Study of Ethics and Human Rights in Western Schools and Discourse of Political Islam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the invariance of many provisions of Islamic teachings on the one hand and existence of interest on the other hand, political Islam by interpreting repeated primary and secondary rules meaning tries to strengthen Islamic state.Therefore, moral meaning and discourse of human rights concepts such as freedom, equality, justice and ... is different from many traditional and political jurists and implications in the moral bases at west (Kant’s own good school and school of profitability) and Western human rights. Accordingly, in this paper, we try that according to the views of Imam Khomeini as the founder of political Islam in Iranand Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi as one of the most important theorists of this discourse that have different ideas about ethics and discourse concepts of human rights and explain the position of political Islam with regard to the domestic interests in the west moral education with an emphasis on Kant’s own good and utility schools and moral concepts of human rights.Now the question in study is that according to the ethics discourse of human rights concepts and some basic precepts of Islamic teachings, whether political Islam and more has functionality the consistency with Kant’s ethics or due to the use of evidence deemed, is consistent with profitability school or not or finally by rejecting the aforementioned schools, offers a third way? And according to his moral system in contrast to the concepts of human rights discourse, provides what position?
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".