MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Reception of The Qur’an in The Preservation Tradition of Javanese Kris

2025· article· en· W4414134523 on OpenAlexaff
Farid Hasan, Ulfi Putra Sany, Muhammad Ridwan

Bibliographic record

VenueMutawatir Jurnal Keilmuan Tafsir Hadith · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural and Religious Practices in Indonesia
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformative utteranceHumilityIslamScholarshipEmbodied cognitionHarmony (color)Meaning (existential)Context (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how Javanese Muslims integrate Qur’anic reception into the ritual care and preservation of the Kris. While the Kris has shifted from being a weapon to a symbolic object of art and cultural heritage, its preservation remains deeply intertwined with religious meaning. Within Javanese Muslim communities, Qur’anic recitation accompanies rituals surrounding the Kris, transforming it into a medium for embodying Islamic values. Using qualitative methods, this research examines how such practices localize scripture through material culture. The findings identify three typologies of Qur’anic reception: (1) Exegetical reception, encompassing ḥabl min Allāh (relation with God), ḥabl min al-nās (ethical relations with others), and ḥabl min al-‘ālam (ecological consciousness); (2) Aesthetic reception, manifested in the Kris’s tayuhan (decorative form), symbolizing humility and moral refinement; and (3) Functional reception, where the Kris serves as a medium for balance and harmony in life. By examining the Qur’an within the context of cultural practice, this study enriches the discourse on Qur’anic reception and hermeneutics. It contributes to scholarship on Islam in Southeast Asia by demonstrating how cultural artifacts, such as the Kris, preserve and embody religious meaning beyond textual exegesis. The Qur’anic receptions embodied in the preservation of the Kris reflect discursive meanings and performative engagements with the Qur’an that transcend its textual interpretation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMutawatir Jurnal Keilmuan Tafsir HadithSame topicCultural and Religious Practices in IndonesiaFrench-language works237,207