Overcoming Civilizational Anxiety, A Search for Arab Authenticity

(A Contribution of Mohammed Abed Al-Jābirī)

The internal dynamics and polemics within Arab scholarship seem to be deliberately left

out by Edward Said’s project, Orientalism. He continuously criticizes Western-Orientalists for

misrepresenting, creating, and dominating the Orient (i.e. Arab world).1 For Robert Irwin, this

lack of attention towards Arab intellectuals is plausible. Said neglects the works of Arab scholars

such as Nabia Abott, Fazlurrahman, Mohammed Arkoun, George Makdisi, Mu sin Mahdī,

Fouad Ajami, and other important intellectuals for least for two reasons: hostility and the

accusation of being a political and cultural satellite of the United States.2 Unfortunately, Irwin

himself only mentions the overlooked Arab intellectuals who live in the West and mainly writes

for Western audiences. He seems to be ignorant of Arab intellectuals who engage in a serious

debate within their own society and over their own culture and civilization.

The modern Arab intellectual debates are primarily triggered by what Joseph A. Massad

calls “civilizational anxiety.”3 According to Massad, if Abū Nuwās is considered the source of

civilizational anxiety in the Abbasid Arab-Islamic period―because of his ‘deviant’ sexual

desires; in modern Arab-Islamic civilization, there are two events which render such

civilizational anxiety. First, the invasion of Napoleon in 1798 which makes Arab-Islamic world

“shock” and desired to “catch up” with Europe4; second, the Arab-Israeli war in 1967 which

induces Arabs to rethink their own heritage/tradition (turāth)5 and to face modernity (hadāthah).6

1
Edward Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage Book Edition, 1979).
2
Robert Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents, (New York City: Overlook Press, 2006), 292.
3
Joseph A. Massad, Desiring Arabs, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007), 1-97.
4
Ibid, 16,
5
Turath is in this paper translated so eti es as heritage a d so eti es as traditio depe ds o the o te t.
But, if the turath used in the adjective sense, namely turathi, the tra slatio will e traditio al, salafist, or
lassi al.
1
The first event inspired the emergence of the first generation of what is called “Arab Renaissance

(Nahḍah)” which described the Arabs at that time as “decadent”7. The second event gave rise to

the birth of the later generation of Nahḍah or intellectual movement whose purpose is to revive,

reform, or reinterpret the turāth and to find their own form of ‘modernity’.

This paper attempts to discuss these intellectual dynamics within modern Arab thought,

especially in the second phase of Arab Renaissance, whose main purpose is to overcome the

civilizational anxiety. Instead of outlining modern Arab-intellectual discourses in terms of

dealing with such anxiety―ranging from liberalist, Marxist, ideologist to Islamist―, we will

focus on the ‘epistemological approach’ introduced and championed by the modern Moroccan

philosopher, Mohammed Abed Al-Jābirī (will be simply called: Al-Jābirī). Al-Jābirī’s

epistemological thought is important not only because it has elicited “rich and multifaceted

debates,”8 but has also provided “very clever, learned and thought-provoking”9 contributions

towards the invention of the authenticity of modern Arab thought.

Contemporary Arab Thoughts

Before analyzing Al-Jābirī’s project and contribution, it is best to provide a brief overview

of general trends in modern Arab thought, so we can recognize the unique position of Al-Jābirī.

There are three general trends of Arab intellectuals. First, some Arab intellectuals cling to the

tradition (turāth) handed down from the past to be applied in the present. The tradition/heritage

is believed to be the source of Arab-Islamic renaissance (Nahḍah).10 These intellectuals are often

6
Ibid, 18.
7
Ibid, 8. Brutus al-Bustani (1819-83) des ri ed the prese t Ara i this wa , de ade e a d falle state.
8
Joseph A. Massad, 19.
9
Issa J. Boullata, Trends and Issues in Contemporary Arab Thoughts, (New York: State University of New York Press,
1990), 54.
10
Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: Contemporary Critiques. Translated from French by Aziz
Abbasi. (Texas: The Center for Middle Eastern Studies The University of Texas at Austin, 1999), 9-11.
2
labeled as “Islamist”, “Fundamentalist”, “Salafist”, or “Revivalist”, which generally refers to

Muslim Brotherhood movement―whose main figures are Hassan al-Banna and Sayid Qutb―

and refers to the revivalist movement led by Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh.

Second, some of them incline to adopt Western ways through an idea of revolution,

rationalization, secularization, liberalization, and modernization (hadāthah) in the aims of

rebuilding Arab civilization.11 These scholars are represented by liberal thinkers like Adonis (Ali

Ahmad Said), and Marxist intellectuals like Tayyib Tazini and Husain Muruwwah. Third, other

Arab intellectuals are prone to be selective in invoking inspirations from both tradition and

modernity in order to find a kind of authentic Arab modernity.12 There are two main approaches

used by Arab intellectuals in this third category; the ideological approach of Hassan Hanafi and

the epistemological way of Mohammed Abed Al-Jābirī.

The first and the second groups of Arab intellectuals will not be the main focus of this

paper because they do not reflect a creative engagement with tradition or modernity. Their

project is merely reviving the tradition (turāth) to be applied in the present or blindly adopting

Western values and practices into Arabic contexts. The third group of intellectuals whose project

is searching for an authentic modernity of Arab is more interesting because they are more

creative and critical in dealing with both tradition and modernity. However, instead of discussing

the ideological way of Hassan Hanafi, which is criticized as too encyclopedic, cerebral and

theoretical13, we will focus on Al-Jābirī’s epistemological project. His main contribution and

project reside in what he calls “contemporary reading” of the tradition (turāth) instead of “turāthi

11
Ibid, 11-13.
12
Isa J. Boullata, Trends and Issues in Contemporary Arab Thoughts, (New York: State University of New York Press,
1990), 40-56.
13
Ibid, 45.
3
reading” of it,14 and in his critique of Arab reason which in turn generates a philosophical ground

for an ‘authentic Arab modernity’.

Classical Attitudes Towards The Turāth

The term turāth is actually a modern term which, according to Massad, refers today to

“the civilizational documents of knowledge, culture, and intellect that are said to have been

passed down from the Arab of the past in the present”.15 The discussion about the turāth

emerged and accelerated after the 1967 Arab defeat with the view of understanding the reasons

behind such a defeat. The underlying reason for the study and assessment of the turāth is the

following question that is often asked by a number of Arab intellectuals, “What are the reasons

behind the defeat and how we can achieve progress?”16

The above contemporary Arab thoughts, from revivalists, liberalists and Marxists,

provides their specific ways of reading the turāth in order to overcome such defeated feelings

and to achieve the intended progress. According to Al-Jābirī, there are three existing methods of

reading offered by Arab intellectuals; the fundamentalist reading, the liberal reading, and the

Marxist reading.

The first method of reading (al-qirā’ah al-salafīyah which is used by Salafists,

Fundamentalists, Islamists, or Revivalists) is based upon two questions; “How do we regain the

greatness of our civilization, and How do we resuscitate our turāth (heritage, tradition)?”17

Accordingly, the turāth is read as both means and goal in terms of regaining the great

civilization. In the first place, one must look back to the turāth in the past. This is a necessary

14
Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri, 2.
15
Joseph A. Massad, 17.
16
Ibrahim M. Abu Rabi, Contemporary Arab Thought: Studies in Post-1967 Arab Intellectual History, (Virginia: Pluto
Press, 2004), 259
17
Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri, 9.
4
means for finding ‘an authentic Arab-Islamic identity’ which resides in “the era of glory”, in

which “true Islam” was genuinely practiced. Then, one could perceive the ‘era of the glory’ as

the goal, in the sense that such an ideal type of civilization in the past must be revived and

regained in the present time. The basic reasoning of this method is that “what took place in the

past could be achieved in the future.”18

In the same fashion, the second reading method, the liberal one, is centered upon the

following questions, “How do we live our era and How do we assume our relationship to our

turāth?”19 If the salafīyah reading resorts to the Arab-Islam tradition in the past, the liberal

reading paves the way of Western-European tradition, in terms of living the life in the present

time and in terms of reading the turāth. In this method, the Arab-Islam tradition today is

expected to adopt “European frame of reference and hence sees in tradition only what the

Europeans see in it.”20 Therefore, an Orientialist-like reading of the turāth is prevalent. For

example, when it comes to the reading the Arab-Islamic (philosophical) tradition, this reading

method would reconstruct it back to its Jewish, Christian, Persian, Indian, (and other) origins.21

The role of Arab-Islam is merely intermediary between the Greek and modern (European)

civilizations. If the ‘glory of Arab-Islamic civilization’ in the past was achieved through the

assimilation of a foreign past (mostly Greek) to Arabs, then by analogy, the future Arab-Islam

civilization should also adopt and assimilate into “the European present-past”.22

18
Ibid.
19
Ibid, 11
20
Ibid, 12.
21
Ibid
22
Ibid, 13.
5
 The third reading, which is the Marxist method, is derived from the questions: “How do

we achieve our revolution and “How do we restore our traditions?”23 In the leftish reading, the

turāth is approached only in the aims of achieving the project of revolution; and revolution is

used for restoring the turāth. The problem arises when there is no “class struggle” or “dialectical

materialism” in the Arab-Islamic tradition. This reading then attempts to “manipulate historical

reality” for the sake of “theoretical schema.” It means that the “theoretical schema,” which is

borrowed from the founding fathers of Marxism, is superior over “historical data”. As if the goal

of reading the turāth were ”to prove the soundness of the ready-made dialectical method”

provided by Marxian theorists.”24 Thus, the project of this leftish reading is merely to apply the

Marxian ready-made dialectical method in the Arab-Islam context.

The above three ways of reading, for Al-Jābirī, are just the same from the perspective of

epistemology.25 All of them are governed by a hidden-unconsciousness which acts as logical

reasoning. Their basic mode of reasoning is what the ancient Arab scholars call the “analogy of

the unknown to the known (qiyās al-ghā’ib ʿala al-shāhid).”26 To be more precise, for these

entire reading frameworks, “the unknown (al-ghā’ib)” is equal to “the future” while “the known

(al-shāhid)” is equal to their current epistemological references―be it “the greatness of

civilization in the past”, “Western-European civilization”, or “Russia/China model of

revolution.” In other words, although they have different ideologies and aspirations, their mode

of reasoning is in common, namely “the analogy of the unknown to the known” or “the analogy

of the future to the known others (past civilization, European civilization, or Russia/China model

of civilization)”. The uncritical use of such analogical reasoning by Arab intellectuals in fact

23
Ibid.
24
Ibid, 14.
25
Ibid, 2.
26
Ibid, 17.
6
generates what Al-Jābirī calls as the understanding of the turāth which is confined within

tradition (qirā’at al-turāth li al-turāth)”27 or what Massad literally translates as “turāth view of

turāth.”28

Al-Jābirī’s Project I: Re-Reading The Turāth

Al-Jābirī’s fundamental project is accordingly to oppose this “turāth view of turāth”

through finding a “contemporary view of the turāth.”29 There are three stages of contemporary

reading offered by Al-Jābirī; first, the necessity of an epistemological break from the

understanding of turāth that is locked inside turāth; second, disjoining the “read-object

(maqrū’)” from the “subject-reader (qāri’)”; third, rejoining the reader-object to the subject-

reader.

The first stage of contemporary reading aims to render a decisive epistemological break

from the structure of the Arab reason of the “era of decline” and its extension in contemporary

Arab thinking. The break is not a rejection of the turāth, but it is a renunciation of the turāth

understanding of the turāth. In other words, what would be rejected is not the turāth, but our

relationship with the tradition; because, the relationship with the tradition which lies on a

traditional understanding of the tradition by means of the analogical mode of reasoning (i.e.

qiyās al-ghā’ib `ala al-shāhid) leads to the stagnation of Arab reason. This kind of relationship

not only locks our modern time inside of the paradigm of the “era of decline”, it also creates

what Al-Jābirī calls “a permanent presence of the past inside the game of thought and inside the

affective domain, thus feeding the present with ready-made solution.”30 Therefore, this

27
Ibid, 2.
28
Joseph A. Massad, 24.
29
Ibid.
30
Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri, 22.
7
traditional relationship should be epistemologically deconstructed and replaced by contemporary

relationship with the tradition (turāth).

The second stage of the contemporary reading aims to create an objective reading of the

turāth. The objective reading of the tradition is necessary since contemporary Arab “readers” are

generally restricted by the tradition, which means that tradition absorbs them, thus depriving

them of independence and freedom.31 Al-Jābirī describes such acute absorption of the

subjectivity of the Arab reader by tradition (turāth) as follows: “From the day of his birth, we

have not ceased to instill tradition in him, in the form of a certain vocabulary and certain

concepts, of a language and thought; in the form of fables, legends and imaginary

representations, of a certain kind of relationship to things and a certain way of thinking; of types

of knowledge and certain truths. He receives all this without the slightest critical reaction or

critical mind.”32

The objective reading of the turāth operates within the idea of the necessity of two

reading moves; one, the separation of the subject-reader from the object of reading; two,

disjoining the object of reading from the subject-reader. The first move of the reading enables us

(the subject) to regain our dynamism, in order to rebuild the turāth (object) in a new perspective.

The second move of the reading enables the turāth (the object) to “regain its independence and

its personality, its identity and its historicity.”33 By employing these two reading moves, one

could achieve “objectivity” in terms of building a relationship with the tradition (turāth) and the

31
Ibid, 25.
32
Ibid, 25-26.
33
Ibid, 28.
8
turāth can have its own “contemporareinity.”34 Accordingly, one would be aware of his own

identity, consciousness and freedom with regard to the tradition, and the tradition would be

understood and placed within its desires, aspirations, problems, and historical stages as a whole

(episteme). This makes the tradition contemporary to itself.

The third stage of the reading is directed to make the turāth contemporary to us as the

subject-reader; therefore, rejoining the read-object (turāth) to the subject-reader (a contemporary

reader) is necessary. In Al-Jābirī’s mind, this can only be achieved through intuition (hads). 35 It

is however not intuition used in the sense of mystics. This intuition is more identical with a

logical or mathematical intuition which enables contemporary readers to unveil what the read-

object had silenced. The intuition which must “decipher signs within the text undoubtedly folded

inside the game of thought that are hidden by the strategy of discourse.”36

If the silenced aspects within the text (i.e. tradition) are unveiled, contemporary readers

could identify its ideological contents besides its cognitive contents. Unfortunately, according

Al-Jābirī, the cognitive contents of Islamic tradition―which are primarily taken from the

physical sciences of Aristotle―are dead subjects, incapable of reviving. They are collapsed with

the advent of modern science. 37 However, the ideological contents of the tradition are still alive,

in the form of a dream. This dream projects a possible future. It is not a dream when we project

our future into the past (like those who want to revive the greatness of past civilization). We call

it “a dream” when “the future” is projected into the time to come.38 Therefore, the task of

34
The turath becomes contemporary to itself, which means the turath is read with regard to its own time, its own
problems, its own discourse and episteme (Al-Ja iri alls these dis ourse a d episte e as great strides that are
ei g ade worldwide , see Al-Jabiri, 2).
35
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, 30.
36
Ibid, 30-31.
37
Ibid,122.
38
Ibid, 123.
9
contemporary readers of tradition is to interact critically with the tradition, seeking an

enlightened dream from the surviving tradition, and making it engaged with our desires,

aspirations, and concerns. In this way, the turāth will be considered contemporary to us modern

readers.

Al-Jābirī’s Priject II: A Critique and Reconstruction of Arab Reason

Al-Jābirī utilizes the above stages of reading to reexamine all Islamic scholarships, which

includes Islamic jurisprudence, theology, Arabic grammar, Arabic poetry, rhetoric, Quran

exegesis, Hadith criticism, and philosophy. For him, these scholarships began to be

systematically written down and codified by Arab scholars in the age called “The Age of

Tadwin/The Age of Codification,” starting from the middle of the second century of Islamic

era.39 The process of intellectual recording and its codification extended to the Abbasid era when

the oral tradition of Islam was collected, translations from non-Arab cultures are made, and the

system of Arab-Islamic thought was established.40 As a result, when Arab scholarship reached

the age of maturity, there were three major intellectual disciplines that eventually shaped what

Al-Jābirī calls “Arab Reason”:

First, the discipline of explication (ʿulūm al-bayān), whose epistemological method

applies analogical thinking (al-qiyās al-bayānī) in almost entire early Arab Islamic scholarships

ranging from grammar, rhetoric, prosody, lexicography, Qur’an exegesis, Hadith sciences,

Islamic law and legal theory, to Islamic theology (kalam).41 This analogical reasoning requires

the availability of a certain kind of origin/original case (aṣl), the derivate/new case (farʿ), the

39
Issa J.Boullata, Ibid, 51.
40
Ibid.
41
Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri, Naqd Naqd al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī: Bunyat al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī, (Beirut: Markaz Dirāsat al-
Wiḥdah al-Ara ī ah, 1990), 137-145.
10
reason/the cause (ʿillah), and the logical/judicial conclusion (ḥukm).42 For example, drinking

wine is prohibited because it is intoxicating. Taking drugs, although its explicit legal ruling is

absent in either Quran or Hadith, is also prohibited based on the analogical thinking, which refers

to the case of wine. The reason for the prohibition of drugs is its similar effect to wine, namely

the intoxicating effect. In this case, drinking wine is the aṣl, taking drugs is the farʿ, the

intoxicating effect is the ʿillah, and the prohibition is ḥukm.43 So, the legal ruling in the new case

(taking drugs) can be known by means of analogy to the original case (drinking wine) based on

its similarity (intoxicating effect). This kind of reasoning is also used in the other disciplines,

although they may have different terms. In theology, for instance, the aṣl is called al-shāhid, (the

known) whereas the farʿ is al-ghā’ib (the unknown). To know the reality of the unknown (e.g.

God) can be achieved through analogy to the reality of the known (e.g. human attributes). In

Quran studies, furthermore, all contemporary issues (farʿ) are supposed to be assessed by the aṣl,

which is the Quran. The reason underlying the use of this analogy (al-qiyās al-bayānī) is to seek

the harmony between reason (ʿaql) and revelation (naql).

This kind of tradition for Al-Jābirī is not worth emulating. This tradition traps

contemporary readers in the problematic systems of reference (sulṭah al-marjiʿīyah)―namely

associating the unknown with the known (in the realm of epistemology)―and infinite attempts

to harmonize reason with revelation (in the realm of ideology). Contemporary scholars

unfortunately still use this system of reference. The past heritage or the Western-Europe

civilization functions as the aṣl or the al-shāhid (the known) whereas the future functions as the

farʿ or al-ghā’ib (the unknown). Although deficiency in this analogy is apparent―i.e. the aspect

of reason/similarity (ʿillah) is absent―, they still impose the logical conclusion (ḥukm) insisting
42
Ibid, 145.
43
Mohammed Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1989), 200.
11
that the future (the unknown) should be filled with the known (either the past or the West). The

extension of this epistemological reasoning and ideological vision from the age of tadwīn into

the present cannot be tolerated. Therefore, Al-Jābirī advocates the above deconstructive reading

projects, namely the necessity of the epistemological break and of the historical reading. Without

such epistemological break and historical reading, the contemporary Arab Reason will always be

locked within the turāth. Shīʿism

Second, the discipline of Gnosticism (ʿulūm al-ʿirfān), which is based on inner revelation

and insight as an epistemological method, which includes Sufism, Shīʿī thought, Ismāʻīlī

philosophy, esoteric Qur’an exegesis, oriental illumination philosophy, theosophy, alchemy,

astrology, magic, and numerology.44 Gnosticism claims that philosophy and religion can be

synthesized by means of its Gnostic reasoning. Al-Jābirī however denies the epistemological

method of Gnosticism not only because of its ideological contents―which is the revenge of

Persian aristocracy45using the cover of Shīʿism or their heritages like Zoroastrianism.46 But more

importantly, he refuses it because of its heretical and irrational characters. One, the epistemology

of Gnosticism is basically Hermetic, which is neither Arabic nor Islamic in content, but, it covers

itself with the cloth of Islam.47 Second, this epistemological method is founded upon neither

reason nor senses, but upon an inner revelation and insight (kashf). It claims that the

conclusion/knowledge is not derived from analogical reasoning (qiyās) or demonstrative

reasoning (Aristotelian syllogism), but it is acquired through the claim of a direct experience

with the divine.48 Third, the Gnostic epistemology is colored with a mythological, mystical, and

44
Issa J.Boullata, Ibid, 53
45
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: Contemporary Critiques, Ibid, 49.
46
Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi, Ibid, 264.
47
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Naqd al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī: Bunyat al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī, Ibid, 372-374.
48
Ibid, 374-376.
12
magical way of thinking. In this light, the truth does not result from religion, philosophy, or

science. It is generated from finding esoteric-mystical meanings which are preserved in

mythologies.49 For Al-Jābirī, this kind of epistemology cannot be an inspiration for Arab

intellectual progress.50 The dream that it offers is not the enlightening dream, not inspiring the

emergence of the independent Arab reason and Arab authenticity.

Third, the discipline of inferential evidence (ʿulūm al-burhān), whose epistemological

method is based on empirical observation and intellectual inference. They include logic,

mathematics, physics (all branches of natural sciences) and even metaphysics.51 The

epistemological foundation of al-burhān’s disciplines however is basically rooted in the

Aristotelian tradition, especially the method of logical demonstration, which uses deductive and

inductive logical reasoning through syllogism. In Arab-Islamic context, this tradition was

developed by al-Kindi and al-Farabi,52then reached its peak in the hand of Ibn Rushd.53

According to Al-Jābirī, al-burhān is unlike others whose epistemology is based on revelation,

consensus, and legal reasoning (their main logic is analogy) or based on the sainthood (wilayah)

and inner-insight (kashf). Al-Burhān is the only discipline whose epistemological reasoning is

based on human intellectual and natural capacities including senses, experiments, and rational

judgment.54 This is the tradition which Al-Jābirī is looking for. It is the tradition whose dreams

and epistemology are worth emulating although its contents may be disputable. Al-Jābirī calls

this tradition as “the spirit of Averroism/Ibn Rushd (ar-rūh ar-rushdīyah).”55In the Rushdian

49
Ibid, 379.
50
Issa J. Boullata, 53.
51
Ibid.
52
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: Contemporary Critiques,56-57.
53
Ibid, 124.
54
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Naqd al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī: Bunyat al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī, Ibid, 383-384.
55
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: Contemporary Critiques, 128.
13
scheme of truth, in addition, religion and philosophy coexist; although they have different

epistemological systems, their truth is the same and not contradicting each other.56 At this level,

Rushdian spirit contains the spirit of “rationalism, realism, axiomatic and critical approach.”57

Accordingly, Al-Jābirī launches two major projects in terms of finding the authenticity of

Arab Reason. First, a complete historical independence of the Arab self (al-istiqlāl at-tārikhī li

al-dhāt al-ʿarabīyah)58; and second, building a foundation for A New Age of Tadwin (aṣr al-

tadwīn al-jadīd).59 The first project necessitates the modern Arabs to free themselves from two

exemplary systems of reference, the Arab-Islamic past and the present Western-Europe.

Alternatively, he proposes the Rushdian spirit, as explained above, as a point of departure for the

independence of Arab historical identity. By adopting this spirit, on the one hand, modern Arabs

will not be alienated from their own tradition (because the Rushdian spirit is rooted in Arab-

Islamic tradition); on the other hand, they also will not be deprived from Western-European

modernity (because its foundation is rationalism which both the Rushdian spirit and Western

civilization advocate). The second project of Al-Jābirī however seems to be utopian project,

which suggests the beginning of a new age of Tadwin founded upon the Rushdian spirit. All

Arab-Islamic sciences and disciplines should be based on the burhan’s system of thought,

abandoning the bayān’s and the ʿirfān’s epistemology. Accordingly, Al-Jābirī argues that if the

Cartesian spirit is present in French thought or the spirit of empiricism inaugurated by Locke and

56
Peterson Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, (Cambridge:
Cambridge Press University, 2005), 187.
57
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: Contemporary Critiques, 128.
58
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Al-Khiṭāb al-ʿA abi al-Muʿāsi , (Beirut: Markaz Dirāsat al-Wiḥdah al-Ara ī ah, 1992),
205.
59
Mohammed Abed al-Jabiri, Naqd al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī: Bunyat al-ʿA l al-ʿA abī, Ibid, 555.
14
Hume is present in English thought, so the spirit of Ibn Rushd must be also present in the Arab

modern thought.60

Conclusion

The above exposition is an attempt to show the internal dynamics of a modern Arab

intellectual, namely Mohammed Abed Al-Jābirī, in dealing with Arab-Islam intellectual tradition

and with the Western-Europe civilization. Here the Arab, the Orient (using Said’s term) and

Islam are not represented and not spoken by others, either Orientalists or Arabs who live in the

West. Rather, the real Arab intellectuals, represented by Al-Jābirī, speak for themselves about

their struggle to find their own way, ideal, and identity amidst “civilizational anxiety”. In this

respect, Al-Jābirī offers the Arab intellectuals two ways by means of which the authenticity of

Arab modernity can be achieved and the Arab civilizational anxiety can be resolved. First, by

rereading Arab-Islamic traditions and heritages (turāth), and second, by reconstructing Arab

reason based upon the Rushdian spirit.

The first way enables Al-Jābirī to criticize his fellow Arab intellectuals, ranging from

Islamist scholars to the liberal and leftish intellectuals, such as Jamaluddin al-Afghani,

Muhammad Abduh, Sayid Qu b, Adonis, ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Rāziq, Hassān anafī, ayb Tazinī, and

others. Although these modern intellectuals may have different ideological agendas, their

epistemological way of reading the tradition is the same, namely the analogical reasoning

(qiyās). This reading method for Al-Jābirī renders “Arab reason” locked within a circle of

tradition. Contemporary Arabs become unable to think and to act out of such traditional

references and ways of thinking. Al-Jābirī therefore offers a contemporary reading which; one,

enables us to keep our identity, freedom, and independence from the cycle of tradition; two,

60
Ibid, 128.
15
enables the tradition to be contemporary to itself because it is understood in its own context;

three, enables us to engage critically with the tradition in the aims of seeking a tradition (turāth)

which can participate in dealing with our present concerns and aspirations.

The second way of Al-Jābirī (the reconstruction of reason) however enables him to first

of all criticize many classical and medieval Arab-Islamic scholars including Imām al-Shāfiʿī,

Abū al- asan al-Ashʿarī, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Imām al-Sibawayhī, Abū al- āmid al-

Ghazzālī, and Ibn Sīnā. They are accused to be the founders and the advocates of analogical

reasoning, which is regarded by al-Jabiry as the cause of the decline of Arab-Islamic civilization.

Ibn Sina in particular is also attacked by Al-Jābirī for his inclination towards Gnosticism, which

is deemed irrational and incompatible with the project of Arab rationalism. Instead of using

analogical reasoning (qiyās bayānī) and Gnostic insight (ʿirfānī), inspired by Ibn Rushd, Al-

Jābirī suggests the demonstrative-inferential epistemology (burhānī) as the foundation for the

Authentic Arab Modernity or the Authentic Arab Rationalism. By paving the way of Ibn Rushd,

he believes that modern Arabs will be able to have their civilizational independence and to

establish a new age of Tadwin.

Although Al-Jābirī’s exposition of the turāth and his critique of his fellow Arab

intellectuals may not be immune from ideological motives (i.e. reviving the superiority of

Maghribi’s intellectuals), his contribution to the discourse of Arab Nahḍah is undoubtedly very

significant. His valuable contribution is not only in terms of understanding the turāth and the

present Arab situation, but also in terms of searching for the future identity of Arab modernity.

Mohammed Syifa Amin Widigdo

PhD Student at the Department of religious Studies

16
 Indiana University-Bloomington

syifamin@gmail.com

17
 References

Al-Jābirī, Mohammed Abed, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: Contemporary Critiques. Translated

from French by Aziz Abbasi. Texas: The Center for Middle Eastern Studies The

University of Texas at Austin, 1999.

Al-Jābirī, Mohammed Abed. Al-Khiṭāb al-ʿArabi al-Muʿāsir. Beirut: Markaz Dirāsat al-Wi dah

al-Arabīyah, 1992.

Al-Jābirī, Mohammed Abed. Naqd al-ʿAql al-ʿArabī: Bunyat al-ʿAql al-ʿArabī. Beirut: Markaz

Dirāsat al-Wi dah al-Arabīyah, 1990.

Adamson, Peterson and Taylor, Richard C. The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy.

Cambridge: Cambridge Press University, 2005.

Boullata, Isa J. Trends and Issues in Contemporary Arab Thoughts. New York: State University

of New York Press, 1990.

Irwin, Robert. Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents. New York City:

Overlook Press, 2006.

Kamali, Mohammed Hashim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Islamic Texts

Society, 1989.

Massad, Joseph A. Desiring Arabs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Rabi,Ibrahim M. Abu. Contemporary Arab Thought: Studies in Post-1967 Arab Intellectual

History. Virginia: Pluto Press, 2004.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Book Edition, 1979.

Wehr, Hans, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J.Milton Cowan. Beirut:

Librairie du Liban, 1980.

18