Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interfaith marriages involving Muslims and non-Muslims are increasing in prevalence in North America and elsewhere. Traditional and reformist Islamic perspectives differ in terms of the permissibility of interfaith marriages, their desirability, and the treatment of Muslim men and Muslim women. Traditional perspectives tend to allow for Muslim men to intermarry, but not Muslim women. There is some consensus that Muslims are permitted to marry “People of the Book,” or those who follow divine Scriptures that predate Islam, although there are differences in opinion as to which religious groups comprise this category. Reformist perspectives tend to emphasize the importance of ijtihad, or personal reasoning, in coming to decisions about interfaith marriage. They also suggest that the current context, including circumstances of Muslims living as minorities in the West, be taken into account. In terms of experiences of persons who belong to Muslim–non-Muslim couples, various challenges and opportunities are recurring themes in research. Challenges include family and community acceptance and support, decisions over religious upbringing of children, and pressure to convert (normally exerted by family). Opportunities include decreasing stereotypes about other faiths and increasing mutual understanding, clarification of each partner’s religious identity, and children’s appreciation of diversity. Research has also assessed attitudes toward interfaith marriage among Muslims living in the West. Stronger religious identity and other forms of religiosity (practice, belief, and fundamentalism) predict more negative attitudes. In contrast, identification with mainstream culture predicts more favorable attitudes. Generally, men tend to be more favorable to interfaith marriage than women, which is consistent with gendered interpretations of the permissibility of interfaith marriage. Given demographic trends, interfaith marriages involving Muslims will become an increasingly relevant and timely topic, particularly in contexts like Canada and the United States, where Muslims are living as religious minorities. Research should be devoted to the experiences of interfaith families and how they can best be included within Muslim religious communities. Additionally, culture, in terms of culture of origin, mainstream culture, and global culture, is a multidimensional variable that research should further explore in association with interfaith relationships.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".