Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ibn Kamāl Pāshā (d. 940/1534) played a key role in defending key doctrinal positions in his capacity as Ottoman Shaykh al-Islām, the most famous of which is undoubtedly his refutation of Mullā Qābiḍ (d. 933/1527). Qābiḍ (tr. Kabız), whose credentials are as unknown as Ibn Kamāl’s are known, is said to have propagated the superiority of Jesus over Muhammad, an obscure notion rarely found in the intellectual history of Islam. His ideas were eventually brought to the attention of scholarly circles, leading to him being tried before the Imperial Council by Caliph Suleymān I (d. 973/1566). Noting the inability of some scholars to defend the orthodox position regarding the superiority of Muhammad, Suleymān I called upon Ibn Kamāl to provide a robust defence on behalf of the Empire. Although unable to respond to Ibn Kamāl’s reasoning, Qābiḍ nevertheless maintained his position and thus sealed his fate for good. Only a handful of studies have been carried out on Qābiḍ. This article intends to contribute to the discussion he and his trial have sparked by translating a key epistle written by Ibn Kamāl after the trial and entitled: Risāla fī ʾAfḍaliyyat Muḥammad. Knowing that the details of the controversy between him and Mullā Qābiḍ escape us, this treatise by Ibn Kamāl gives an insight into his thinking on prophetology and his implementation of scriptural, canonical and exegetical sources. It also provides a convenient overview of the exchange he probably had with Qābiḍ.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".