Map the positions across madhahib in your sources
Islamic studies使う場所: チャット
For a fiqh question covered by the manuals you have uploaded. It lays out which position each source attributes to which school and the evidence each gives, keeping the attributions the source made rather than inventing a consensus.
Question under study: [state the fiqh question]. Using only the fiqh works I have uploaded, produce a comparison table with one row per position: | Position | School(s) the source attributes it to | Evidence the source cites | Which of my sources states this | Then, below the table: 1. On what point do the positions actually diverge — a difference over a text, over its authenticity, or over how a principle applies? 2. Which positions do my sources describe as the majority or the well-known view, and which as minority or weak? Use only the characterisations my sources themselves give. 3. What conditions or exceptions do the sources attach that a short summary would lose? Rules I need you to keep: - Attribute every position to the source that reports it. Do not merge sources into one voice. - Do not issue a ruling, prefer one position, or advise me what to do. Present what the sources say. - Where my sources conflict about what a school holds, show the conflict rather than resolving it.
使い方
- 1notebooklm.google.com でノートブックを開きます。
- 2[角括弧]の部分を、ご自身の内容に置き換えます。
- 3プロンプトをチャット欄に貼り付けて送信します。
角括弧の部分は、ご自身のトピックや質問に置き換えてください。
islamic studiesの他のプロンプト
- Compare what your tafsir works say on one ayahUpload two or more tafsir works and this lays their treatments of a single ayah side by side — what each emphasises, where they diverge, and what each cites. The comparison you would build by hand with the books open, done in one pass with the references kept.
- Pin down a term exactly as your text uses itTechnical vocabulary in aqeedah carries weight, and the same word can be used differently by different authors. This extracts the precise sense a specific uploaded text gives a term, and flags where your other sources use it differently.
- Extract what your sources report about a hadithPulls together the chain, the grading and the commentary that your uploaded collections and commentaries give for one narration. It reports what the books say — it does not grade anything itself, which is not a thing an AI has standing to do.
- Reconstruct a chronology from your historiesBuilds a dated sequence from the historical works you have uploaded, keeping the disagreements visible. Historians differ on dates and on what happened; a timeline that hides that is worse than no timeline.