The concept pf prophecy and allegorical interpretation (ta'wil) within Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali's and Maimonides' oeuvres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ab mid al-Ghazzl (1055-1111) and Rabai Mosheh ben Maimun (1138-1204), better known in English as Maimonides, share the same religiously motivated concern towards scriptural exegesis:How one ought to interpret the divine (or divinely inspired) texts when a literal reading of the passages is at odds with one's reasoning.Since they consider the intellect (al-aql) to be divinely endowed as well, al-Ghazzl and Maimonides take it upon themselves to reconcile the belief in the authority of the revealed text(s) with what each author understands by independent intellectual reasoning.Their goal is to balance the limits of faithful belief in the prophets' veracity and their commitment to the reliability of the intellect.To this end, they argue for the presence of (at least) two layers of meaning in the revealed tradition: outward (hir) vs. inward (b in) and endeavour to prove that the conflict exists only at the superficial level due to the reader's inability to comprehend the depth of inward message the text conveys.They both consider the issue important enough to dedicate a major part of their works to it, and hence the topic of allegorical interpretation (tawl) plays, directly or indirectly, a central role in their intellectual projects.In this study, I explore the two authors' approach to the question of tawl and try to demonstrate its dependence on the notions of prophecy and revelation (way).iii RsumAb mid al-Ghazzl (1055-1111) et Rabai Mosheh ben Maimun (1138-1204), plus connu sous le nom de Mamonide, partagent la mme problmatique propos de l'exgse du texte sacr : comment devrait-on interprter les textes rvls (ou d'inspiration divine) lorsqu'une lecture littrale du texte va l'encontre de la raison pure ?Puisqu'ils considrent la raison pure (al-aql) comme tant galement divinement dote aux tres humains par Dieu, al-Ghazzl et Mamonide se dcident de rconcilier la croyance en l'autorit des textes divins avec leur conception du raisonnement pur et indpendant.Leur but est de trouver le point d'quilibre entre une foi fidle en la vracit des prophtes et la conviction que la raison est un outil fiable.Pour cela, ils soutiennent la prsence de (au moins) deux niveaux de signification dans la tradition rvle : ce qui relve de la signification extrieure (hir), et ce qui relve de la signification intrieure (b in).Ils
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".