Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically examines the goal(s) of Islamic education, with a particular focus on the interpretations advanced by William Chittick. This examination occurs within the context of the unitary theistic objective intrinsic to Islamic education, contrasting it with the multiplicity of secular goals underpinning Western education. The critique is centred on Chittick’s assertion that modern Western education, dominated by the principle of takthīr—multiplicity—is fundamentally incompatible with the unifying vision of tawhīd—the unity of God—inherent in traditional Islamic education. At the heart of this inquiry lies the question: can the objective(s) of Islamic education, firmly rooted in the principle of tawhīd, as Chittick steadfastly asserts, coexist with the Western educational framework, which is grounded in takthīr? Drawing from classical Islamic thought with a particular focus on Sufism, the paper revisits the triadic structure of knowledge in Islamic intellectual tradition: transmitted, intellectual, and inspired knowledge, which aims to cultivate the soul’s spiritual transformation. While Chittick views tawhīd as the ultimate guiding principle. This paper, through a critical-analytical framework, contends that tawhīd and takthīr are inextricably compatible and interdependent through the lens of waḥda (unity-in-diversity and diversity-in-unity), compelling us to engage with the nuanced interplay between these seemingly opposing forces within the realm of education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".