Islamic Law and Constitution-Making: The Authoritarian Temptation and the Arab Spring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the Egyptian military coup of 3 July 2013, much commentary has focused on the religious-secular divide in Egypt as the principal division that laid the groundwork for the subsequent coup. Less attention has been paid to the profound divisions within religiously-minded Egyptian political actors regarding whether democratic or authoritarian government is more desirable from a religious perspective. This article explores the division between Islamist supporters of a “republican” conception of a modern Muslim constitutional and religious order, and Islamist supporters of an “authoritarian” conception of constitutional government in alliance with a state-supported religious establishment. The article discusses the intellectual resources Sunnī Islam provides for each trend, and uses this division to explain the otherwise inexplicable divisions between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Sunnī religious establishment, particularly as manifested in the contrary positions taken by Yusuf al-Qaradawi and ʿAli Jumu’a, former Mufti of Egypt, regarding the coup’s legitimacy.
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 | 0.005 | 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".