Bibliographic record
Abstract
On March 21, 2014, Seyed Amir Akrami, a visiting Iranian scholar at the EasternMennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA, visited the headquarters ofthe International Institute of Islamic Thought. He holds a PhD in the philosophyof religion (McGill University), as well as a BA and an MA in Islamictheology and mysticism (University of Tehran).In his opening remarks he stated that with the end of the Cold War, thecloser relations between politics and religion necessitates interfaith relations.Realizing this, the West (especially the United States) has undertaken an unprecedentedstep: establishing centers for religion and diplomacy. Akrami considersthis a very positive development. Another reason for this new approachwas Samuel Huntington’s (d. 2008) “clash of civilizations” theory, which upsetmany Muslims. What is often forgotten, however, is that Huntington alsocalled for dialogue. President Mohammad Khatami of Iran responded to thisby launching his 2001 “dialogue of civilizations” initiative. Akrami maintainsthat political and economic polarization is being replaced by cultures, of whichreligion is a very important part. Given that Islam and Christianity are theworld’s two largest religions, it is more practical to focus on them than tryingto start a dialogue with all religions at this time.The second part of his presentation consisted of several historical observationsrelated to Christian views of Islam, Muslim views of other religions(especially Christianity), and how best to approach/view these two religions’relationship. John of Damascus (d. 750), an early Christian scholar of Islamnoted for his largely polemical works, viewed Islam as a Christian heresy.Centuries later, the Crusades poisoned Muslim-Christian relations. But, importantly,part of the reason for this military onslaught was the great schismof 1054 that split Christendom between the Catholic Church (Rome) and theOrthodox Church (Constantinople).Normal Daniel’s Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Oxford:Oneworld, 1993) is a very good source for these negative views. Among themare the following: (1) Muhammad was a cardinal who wanted to become thepope. When he failed in this attempt, he became a heretic; (2) Muhammadtrained a dove or a bird to sit on his shoulder in order to deceive/delude hisfollowers into thinking that he was being inspired; and (3) Dante, in his DivineComedy, called Muhammad an imposter and liar and therefore placed him inthe eighth circle of hell ...
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".