Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sura 85 has attracted scholarly attention for the past two centuries due to its supposed reference to the massacre of the Christians of Najrān in 523 ce. Following the massacre, Byzantium and Christian Ethiopia (i.e. the Kingdom of Aksum) took the initiative to reaffirm their hegemony in southern Arabia: an Ethiopian army invaded Yemen and installed a Christian ruler, and the Jewish king of Yemen who was responsible for the persecution of the Christians was deposed and supposedly committed suicide. The earliest layers of the Islamic tradition saw Sura 85 as commentary on this massacre. However, this connection would prove problematic to the later Islamic tradition, and a concerted attempt was made to downplay, if not to obliterate it. Alternative readings were proposed, including that Q. 85 referred to the Biblical story of Daniel 3, specifically to the three youths who survived the fire. Most commentators, though, linked Sura 85 to what is certainly an apocryphal story of an anonymous monotheistic youth who opposed a similarly anonymous polytheistic king and was killed by fire. For its part, the Euro-American tradition has, overall, denied the existence of any historical reference in Sura 85 and claimed that the torture by fire described in this sura is instead a reference to Hell. This article reviews the massive literature on this sura and proposes that the Najran martyrs remain the most plausible referent.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".