Islam and Human Rights in Indonesia: An Account of Muslim Intellectuals’ Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of Islam and human rights has become important issue in Indonesia at least since the last two decades. Indonesian Muslims have developed two different approaches to human rights: in complete agreement with the declaration of universal human rights; and in resistance to that declaration and developing understanding that Islam encompasses human rights values. The article argues for its part that human rights are not absolutely universal, because they are based chiefly on Western values, structures, ethics and morality. For that, it is reasonable to question their universality. The present article focuses on how Indonesian Muslim intellectuals conceive of human rights and Islamic values as they perceive the two. Specifically, it focuses on four principal issues in human rights discourse: freedom of opinion, religious freedoms, rights of women, and criminal law. The authors reveal in the conclusion that although some Indonesian Muslim intellectuals admit that universal human rights are truly universal, they still see differences in certain cases, due to differences in socio-cultural background. They have tried to affect a synthesis between the universality and particularity of both Islamic and universal human rights in order to make both fit within the Indonesian context.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".