To Review and Analyze Thoughts and Political Ideas of Muhammad Abduh and Ali Abd al-Raziq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flows of recent Islamic awakening which changed a number of Islamic countries, this question is arisen that theoretical background of this movement should be looked at in whose thought and action. In response to this, according to the forefront of Egypt during the last two centuries, minds are directed toward Mohammad Abduh and Ali Abd al- Raziq. Muhammad Abduh and Ali Abdel are among the leaders and thinkers of the Islamic awakening in the Sunni world. Both, with common but differentiated pain about Muslim countries condition, backwardness and have been holding back their countries, had a think and they believed Islam was the final choice and tried to offer solutions in these areas that their solutions, according to performance and attitude, are notable. Therefore, the implementation of the political ideas of these two influential thinkers in the Muslim world is important. As far as studies show that, despite the great works of thought and ideas of these two scientists have been published, but no comparative studies have been discussed. Thus, due to the importance of the issue, so comparatively in this article, these two scholars of Islam world have been studied.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".