Legitimising Power through Islamic Law in Identity Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legitimisation of power through Islamic law in identity politics represents a fundamental paradox of Muslim political modernity, whereby divine norms intended to liberate humans ethically are instead rearticulated as a language of power that structures obedience, normalises the moral domination of the majority, and reduces citizenship to symbolic compliance. The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyse the relationship between Islamic law, the legitimisation of power, and identity politics in the context of modern politics. This study uses a qualitative approach with a library research design integrated with legal-political discourse analysis. The results state that the legitimacy of power through Islamic law in identity politics is not merely an expression of collective piety, but a battleground that determines the direction of democracy, the limits of citizenship, and the future of pluralism. Sharia, which was originally understood as a religious normative guideline, can shift into a language of power that disciplines the body, regulates social space, and produces a moral hierarchy between more legitimate citizens and stigmatised citizens, so that piety changes from spiritual ethics into political capital that is traded in the market of support. The main problem is not sharia as a value, but rather the mechanism of instrumentalisation that turns religion into a tool of social control and covert moral majoritarianism. The constructive implication is that policy design must uphold religious aspirations without sacrificing civil rights, while also allowing for criticism so that the law does not become a tool of exclusion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".