KONSEP KEADILAN PEREMPUAN DALAM ISLAM PERSPEKTIF ASGHAR ALI ENGINEER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The injustice of women is still rampant today. People often use religious teachings to perpetuate patriarchal systems. The purpose of this study is to examine the concept of women's justice in Islam from the perspective of Asghar Ali Engineer. This research uses qualitative methods with a library research approach, namely research conducted by reading the concept of equality of women used in the book "The Right of Women in Islam", data collection techniques in this study are carried out by reading, understanding, and examining parts of the book that are relevant to the theme of discussion, then content analysis is carried out to obtain a clear understanding of the information or data obtained. The result of this study is the concept of women's justice in Islam perspective Aghar Ali Engineer can be seen in his thoughts which are summarized on several themes, namely: Asghar criticism of women's justice, women's leadership, women's testimony, inheritance of women, women in marriage, and women and divorce. From these themes have shown about the various criticisms made by Asghar in order to defend women's justice, it can be understood that Asghar rejects various legal foundations that normatively degrade women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".