Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.
From Aspirational Taqrib to Evidence-Governed Dialogue: A Measurement-Oriented Islamic Theological Dialogue Framework for Intra-Islamic Unity
Intra-Islamic theological dialogue is widely affirmed as a doctrinal, ethical, and civilizational necessity, yet many initiatives remain episodic, weakly documented, and difficult to translate into institutional learning. This article develops the Islamic Theological Dialogue Framework (ITDF) as a conceptual-methodological Design Science Research artifact for governing structured theological-dialogue initiatives without reducing doctrinal truth to numerical performance. The framework is derived from an integrative review of Islamic disagreement ethics, comparative and interfaith theology, design science, performance-measurement methodology, and AI/data governance, together with the author’s prior framework lineage and an aligned KPI workbook. The design output comprises five higher-order domains, fourteen operational axes, six non-compensatory safeguard gates, and 280 candidate indicators divided equally between Strategic Progress Indicators and Crisis Warning Indicators. ITDF separates a normative order comprising revelation, qualified authority, doctrinal dignity, and legitimate disagreement from a governance order concerned with evidence traceability, semantic clarification, representation, adab, escalation, institutional follow-through, privacy, and human oversight of AI/NLP tools. It also specifies an eight-stage validation pathway involving expert review, modified Delphi, CVR/CVI, transparent weighting, intercoder reliability, bounded piloting, dimensional diagnostics, and independent governance evaluation. The article contributes a non-reductionist measurement logic for theological dialogue and a testable institutional architecture for converting symbolic engagement into auditable learning. No empirical effectiveness, validated weights, causal outcomes, or cross-context generalizability are claimed.
1. The Amman Message. The three points of the Amman Message. Amman: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought; 2005. Available from: https://ammanmessage.com/the-three-points-of-the-amman-message-v-1/
2. A Common Word. A common word between us and you. 2007. Available from: https://www.acommonword.com/the-acw-document/
3. Al-Alwani TJ. Ethics of disagreement in Islam. 3rd ed. London and Washington (DC): International Institute of Islamic Thought; 2011.
4. Corboz E. Sunni-Shiʿa relations in Europe: framing an emerging field of research. Journal of Muslims in Europe; 12(1): 1-14, 2023. doi:10.1163/22117954-bja10081.
5. Clooney FX. Comparative theology: deep learning across religious borders. Malden (MA): Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
6. Fredericks JL. A universal religious experience? Comparative theology as an alternative to a theology of religions. Horizons; 22(1): 67-87, 1995. doi:10.1017/S0360966900028942.
7. UNESCO. Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Paris: UNESCO; 2021. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455
8. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2023. doi:10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
9. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly; 28(1): 75-105, 2004.
10. 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. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
11. Gregor S, Hevner AR. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly; 37(2): 337-355, 2013. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01.
12. OECD, Joint Research Centre. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2008.
13. Moyaert M. Towards a ritual turn in comparative theology: opportunities, challenges, and problems. Harvard Theological Review; 111(1): 1-23, 2018. doi:10.1017/S0017816017000360.
14. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what is being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health; 29(5): 489-497, 2006. doi:10.1002/nur.20147.
15. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
16. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica; 22(3): 276-282, 2012. doi:10.11613/BM.2012.031.
17. Jolliffe IT, Cadima J. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A; 374(2065): 20150202, 2016. doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0202.
18. MoghadasNian SAH. Islamic Theological Dialogue Framework (ITDF): a KPI-based architecture for intra-Islamic unity and interfaith readiness. Qom: University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.19952.11521.
19. MoghadasNian SAH. Global Kalām Strategic Framework (GKSF): a fourteen-pillar KPI-based comparative model for Islamic unity and theological convergence. Qom: University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16774.28489/1.
20. MoghadasNian SAH. Islamic Ḥiwār Framework (IHF): a KPI-based architecture for intra-faith dialogue and civilizational unity. Qom: University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.34234.30403.
21. MoghadasNian SAH. Taqrīb Diagnostic–Decision Model (TDDM): a multi-dimensional framework for classifying, designing and evaluating Islamic intra-faith rapprochement. Qom: University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27306.68806.
22. MoghadasNian SAH. UCTA-PA: Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture—A performance architecture for measurable rapprochement and civilizational renewal. Qom: University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16602.40647.
23. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science; 9(3): 458-467, 1963. doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458.
24. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology; 28(4): 563-575, 1975. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
25. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union; L2024/1689, 2024.
26. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the European Union; L119: 1-88, 2016.
27. Abid A, Farooqi M, Zou J. Persistent anti-Muslim bias in large language models. Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society; 298-306, 2021. doi:10.1145/3461702.3462624.
