Religious Sentiment in the Muslim Malaysia: Rationality and the Religious Belief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports a study on the reaction of the Muslim in Malaysia toward provocative action on Prophet Muhammad. 700 respondent males and females, who were obtained randomly throughout Malaysia participated in the study which aimed at identifying the Muslim reactions toward provocative actions against Prophet Muhammad. The provocative actions include defaming, vilifying and insulting the Prophet. The respondents were given booklets of questionnaire containing statements which were provided with the Likert type scales, ranging from 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree, 3. Not sure, 4. Disagree, and 5. Strongly disagree. The respondents were asked to response to the questionnaire and after 30 minutes, the booklet was collected. The data which was obtained was analysed using the SPSS to find the percentage, the means and the correlation. The findings show that very high percentage of the respondents were offended and prepared to fight if the Prophet is vilified and insulted. The finding also shows that the Muslim seems to be more easily agitated when Prophet is vilified compared to practicing the teaching of Prophet. The finding shows that 95.3% of the respondents were angry when Prophet is insulted while the respondents who practiced the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad was 85.7%.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".