Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tehseen Thaver's book is a study of the Qurʾān commentary of the tenth-to eleventhcentury Muslim theologian and writer, al-Sharīf al-Raḍī (d.1015), entitled Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl fī mutashābih al-tanzīl (Hermeneutical Realities in [Uncovering] the Ambiguities of Revelation).Al-Raḍī is primarily known as the compiler of Nahj al-balāgha (The Way of Eloquence), a collection of speeches and epistles by ʿAlī b.Abī Ṭālib (d.661).Al-Raḍī was also a respected poet and an important figure within the Imami Shiʿi community of Baghdad, both as an intellectual and as a leader.He was the brother of another famous Imami author and the syndic (naqīb) of the Shiʿis of Baghdad, al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d.1044), who had broad connections in high places.Beyond Sectarianism does several things.It first situates al-Raḍī in his political and cultural milieu and the Ḥaqāʾiq in its literary and intellectual context.It also carefully studies the exegetical strategies of the text while focusing on a number of themes prevalent in ʿAbbasid culture: theories of language, ambiguity, and the relation between all of these and the Qurʾān.Along the way, the book raises some larger methodological questions for Islamic studies.In particular, it challenges some prevalent historiographic assumptions that have reigned in Islamic Studies for over a century.These assumptions have to do with the nature of sectarian difference, and the nature of Shiʿism and its relationship with Sunnism in particular, and have provided the framework through which medieval Islamic intellectual, social, and religious history has been viewed.To sum up this conventional approach: it is often assumed in studies on Islamic religious and intellectual history that what a Shiʿi scholar or a political figure did or wrote was mainly informed by his/her being Shiʿi.What exactly being Shiʿi means differs from one place to another, but it is
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".