Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.
From Normative Vision to Governed Measurement: UCTA Model II’s 560-Indicator Architecture for Islamic Civilizational Renewal
Islamic civilizational-renewal scholarship offers normatively rich accounts of worldview, justice, maqāṣid, and institutional reform, but provides limited guidance for translating these commitments into auditable measurement and revisable public decisions. This study asks how Islamic civilizational renewal can be operationalized as a scripturally grounded, non-reductive, and governable indicator architecture. Using conceptual design science, it develops and structurally evaluates UCTA Model II; the unit of analysis is the indicator architecture rather than a country, institution, population, or sacred text. The design corpus comprises the registered UCTA lineage, a controlled indicator catalogue, a scriptural–axiological grounding protocol, civilizational design notes, and methodological controls from performance measurement, composite-indicator construction, early warning, validation, and measurement ethics. The resulting artifact specifies five meta-pillars, fourteen strategic dimensions, 280 operational key performance indicators, 140 strategic progress indicators, and 140 crisis warning indicators. The 560-item candidate library separates present performance, sustained strategic trajectory, and emerging fragility; distinguishes 518 non-composite measures from 42 derived composites; and establishes controlled coding, source-to-construct traceability, no-double-counting rules, and non-compensatory red lines for severe failures in dignity, justice, trust, peace, theological integrity, evidence integrity, and data governance. Theoretically, the study reframes civilizational measurement as a governed translation problem linking normative grounding, construct specification, institutional capability, observation, and corrective action. Practically, it provides a role-based architecture for bounded pilots connecting indicators to owners, data lineage, review cadence, and response rules. UCTA Model II remains structurally specified but empirically unvalidated; expert review, feasibility testing, institutional pilots, contextual calibration, sensitivity analysis, invariance assessment, and longitudinal validation remain necessary.
1. Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah: an introduction to history. Rosenthal F, translator; Dawood NJ, editor. Abridged ed. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1967.
2. Al-Attas SMN. Prolegomena to the metaphysics of Islam: an exposition of the fundamental elements of the worldview of Islam. Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization; 1995.
3. Al-Faruqi IR, AbuSulayman AH. Islamization of knowledge: general principles and work plan. 2nd ed. Herndon (VA): International Institute of Islamic Thought; 1989.
4. Auda J. Maqasid al-Shariah as philosophy of Islamic law: a systems approach. London: International Institute of Islamic Thought; 2008. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkc67tg
5. Chapra MU. The Islamic vision of development in the light of Maqasid al-Shariah. Jeddah: Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank; 2008.
6. Kamali MH. Maqasid al-Shariah and ijtihad as instruments of civilisational renewal: a methodological perspective. Islam and Civilisational Renewal. 2011;2(2):245-271. Available from: https://doi.org/10.52282/ICR.V2I2.647
7. MoghadasNian SAH. Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture (UCTA): a KPI-governed goal architecture for Islamic civilizational renewal . University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35438.27202
8. MoghadasNian SAH. UCTA-PA: Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture: a performance architecture for measurable rapprochement and civilizational renewal . University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16602.40647
9. MoghadasNian SAH. Global Kalam Strategic Framework (GKSF): a fourteen-pillar KPI-based comparative model for Islamic unity and theological convergence . University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16774.28489/1
10. MoghadasNian SAH. Islamic Hiwar Framework (IHF): a KPI-based architecture for intra-faith dialogue and civilizational unity . University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34234.30403
11. MoghadasNian SAH. Taqrib Quadripartite Architecture (TQA-4): a KPI-governed super-framework for engineering Islamic unity . University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10560.80646
12. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly. 2004;28(1):75-105. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
13. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2007;24(3):45-77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
14. Gregor S, Hevner AR. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly. 2013;37(2):337-355. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01
15. Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1996.
16. Meadows DH. Thinking in systems: a primer. White River Junction (VT): Chelsea Green Publishing; 2008.
17. Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press; 1996.
18. Melnyk SA, Bititci U, Platts K, Tobias J, Andersen B. Is performance measurement and management fit for the future? Management Accounting Research. 2014;25(2):173-186. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.007
19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2008. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en
20. Espeland WN, Stevens ML. A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology. 2008;49(3):401-436. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975609000150
21. Davis KE, Kingsbury B, Merry SE. Indicators as a technology of global governance. Law & Society Review. 2012;46(1):71-104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00473.x
22. Merry SE. Measuring the world: indicators, human rights, and global governance. Current Anthropology. 2011;52(S3):S83-S95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/657241
23. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; World Meteorological Organization. Global status of multi-hazard early warning systems 2023. Geneva: UNDRR and WMO; 2023.
24. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2023. NIST AI 100-1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
25. Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliative Medicine. 2017;31(8):684-706. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685
26. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563-575. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
27. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(5):1147-1157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
28. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(5):1159-1170. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
29. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 2008;1(1):83-98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
30. Saltelli A, Bammer G, Bruno I, Charters E, Di Fiore M, Didier E, et al. Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto. Nature. 2020;582(7813):482-484. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01812-9
