Jurisprudence in the Stories of David and Sulaiman - Peace Be Upon Them - from Qur'an
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aims to explain the judicial rulings considered in the stories of David and Suleiman, peace be upon them, in particular, stating the following rules of the participation of 2 judges in one issue, the existence of many judges in one country, and the multiple decisions taken regarding one issue. The study used the analytical approach to study the provisions of the Qur'an deduced from the stories of Dawoud and Sulaiman - peace be upon them - in the Al-Anbiya and Saad Surahs, which are the basis of various provisions in the jurisprudence of the judiciary. The study found that the participation of judges in the same issue is permissible, the meeting of more than one judge in one place and even in one jurisdiction is permissible, Suleiman was a judge like David and they met, the judgment of the judiciary may be multiple in one issue, then there will be more than one correct judgment, and the judge may rule on what he deems most likely and most favorable for the case of the opponents. The study recommended the need to refer to the provisions of the Holy Quran in various sections of jurisprudence. It also recommended the need to conduct studies based on Quranic stories, which occupied a quarter of the verses of the Holy Quran, to deduce the benefits and judgments of various subjects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".