Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unknown to many in “Christian” North American society, the person of Jesus is highly revered among the millions of Muslims in the world. This shared reverence for Jesus between Muslims and Christians allows for possible dialogue and greater understanding between adherents of the two religions. Moreover, the renewed interest in scholarship on Jesus, whether historical or theological, allows the Jesus traditions of Islam to become additional sources in this field of scholarship. Given these two reasons, the academic scholar of religion, then, has a motivation to dive into the growing wealth of discussions on the Islamic Jesus in the West. This thesis examines three different areas of Western scholarship on the Islamic Jesus. This is done in effort to discover what affirmations are made about the Islamic Jesus in Western scholarship, and to determine what differences and similarities can be discovered between these three areas. After an introductory chapter, Chapter Two deals with an examination of the representation of Jesus found in die public discourses of Muslim polemicists, by examining the debates and lectures of two polemicists: Ahmed Deedat (South Africa) and Jamal Badawi (Canada). Chapter Three turns to the representations by the academics of religion who study Islam and world religions, who have published introductions to the Islamic religion. Chapter Four then looks at the English translations of the primary Islamic textual sources, the Qur’an and the hadith collections. This is done in light of the affirmations made by the scholars of the previous chapters, pointing out areas that have been passed over or emphasized. Finally, Chapter Five provides some insights and questions for possible future study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".