From Taqrib Aspiration to Evidence-Governed Difference Governance: TGE-360 as a Design-Science Architecture

SeyyedAbdolHojjat  MoghadasNian,Asef  Basereh,SeyyedAbdolHamed  MoghadasNian

ПРЕПРИНТ

Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.

From Taqrib Aspiration to Evidence-Governed Difference Governance: TGE-360 as a Design-Science Architecture

S. MoghadasNian,

A. Basereh,

S. MoghadasNian

2026-07-02

https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3115752

Intra-Islamic rapprochement, or taqrib, is frequently articulated as a normative commitment to unity, yet many initiatives remain exposed to event-dependence, weak institutional follow-up, media distortion, fragmented responsibility and limited evidence-to-decision traceability. This article develops TGE-360, the Taqrib Governance Ecosystem 360, as a mature, executable and evidence-governed design-science architecture for managing legitimate intra-Islamic difference without reducing faith, sanctity or doctrinal truth to performance indicators. The need for such an architecture is not abstract: the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought and the International Islamic Unity Conference represent a sustained institutional field of proximity work, scholarly exchange, publication, conference production and cross-madhhab networking. The paper uses a conceptual design-science method grounded in the registered TGE-360 method, prior taqrib-related governance and indicator scholarship, institutional taqrib experience, and methodological anchors from design science, collaborative governance, performance measurement, validation studies, risk governance and comparative religious dialogue. The resulting artifact specifies a universal governance core and context-adaptive execution field across ten operational layers: source clarification, knowledge production, institutional governance, dialogue workflow, community trust, media governance, crisis resilience, data and indicators, localization, and validation-based learning. The contribution is threefold: TGE-360 reframes taqrib as governed difference, integrates diagnostic and decision mechanisms into one ecosystem, and provides an evidence-to-decision chain for future expert validation, case demonstration, dashboard prototyping and field evaluation.

Ссылка для цитирования:

MoghadasNian S., Basereh A., MoghadasNian S. 2026. From Taqrib Aspiration to Evidence-Governed Difference Governance: TGE-360 as a Design-Science Architecture. PREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3115752

Список литературы

1. International Islamic Unity Conference. History: The 35th International Islamic Unity Conference. Tehran: World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought. Available at: https://iuc.taqrib.ir/iuc35/en/history (accessed 23 June 2026).

2. International Islamic Unity Conference. About us: The 36th International Islamic Unity Conference. Tehran: World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought. Available at: https://iuc.taqrib.ir/iuc36/en/contact-us (accessed 23 June 2026).

3. International Islamic Unity Conference. The 36th International Islamic Unity Conference. Tehran: World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought. Available at: https://iuc.taqrib.ir/iuc36/en (accessed 23 June 2026).

4. The Amman Message. The Amman Message. Amman; 2005. Available at: https://ammanmessage.com (accessed 23 June 2026).

5. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly; 28(1):75-105, 2004.

6. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems; 24(3):45-77, 2007.

7. Gregor S, Hevner AR. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly; 37(2):337-355, 2013.

8. Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory; 18(4):543-571, 2008.

9. Provan KG, Kenis P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory; 18(2):229-252, 2008.

10. Neely A, Gregory M, Platts K. Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management; 15(4):80-116, 1995.

11. Norreklit H. The balance on the balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research; 11(1):65-88, 2000.

12. Franco-Santos M, Lucianetti L, Bourne M. Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research; 23(2):79-119, 2012.

13. Melnyk SA, Bititci U, Platts K, Tobias J, Andersen B. Is performance measurement and management fit for the future? Management Accounting Research; 25(2):173-186, 2014.

14. Abu-Nimer M. Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: Toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research; 38(6):685-704, 2001.

15. Clooney FX. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

16. Brunner R. Islamic Ecumenism in the 20th Century: The Azhar and Shiism between Rapprochement and Restraint. Leiden: Brill; 2004.

17. Second Vatican Council. Unitatis Redintegratio: Decree on Ecumenism. Vatican City; 1964.

18. John Paul II. Ut Unum Sint. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; 1995.

19. World Council of Churches. The Church: Towards a Common Vision. Faith and Order Paper No. 214. Geneva: World Council of Churches; 2013.

20. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 31000:2018 Risk management - Guidelines. Geneva: ISO; 2018.

21. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 8000-150:2022 Data quality management - Roles and responsibilities. Geneva: ISO; 2022.

22. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST; 2023.

23. OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD/LEGAL/0449. Paris: OECD; 2019.

24. Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review; 1(1), 2019.

25. Raji ID, Smart A, White RN, Mitchell M, Gebru T, Hutchinson B, Smith-Loud J, Theron D, Barnes P. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency; pp. 33-44, 2020.

26. MoghadasNian SAH. TGE-360: A mature, executable and evidence-governed Taqrib Governance Ecosystem. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate; 2026. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30521.53601.

27. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Taqrib Diagnostic–Decision Model (TDDM): A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Classifying, Designing and Evaluating Islamic Intra-Faith Rapprochement. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27306.68806.

28. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., (2026). Civilizational Algorithm Theory (CAT): A Design–Science Method for Sacred-Text Ontology Structuring and Theology-to-Governance Translation. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17244.86400.

29. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Global Kalam Strategic Framework (GKSF): A fourteen-pillar KPI-based comparative model for Islamic unity and theological convergence. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16774.28489/1.

30. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Twelve-pillar framework for comparative jurisprudence (TPF-CJ). University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26840.61441/1.

31. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Islamic Ḥiwār Framework (IHF): A KPI-Based Architecture for Intra-Faith Dialogue and Civilizational Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34234.30403

32. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Islamic Theological Dialogue Framework (ITDF): A KPI-Based Architecture for Intra-Islamic Unity and Interfaith Readiness. University of Religions and Denominations (URD). ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19952.11521

33. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture (UCTA): A KPI-Governed Goal Architecture for Islamic Civilizational Renewal. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35438.27202

34. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., (2025). UCTA‑PA: Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture: A Performance Architecture for Measurable Rapprochement and Civilizational Renewal. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16602.40647

35. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). 7S-360 Strategic Indicator Architecture: A KPI-Governed Framework for Integrated Governance. University of Religions and Denominations (URD). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15665.24160

36. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2026). PRGDAI-SD 360+ decision architecture: Integrating performance, risk, governance, data, artificial intelligence, sustainability, and decision execution. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17495.02729

37. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Ecumenical Christian KPI Framework (ECKF): A KPI-Based Strategic Architecture for Christian Unity and Institutional Dialogue. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31969.21609

38. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025). Interfaith Doctrinal Dialogue Framework (IDDF): A KPI-Oriented Architecture for Abrahamic Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13026.85443

39. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation; 12(10):1-8, 2007.

40. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology; 28(4):563-575, 1975.

41. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.

ПРЕПРИНТ

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ

Использование куки-файлов