Tasavvuf Literatüründe “Anne” Kavramı ve Mürşid Olarak Anneler: Türâbî (Biyolojik) Anneden İlâhî Anneye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Sūfī literature, there are many terms that include the word “mother/al-umm”. As limited to the subject of “spiritual guidance in Sufism in general and the guidance of the mother in particular” –without diving into other material about the concept of “mother” in Sūfī literature–, this article deals with the following main ideas: In the history of Sufism, there were examplary mothers such as Ibn Khafīf’s mother Umm Muḥammad; Ibn al-ʻArabī’s turābī (biological) mother Nūr, Ibn al-‘Arabī’s divine mother Fāṭima Bintu Ibnu’l-Muthennā and Kenan Rifāī’s mother Hatice Cenân Vâlide Sultân, who were described as “guides” in the literal sense. It is a remarkable detail that of these, Ibn Khafīf’s is known as al-Shayh al-Kabīr and Ibn al-Arabī is known as al-Shayh al-Akbar. That is to say that the leading figures of Sufism were brought up under the surveillance of their mothers. In addition to these mothers, all turābī mothers are the most worthy of the quality of being a guide (Murshid) having a major role in upbringing of her child, which begins before she/he is born. Besides, the mother is very sincere in all of her efforts to educate her child, not having any other intention than desiring happiness for him/her in this world and the hereafter. Thus, the hazards that al-Muḥāsibī warned about (i.e., slackness in respecting the rights of Allah while teaching/guiding others, falling into hypocrisy, and neglect to take his own lower-soul into account) do not pose a problem in mother’s education of her child. Keywords: Guidance, al-Ḥārith al-Muḥāsibī, Mother, Divine Mother, Abū Abdillah Ibn Khafīf, Ummu Muḥammad, Muḥyī al-dīn Ibn al-ʻArabī, Mother Nūr, Fāṭıma Bint Ibn al-Muthannā, Hatice Cenân Vâlide Sultân.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".