PEMIKIRAN HARUN NASUTION TENTANG PENDIDIKAN DI PERGURUAN TINGGI AGAMA ISLAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thought of Harun Nasution's educational reform began to be socialized and applied since he firstentered the elite ranks of IAIN Jakarta (in 1969, after he completed his studies at Me Gill University Canada). Atthat time Harun had the impression that the thought at IAIN before he joined it was very narrow, allergic to thingsthat smelled of renewal. An indication of this is that books containing renewed ideas, such as books written byMuhammad Abduh, for example, are prohibited from being taught at IAIN. Thought at IAIN, said Harun, is stilltraditional, which specializes in fiqh, not thinking. Whereas understanding of Islamic religion which is fiqhoriented, according to Harun, if all problems are returned to fiqh (Islamic law), then we will go back to 20 yearsago. In addition, if the IAIN is still allowed to be controlled by the narrow fiqh thinking, the government will seethat the IAIN gives birth to narrow and fundamentalist thinking in a negative sense, which is why sanat may bethe IAIN will be closed. Similar criticism was also raised by several rectors of Islamic higher educationinstitutions in this country. Azumardi Azra said that the decline in Islamic Studies was due to the weak ability ofthe principals in PTAI who did not have knowledge and perspectives in the basic Islamic sciences. In addition,Amin Abdullah also stated that in PTAI, the Philosophy of Philosophy is still weak and not much research andbooks have been formulated for this field. In this regard, the first step taken by Harun Nasution in order to renewhis Islam at IAIN is to renew the curriculum (in the narrow sense of the study material) of IAIN. In connectionwith this matter, Aaron proposed that the introduction of Islamic Studies be included in the IAIN curriculum. Thiscourse is intended to provide insights into Islam that are as broad and basic as possible. Besides that Harun alsoproposed the inclusion of courses in philosophy, kalam science, Sufism, monotheism, sociology, and researchmethodology. With the updated curriculum, Harun believes that it will help open broad insights about Islam, anurgent matter in a society that is undergoing a process of modernization.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".