Introducing Islamic Theological Studies at German Universities: Secular Expectations and Epistemic Rearrangements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The academic discipline of Islamic theological studies is a latecomer to Germany. When the German Council of Science and Humanities published its “Recommendations on the Advancement of Theologies and Sciences Concerned with Religions at German Universities” in 2010, it included a recommendation to establish Islamic theological studies, on par with Christian theologies, at German universities. In this blueprint for the speedy introduction of this new discipline, certain expectations at the scientific and social levels were expressed. The introduction of the discipline into German universities is an interesting interplay of state, science, and religion within a secular setting and has to be understood in the context of recent developments to integrate citizens of Muslim belief as Muslims into German society at large. These recommendations also affected the academic field. Discussions took place within the established Orientalist discipline of Islamic studies (Islamwissenschaft) regarding the feasibility of another academic discipline studying Islam from a scientific perspective. Representatives of the new Islamic theological studies responded to the critique and tried to explain communalities and differences between the old and the new subject. One distinction made in the discussions was a proclaimed difference between an insider's and outsider's point of view. In this article I will describe the context of the establishment of Islamic theological studies, give an insight into the debates, and explain why the assumption that there is a difference between an insider's and outsider's perspective is misleading.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it