The Reception of The Qur’an in The Preservation Tradition of Javanese Kris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".