The Story of Lot and the Qurvln's Perception of the Morality of Same-Sex Sexuality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussion of the morality of same-sex sexuality in Islam is beginning to come to the forefront. It is a controversial topic that evokes differing views in Islam and, as such, needs to be addressed and understood. This study narrows the scope of the investigation to the use of moral terminology in the Lot story and elsewhere in the Qur'ăn. The method of semantic analysis that shall be applied is similar to the one espoused by Toshihiko Izutsu. In order to acquire a better understanding of how same-sex practices are qualified morally in the Qur'ăn, same-sex activities shall also be looked at in comparison to other opposite-sex and non-sexual practices. It is my contention that, in the Qur'ăn, same-sex practices are viewed no differently from certain opposite-sex and non-sexual activities. In quoting from the Qur'ăn, I will give my own translation of the Arabic terms that shall be analyzed. In general, however, I adopt Qur'ănic passages from Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, and where necessary, modify Qur'ănic passages with my own translations. I will also use Arberry's verse numbering, following that of Flügel.
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it