Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dominant perceptions about the Islamists are that of rigid, uncompromising and anti-democratic actors. The objective of this article was to ascertain the reality behind such claims. A case in point is Jamāt-e-Islāmī Pakistan (JI) which is blamed for its tactical support to the authoritarian regime of General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq during the years 1977-88, and resultantly being labelled as an anti-democratic force. Prominent works authored by distinguished scholars were explored to ascertain the reality behind this claim. One-to-one interviews were also conducted to cross-verify the facts. The party’s decisions during this period were analytically reviewed with the help of background context. This study found that the main concerns of the party during the Zia period were the implementation of Nizam-e-Mustafa as demanded by the anti-Bhutto movement, early elections and avoidance of any confrontation with state institutions. When the party realized that the methods adopted by the incumbent regime contradicted JI’s vision, the party stalwarts started criticizing the regime. Due to the Afghan issue and the previous experience of the Bhutto regime, the party did not join the opposition movement led by Pakistan Peoples Party. However, the party vehemently opposed the dictatorial stance of Zia’s sympathizers in the higher courts. Resultantly, criticism of the military regime costed the party in the form of the neutralization of its student organization (Islāmī Jamiat-e-Talaba) and the dismissal of its city government of Karachi. Based on these facts, claiming the Islamists as being non-democratic falls short of being convincing proofs. The study transpired that JI, through a pragmatic approach, has continuously tried to synthesise Islamic politics with democratic norms as per its own understanding.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.983 | 0.987 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".