Al-Jahiz (D. 868/9) on the Virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Thalib (D. 661) and the Limit of Ijma’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of al-Jahiz among researchers and historians of the classical Islam has shed more light not only on the man and his intellectual engagement but also on the general Islamic intellectual history, especially in the ninth century Bagdad, the capital city of the ‘Abbasid kingdom. This article examines how al-Jahiz, as an enthusiast debater, dialectician, and polemicist, engaged himself in debates concerning the virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Thalib and his caliphate status. This is a literature study of al-Jahiz’s works, complemented by secondary relevant sources. This study reveals that in debating this particular issue which had been highly controversial by his time, al-Jahiz differed from both his fellow Mu‘tazila thinkers and hadith transmitters, and even argued against ijma’,the consensus argument, which was and is still regarded as undisputed argument by many Islamic law scholars. His intellectual bravery then allowed him to freely articulate his ideas and stand as an independent and original thinker.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".