Bibliographic record
Abstract
Etiquette of war has been an important topic of discussion in various circles from the very beginning. This debate has become increasingly important in modern times. It is said by the opponents of Islam that Islam and Muslims have abandoned the etiquette of war and allowed oppression and aggression. Among the Muslim scholars who have contributed to this debate is a section of Qur’ānic commentators. This article presents a study of Urdu commentaries on the subject under consideration. Six Urdu commentaries have been selected for this study. Arguments quoted from selected Urdu commentaries reveal that infidels with whom the Muslims have a peace treaty cannot be fought unless they themselves have broken the covenant, nor can the people of the enemy who take refuge in them be killed. Reconciliation with the infidels will not be initiated during the war, unless there is a great compulsion, but if there is an offer of peace from the infidels, it will not be rejected. Non-combatants will not be killed intentionally. It is not permissible to cut down or damage trees and crops from enemy territory on the basis of retaliation alone, although war tactics can be used to cut down trees that impede military movement. No human will be burned alive or burned in the fire after death. However, the use of firearms in modern times is not against the etiquette of war in Islam. Orientalists have objected that Muslims were naturally prone to looting and war but the Qur’ānic words "وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَكُمْ" depicts that they dislike war. It is clear from this study that in the selected Urdu commentaries, a successful attempt has been made to prove the moral superiority of Islam and Muslims regarding etiquettes of war.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.969 | 0.978 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".