You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A curated, non-redundant survey of datasets and benchmarks relevant to Quranic and Islamic QA research. Compiled from literature review covering 2014–2025.
Verse-based QA; three answer types: single, multi, zero-answer
Categories
11 topic categories spanning the Holy Qur'an
Tasks Addressed
Ad hoc Quranic search · Verse-based QA · Factoid and non-factoid questions
Annotations
Exhaustive — Islamic scholars annotated all directly answering verses
Disadvantages
Skewed topic distribution · Small size limits model training · Does not test free generation or hallucination · No evaluation of morpho-syntactic complexity
Task A — Passage Retrieval over QPC (1,266 passages) · Task B — MRC / span detection · Qur'an QA 2023 Shared Task
Disadvantages
Still small for LLM fine-tuning · Weak retrieval performance reported by participating teams · Imbalanced training data · Does not test generative hallucinations
Complex non-factoid QA · Interpretive queries over Tafsir and Hadith
Disadvantages
Automatic metrics (ROUGE) agree with expert scholars only 11–20% of the time · No established evaluation protocol for Islamic systems · Limited to textual QA without multimodal content
Single school (Maliki) only · Emphasizes factual recall over complex reasoning · Moroccan-specific conventions reduce generalizability · No cross-school comparative evaluation
3. General Arabic QA Datasets (used in Quranic QA research)
These are not Quranic datasets but are frequently used as supplementary training data or baselines in Quranic QA papers.
Machine-translation quality issues explicitly documented in literature · Not suitable for specialized domains without quality filtering · No Islamic/Quranic adaptation
~222 ontology concepts (77 Person, 24 Location, 6 Time); two test QA sets
Language
Indonesian
Format
Rule-based / semantic ontology-based factoid QA
Categories
Indonesian Quranic translation; named entities: Person, Location, Time
Tasks Addressed
Factoid QA (Who, When, Where) over Indonesian Quranic translation
Disadvantages
Covers only three factoid question types · Limited to Indonesian translation · Does not address Arabic source text · Early rule-based and ontology-based approaches
QASiNa
Field
Details
Full Name
QASiNa — Religious Domain QA Using Sirah Nabawiyah
Islamic domain broadly; requires multi-step reasoning across documents
Tasks Addressed
Multi-hop complex QA · Multi-step reasoning across Islamic texts
Disadvantages
Persian only — not applicable for Arabic Quranic research · First of its kind in Persian; breadth across Islamic subdisciplines unknown
5. Cross-Cutting Observations
Key Limitations Across All Datasets
Issue
Description
Small size
The most universal limitation. Virtually all Quranic QA datasets are too small (< 10,000 QA pairs) for modern LLM fine-tuning.
Automatic metrics unreliable
Qamar et al. (2024) found ROUGE scores agreed with Islamic scholars only 11–20% of the time — standard NLP evaluation is fundamentally misaligned with Islamic domain expertise.
No hallucination testing
No existing Quranic/Islamic QA dataset is designed to specifically detect or measure LLM hallucinations on religious content.
No morpho-syntactic-semantic evaluation
Complex Arabic linguistic queries combining morphology + syntax + semantics are not addressed by any existing benchmark.
Imbalanced topic coverage
AyaTEC and its derivatives have skewed distributions across Quranic topics.
Licensing undocumented
Licensing terms are almost entirely absent across reviewed datasets.
No generative QA evaluation
Most benchmarks focus on extractive span detection or MCQ; free-form generative answer evaluation is absent.
Single-domain silos
Most Islamic QA datasets (Hajj-FQA, FiqhQA, QIAS, MizanQA) are narrowly scoped to one subdomain.
Compiled from: "Quranic QA Benchmarking Resources and Datasets: Characteristics, Limitations, and Availability" (PDF) and existing benchmarks review (DOCX), March 2026.