Investigating the Phenomenological Scientific Methodology in the Comparative Study of Religion: An Islamic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper aims to investigate the phenomenological scientific methodology in the study of religion, to ascertain its origin, development, and application from an Islamic perspective. Its goal is to identify the methods used in the study of religion by phenomenologists and then analyse them in the light of Islam, its sources, and the writings of selected Muslim scholars. The study employs both descriptive and analytical methods. The focus of discussion is on (1) the phenomenology of religion, its genesis and meaning; (2) the key characteristics of phenomenological scientific methodology in the study of religion; and (3) analyzing its two key concepts, i.e., the epoché and the eidetic vision from the Islamic point of view. It is argued that studying phenomenological techniques from an Islamic perspective enables researchers to recognise both the negative and positive aspects of the methodology and to understand this area of study more effectively when conducting religious studies. This paper concludes that, although there are strong refutations against the phenomenological scientific methodology of comparative religious studies from an Islamic perspective, it also has an acceptable level.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads 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".