArabī’s (d. 638/1240) Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam . I argue that Āmulī uses lettrism, astrology, and alchemy to construct occult narratives that advocate for the supremacy of sainthood over prophecy ( al-nubuwwa ). I first examine the relation between Āmulī’s lettrism and Shiʿism by concentrating on Shiʿi narratives about the mysterious occult books, Jafr and Jāmiʿa , that are transformed into the macrocosmic and microcosmic books in Āmulī’s work. The focus then shifts to Āmulī’s analysis of the complex relation between alif, bāʾ , and the dot written under bāʾ as the first three components of the basmala formula. As will be seen, Āmulī uses astrology in a similar fashion to illustrate the supremacy of sainthood by associating the heavenly planets with prophecy and the zodiacal signs with sainthood. He also draws on alchemy, or what he identifies as “spiritual alchemy ( al-kīmiyāʾ al-maʿnawī ),” to argue for the supremacy of sainthood.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".