MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126291106 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v13n4p59

Saudi Arabian Students’ Knowledge of the Provisions Governing Interactions between Muslims and Non-Muslims

2020· article· en· W3126291106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tareq S. Albhlal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMajmaah University
KeywordsIslamContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)FaithIslamic cultureReligious educationSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawTheologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study investigates the level of university students' knowledge about Islamic provisions concerning relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims. The context for this study is that of the Saudi Arabian government’s drive to combat the extremism of young male Saudis through inculcating the true message of Islam. To achieve this objective, specialist Intellectual Awareness Units (IAUs) have been set up in all Saudi Arabian universities. The rationale for the existence of these units is that such students, zealous in their faith, are more vulnerable to recruitment by extremists and terrorist organizations if they have only a superficial and distorted understanding of the humane and religiously-ordained provisions in the Quran regarding relations with non-Muslims. However, this study does not examine the workings of the Intellectual Awareness Units but rather the understanding of their clients. Methodology: A random sample of 100 male students attending Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia, during the 2019-20 academic year, was asked to participate in a descriptive survey. A questionnaire was devised to collect information about student understanding of appropriate relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims, as specified in the Holy Quran. Six key themes were addressed in the questionnaire: general principles concerning the relationship between Muslims and others; provisions concerning imitation (of non-Muslim religious practices), contact, alliances and enmity; provisions concerning temples and churches; provisions concerning marriage and food; provisions concerning feasts and religious occasions and general provisions concerning alliances and wars. Results: The results of the study revealed that students’ knowledge about the provisions for dealing with non-Muslims ranged from weak to medium. That is to say, knowledge about the appropriate way for Muslims to engage with non-Muslims was far from universal. Knowledge on marriage and food provisions scored most highly with an average of 60.3%, of students answering questions on this topic correctly whilst knowledge on provisions pertaining to Temples and Churches ranked lowest with a rate of 36.5%. The overall average for all issues was 48.9%. Conclusion: If it is considered that extremism is based upon a superficial and distorted understanding of the Quran and that the level of knowledge displayed by the study sample is typical of young men in Saudi Arabia then the IAUs still have much work to do. The results of this research will be invaluable to the IAUs because it will enable them to supply more nuanced information and activities to their target audience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207