Opportunities and Challenges of Teaching Islamic Studies in Theological Seminaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Saturday, November 21, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., a panel coorganized by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) entitled “Opportunitiesand Challenges of Teaching Islamic Studies in TheologicalSeminaries,” was held during the Annual Meeting of the American Academyof Religion (AAR) at the Marriott Hotel in Atlanta, GA. The panel was presidedover by Reverend Dr. Serene Jones (president of Union Theological Seminaryand AAR president-elect), and included contributions from Nazila Isgandarova(Emmanuel College), Munir Jiwa (Graduate Theological Union), JerushaLamptey (Union Theological Seminary), Nevin Reda (Emmanuel College),Feryal Salem (Hartford Seminary), and Ermin Sinanović (IIIT). Amir Hussain(Loyola Marymount University) served as respondent.The purpose of the roundtable was to address the growing trend amongChristian seminaries in North America of offering courses and, in some cases,professional degrees in the study of Islam, which has often involved hiringMuslim academics. The panelists endeavored to explore the opportunitiesand challenges posed by this new context, as well as the possible future directionof theological schools in addition to the future trajectory of Islamicstudies at them.Nazila Isgandarova, a spiritual care coordinator for the Center for Addictionand Mental Health in Canada and a graduate student at Emmanuel College,spoke of her personal experience as a Muslim student in a theological school.She noted that one of the unique advantages of studying Islam in a Christianenvironment is that it provides a space for the exchange of ideas. Isgandarovaidentified clinical pastoral education (CPE) as one of the major advantages ofstudying at a seminary. She emphasized that Islamic spiritual care educationshould be grounded not only in the Islamic tradition, but also in the conceptualand methodological frameworks provided by CPE. While she acknowledged ...
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".