The Phenomenon of Extremism in Religion in Muslim Life: An Analysis of Its Roots, Causes and Nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper strives to analyse the roots, causes and nature of extremism in Muslim life from a contemporary Muslim perspective. Its scope is limited to historical, ideational and psychological roots of contemporary extremism among Muslim individuals and organizations, regardless of whether they live as the majority or minority in their country. It employs the qualitative method, focusing on content analysis of the writings of Muslim scholars and observations of extremists as they resort to activities that lead to fanaticism or obsession in their words and deeds. It is hoped this will awaken Muslims from their ignorance and raise their consciousness to know the history to enable them to correct themselves from their flaws or errors should they resort to any extremist tendencies in their intentions, interactions, interpretations, actions, articulations, analyses, speeches, sermons, dialogues, debates and writings or teachings, either consciously or unconsciously, whether in academic or social or political or religious or interfaith discourses. Lastly, it provides a conclusion and recommendations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".