Bibliographic record
Abstract
The writer of this article stated the methodology of Imam Ibn Hazm and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah in their clarification of “The Holy Spirit” The concept of Holy Spirit in the Christian doctrine is one of the integral part that cannot be denied as a result of its great impact in the major part of Trinity that determines the Christian basic belief. "The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit” Both Imam Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah analyzed the understanding of this concept and its different interpretation and usages in accordance to references from the Quran and Bible. Both Imams stated the references from Tawrah, the Bible and the Holy Qur’an they declared that, The Holy spirit was used for the other Prophets before Prophet ‘Isa bn Maryam (A.S) Angel Jubreel (A.S) was referred to as “Ruh’ l Qudus” which was not acknowledged by the Christian faith. Some other Prophets like Prophet Adam, Dawud, Daniel, Zakariyyah, Ibraheem , Musa (AS)…and others were also addressed as Ruh, in different verses of Holy Qur’an as well as Tawrah and Gospel. Therefore, Prophet ‘Isa was not the only Prophet that had the title of Holy Spirit. Both Imams proves their researches with evidences from the Tawrah, The Bible, The Holy Qur’an, and Hadeeth which were supported by the early Christian scholars.The methods and methodology of the two great scholars include the dialogues with some sects such as Al-Jahmiyyah and others. Conclusively, both Muslims and the early Christian fathers negates the concept of Holy Spirit when it’s single out for Prophet ‘Isa (A.S).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.993 | 0.977 |
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; both teacher heads 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".