Islam and Nation Building in Southeast Asia: Malaysia and Indonesia in Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the onset of the financial crisis in 1997, political developments in the two largest Muslim-majority countries in Southeast Asia - Malaysia and Indonesia - have emphasized a recurrent theme that has lingered in both countries after independence: the uneasy relationship between Islam and nation building. It is, however, the markedly contrasting nation-building processes in the two neighboring countries that present a fundamental challenge to our conventional thinking on the relationship between Islam and nation building. Conventional wisdom contends that Islam is unfit to form the foundations of a modern nation-state that transcends parochial religious sentiments. The Indonesian case seems to confirm this claim: Islam did indeed prove to be a divisive force, reinforcing religious-oriented parochial sentiments. The rise of inter-religious hostility and violence, moreover, suggests that huge discrepancies in the people's perception of their national vision still remain. The Malaysian case, on the other hand, demonstrates that Islam can be compatible with the process of modern nation building. Despite undergoing a powerful surge of Islamisation, both at the state level as well as in society, Malaysia has witnessed a steadily growing "national" consciousness in the past decades. This paper seeks to explain this cross-national variation in outcomes by examining the way in which Islam has been embedded in the two respective states' projects of nation building. It draws special attention to the ideological dispositions of the states' leaders, and locates these in the political as well as socio-economic spheres. In doing so, the paper argues that the position of Islam in each state's project of nation building - whether it was appropriated inclusively or exclusively - has played an important role in bringing about the diverging outcomes of national development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".