Investigating the Islamic Perspective on Homosexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 2006 article in the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America (JIMA), Dr. Ahmed qualified the predominant psychiatric view on homosexuality by recourse to opinions prevalent within reparative therapy circles. Conservative Muslim thinkers, online counselors, and other professionals continue to hold opinions similar to those delineated by Dr. Ahmed in his journal article. We use his article as a focal point to critique the general opinions upheld by conservative Muslim thinkers by alluding to the harms associated with reparative therapy and by rejecting the unreasonable prescription of permanent celibacy. We critique Dr. Ahmed's association of homosexuality with mental health issues, fatal diseases, alcoholism, and illicit sexual intercourse. Investigating the Muslim tradition, we encourage conservative Muslim leaders to facilitate Muslim gays and lesbians in their legitimate human need for intimacy, affection, and companionship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".