Analisis Pemikiran Asy‘ariyah dalam Literatur Modern: Kajian Teologis Berdasarkan Buku Teologi Islam karya Harun Nasution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini menganalisis pemikiran Harun Nasution tentang teologi Asy'ariyah melalui pendekatan kualitatif berbasis studi pustaka, dengan fokus utama pada buku Teologi Islam: Aliran-aliran, Sejarah, Analisa Perbandingan karya Nasution serta literatur akademik modern yang membahas Asy'ariyah dari perspektif historis, doktrinal, dan epistemologis. Harun Nasution, tokoh sentral dalam pembaruan teologi Islam Indonesia yang dipengaruhi pendidikan di al-Azhar dan McGill University, menerapkan metode historis-kritis dan rasional untuk mengkritik doktrin Asy'ariyah, seperti konsep sifat-sifat Tuhan yang menimbulkan dualitas ontologis ("bukan zat tapi bukan selain zat"), teori kasb yang cenderung fatalistik karena Tuhan menciptakan perbuatan manusia sementara manusia hanya "mengakuisisi" tanggung jawabnya, serta relasi akal-wahyu yang membatasi peran akal sebagai otoritas sekunder di bawah wahyu. Kritik-kritik ini berasal dari orientasi rasionalistiknya yang mirip Mu'tazilah, di mana ia menekankan maksimalisasi akal untuk mengatasi kemunduran intelektual umat Islam akibat teologi dogmatis dan jabariyah ala Asy'ariyah.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it