Editorial and source policy

A source record must identify its work, author or compiler when known, source type, passage context, and applicable interpretive tradition. Anonymous web summaries, unattributed quote graphics, synthetic text, and model-generated citations are not eligible as evidence records.

New records begin as unverified and cannot be retrieved for user drafts. Editorial review checks provenance, transcription accuracy, citation details, tradition tags, and whether the excerpt is broad enough to preserve meaning. Verification records who approved the record and when.

Scriptural text is included only when the exact Arabic or translation exists in an approved source record. Hadith references must identify the collection and preserve any available grading information. Tabeerly does not create novel Arabic text or fill missing citations from model memory.

Source and reviewer access are scoped by the selected school or tradition. The product should describe meaningful disagreement rather than collapse it into a false universal consensus. A tradition label indicates the frame used; it is not a claim that all scholars within that tradition agree.

Reviewer profiles must be active and list the traditions they are qualified to review. Reviewers may access only pending work within that scope. Tabeerly should publish credential and conflict-of-interest standards before presenting named reviewers as institutional authorities.

Material source corrections should preserve an audit trail, trigger re-evaluation of affected records, and remove the record from retrieval while disputed. Users can report a citation or review issue through the contact channel. Corrected marketing must not retain fake counters, composite testimonials presented as real people, or unverified outcome claims.