On Mohammed Al Jabri’s „Critique of Arab Reason“ (English)

Reason is a light which should certainly elucidate the darkness but sometimes is also needed in broad daylight.

(Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri)

AL                                       Al-Jabri2

Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri



The Moroccan philosopher Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri (1935 – 2010) is said to be the most important contemporary Arab thinker, whose work is well acknowledged among Arab and Muslim audiences, but was until a decade ago completely unknown in the West. Thanks to hard efforts of some Western Arab speaking researchers parts of his works were translated first into French, and then later into English and German. Al-Jabri became widely known in Arab faculties and among philosophically interested readers in the Islamic world when he published “The Critique of Arab Reason”, which appeared in four volumes between 1984 and 2001 in Morocco. The first one, “The Formation of Arab Reason” (FOAR) was translated into English in 2011 and will be my main source for quotation and reference. There are at least another two of Al-Jabris works available in English: Arab-Islamic Philosophy: A Contemporary Critique (1999) and Democracy, Human Rights and Law in Islamic Thought (2015). In 2009 an “Introduction” to his “The Critique of Arab Reason” was published in German and contained two texts which summarizes his principle ideas on the subject. Another text, which is – as far as I know – only translated into German is a lecture Al-Jabri gave on the “Foundations of Medicine” by the medieval Arab philosopher Ibn Rushd (Latin: Averroes), when he was awarded with a price by the German think tank Ibn Rushd Fund For Freedom Of Thought in 2008. All German sources will be referenced by footnotes. In 2018 a compendium, Islam State and Modernity. Mohammed Abed al-Jabri and the Future of the Arab World, was launched by the academic publisher Palgrave-McMillan containing several essays written mostly by researchers from Islamic studies departments, who deal with Mohammed Al-Jabris philosophy not as philosophers but as experts on Arabic and Islamic studies. For reasons I will address below the book has therefore several flaws.

But let us focus on the person of Muhammed Al-Jabri himself and his life. He was born in Morocco into a simple working class family in 1935 and because of his talents he received further education. He started as an elementary teacher and became engaged in politics, first as a union activist in the teacher’s union, later as an intellectual connected to left wing parties in Morocco. Most of his working life he was a professor of literature and philosophy at the University Of Rabat, Morocco who worked on behalf of the Moroccan government and influenced the curricula of upper school grades and university students. While he wrote extensively about the crisis of Arab societies as an expert on literature, language and philosophy, his main focus of political activism has been the field of education policies, the fight against illiteracy and the poor conditions of schools and intellectual life in the Arab world. As a reaction to the terrorist attacks of 2001 he concentrated his efforts on commentary on the Qur’an from a linguistic and interpretive point of view in order to tackle and denounce Islamism on grounds of Islamic scripture, but it seems that no one not even Arab readers had yet the opportunity to read these texts.[i] He only authorized a French translation of one of his books during his life time, namely the French version of the third volume of the “Critique of Arab Reason” published as „La raison politique en Islam: Hier et aujourd’hui“ in 2007.

Since none of his major works has been translated before 2000 he has only a few readers in the West and the nature of his ideas is practically unknown. Al-Jabri’s work clearly deserves a greater audience. In the Palgrave-McMillan reader, I mentioned above, Islam State and Modernity. Mohammed Abed al-Jabri and the Future of the Arab World (2018) the Introduction by the editors Eyadat, Corrao and Hashas contains this paragraph:

„The reputation of al-Jabri in the vast Arab-Islamic world does not equal his reputation in the Euro-American world, not only because his Critique is not translated, as we noted above, but also most importantly because his open voice against ‘Western Hegemony’ and his use of concepts like ‘social democracy’ in the cold war.”[ii]

This statement is wrong based on any reliable fact that is known. Al-Jabri was not shunned or ignored because of “his open voice against ‘Western Hegemony’”. First Al-Jabri never expressed complaints about ‘Western hegemony’ as a predicament of Arab/Islamic societies. As a philosopher and analyst of Arab language and culture he dismisses in his work all explanations which seek for external causes of Arab countries miserable conditions. His work was mostly a reminder for his Arab speaking audiences, that it is their task to pose new questions and find different answers to problems which have to be located inside Arab societies first. When Al-Jabri started his opus magnum “The Critique of Arab Reason” in 1984, he addressed a problem which has risen since then as one of the most important questions of all: Why has the Arab and Islamic world fallen behind every other modern society in terms of technological progress, scientific excellence and economic success? In 1984 the growing awareness of the reality of this question let to the first substantial discussions among Arab intellectuals and is debated ever since in Arab and Muslim countries. While most answers prefer an explanation regarding outside causes, Al-Jabri was one of the few who did not so. We will discuss his particular point of view further below. Another flaw of the Palgrave-McMillan compendium is the tendency of some of its authors, Arab and Western scholars in Islamic studies, to confuse Al-Jabri’s goals with their own and so they try to create an Islamic envelope for his thoughts on Arab reason.[iii] But Al-Jabri concentrates his work on Arab thought, not Islamic thought, as we shall see later.

And second he was not shunned or ignored by Western publishers because he never authorized on purpose until late in his life any translation of his works and he rejected several invitations from European and American universities and organizations to speak or to give a lecture.[iv] Instead of fame and lucrative university scholarship positions he chose a life in decency and solitude. In some eulogies he is described as a man who cared a lot about children’s education and the fate of the illiterate. But it is this decision, not to get audiences elsewhere rather than talking to his own people who he approached at eye level, which makes him so recognizable and respectable. The task he gave himself was to write and to express a consistent critique of Arab reason as he understood it in terms of Arab history, Arab literature and Arab culture and from within the most inner features of that culture. In short he wrote books about the need of self-criticism and critical self reflection on all matters which concern the political and cultural issues of Arab societies. To be able to do that he decided consciously not to appear as an intellectual of exterior origins. It was important to him, to his work and to the influence he wanted to achieve that no one could identify him as a kind of Westernized know-it-all who lectures people he recognizes as backwards, a kind of attitude many Westerners, some Arab liberals and a lot of Arab Westernized intellectuals are often connected to deliberately or not. His approach to be an Arab, who speaks to Arabs about Arab issues in the Arab language did not prevent him in any way to read and comment on European philosophy. “The Formation of Arab Reason” quotes and uses European thinking with the same elegance as it is working with the large amount of Arab literature and history Al-Jabri is able to master. It is interesting to note that he himself told a German reader of his books that he never was subject to hate speech or harassment by Islamists. He simply stated that he “never provoked anyone” and that this got himself mostly out of trouble.[v] We shall see later how he managed to do that.

In the following volumes of “The critique of Arab Reason”, which are not or only in French available he researches deeper the concepts of law, religion, politics, economy and ideology inside the frameworks of Islam and Arab culture, but I had no opportunity to take a look into them, so the focus of this piece will rely mostly on the first volume, the English edition of “The Formation of Arab Reason”. (FOAR)


In the center of Al-Jabri’s philosophy and critique of Arab reason lies his interpretation of the medieval Arab philosopher Ibn Rushd or Averroes as he was called in Latin. Averroes, who lived from 1126 to 1198 was born in Cordoba during the Islamic period of Spain. Most of his life he was a Kadi, a judge in Sharia law, but also practised as a medical doctor and wrote a remarkable treatise on the “Foundations of Medicine”. His greatest achievements are nevertheless his commentaries on the complete works of Aristotle, as far as they were known in these times. He became an advisor of Caliph Abu Yaqub Yusuf I. who ordered him to collect and summarize his comments on Aristotle and make them available for a wider audience. For a few years he was the most important intellectual of his time, who had great powers in his hand to form opinion and inspired a lot of scholarship. At the core of his teachings there is the separation of philosophy and religion, which both are true but independent from each other. Al-Jabri writes:

“The discourse of Ibn Rushd is entirely based on regarding religion and philosophy as independent structures where one must seek the truthfulness in them intrinsically and not extrinsically. And the required truthfulness is the truthfulness of demonstration, inference through evidence, and not the truthfulness of premises. As the premises in religious matters, as well as in philosophy, are positivist fundamentals which ought to be adopted without evidence. Consequently Averroes asks: ‘If the arts of deriving inferential evidence contain in their principles restrictions and positivist fundamentals, so how proper would it be if such exist in the laws derived from the Revelation and reason?’ And, therefore ‘the sage philosophers ought not debate and engage in discourse on the principles of the laws. This is because every art has its own principles, and it is a duty for he who is concerned with any given art to recognize its principles and not contradict them through denial or invalidation; thus, the art of legal practice ought to be as such.’ (Averroes, JM) As the philosopher ought not [to] contradict the fundamentals and principles upon which religion is based because they are fixed already, similarly the cleric ought not [to] contradict philosophical issues unless acquiring their fundamentals and principles.” (FOAR, p. 397)[vi]

A century later Thomas von Aquin, another interested while not uncritical reader of Averroes’ Aristotle commentaries, set this principle of two different forms of knowledge embedded in religion and philosophy at the core of Christian theology. But let’s get on with Averroes. There were reasons why he had such marvellous success in the beginning.

“The embedding of universal reason in Arab-Islamic culture came, then, within the context of a political and ideological conflict between the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun and the opponents of his state, the esoteric (batini) Shiites. The ancient heritage was utilized as a weapon in this struggle: and thus, while the Shiites resorted to gnosis – to the ‘resigned reason’ to confirm the continuity of revelation in their Imams and, consequently, to confirm their right to the imamate and leadership of the Muslims– religiously and politically, al-Mamun resorted to ‘Greek’ universal reason to reinforce the aspect of the Arab religious rational as advocated by the Mutazilah (Islamic strain which promoted Greek philosophy, JM) and ensconced by political reality.” (FOAR, p. 286)

Averroes eventually got himself in trouble with Islamic orthodoxy, because of his dogmatic interpretation of Aristotle, who he deemed to be infallible and considered his works to express absolute truth. As the tides turned his Caliph, the son of his former employer, needed the support of the Islamic ulema and at the end of the bargain Averroes was removed from all his positions, banned into exile and all available copies of his books were burned. He returned to Marrakesh only two years before his death, forgotten and broken. Why did this happen? And what was the difference between Islam and Christendom in regard to Averroes new philosophy? “As for Arab culture, the Aristotelian order had not come to be fully known in the same form in which it was known in Christian Europe, because the religious referential authority in Arab culture had no need for it, neither in terms of its logic nor in terms of its knowledge, unlike the case of the Christian referential authority: the Church. (FOAR, p. 428)

But to make a stronger point how Arab reason dealt with the problems Averroes posed, Al-Jabri uses an argument which brought him the most hostile reactions to his work in his whole life. In the Islamic world a still common geographical distinction which is known as the difference between the “Maghreb” and the “Mashriq” describes not only a regional difference, but also a civilisational division inside Islam. The Maghreb in the middle ages meant the Islamic heartlands of North Africa and the Islamic caliphates of El-Andalus in Spain, while the Mashriq contains the Islamic parts of Eastern Africa and regions in the North of the Arab peninsula up to Persia. The Maghreb in cultural terms stands for the civilizational peaks of Sunni Islam, while the Mashriq still evokes impressions of provincial backwardness. In Al-Jabri’s display of this civilisational divide, the enlightened parts of Arab culture in the Maghreb led by the Sunnis of the Mutazilah strain of Islam were able to develop a new philosophy which overcame the old logic of conclusion by analogy, while the Shiite Persians, promoting gnostic ideas and Sufism all together with the conservative Arab traditions of religious scripture, engaged in an anti-rationalist version of religion. In other words: the orthodox clergy of Islam wanted to get rid of a dangerous rival. They had no intention to share their supreme command over religion with equally supreme ideas of philosophy, which Averroes had in mind. One way or the other the latter version became prevalent because questions of power and legitimacy are more important to rulers than the opinions of philosophy professors. In fact Al-Jabris point is nothing else than this: while the Maghreb has brought civilization, the Mashriq has brought backwardness. Al-Jabri was attacked for this idea by liberals and Marxists alike, even called racist, while Sunni Muslims obviously appreciated his unfavourable view of Sufism and Shia Islam. Maybe that’s what he had in mind when he claimed he “never provoked anyone”. It is interesting to note that also the Shia Muslims of Iran were nevertheless quite interested in Al-Jabris argument and invited him for lectures on that subject. The Iranians seems to have appreciated his harsh judgement on the failures of Arab civilization and so he provoked again no one. But critics and supporters alike, all of them had major difficulties to realize the consequences of another aspect of his argument.

Al-Jabri emphasizes in several parts of his work that Arab reason never got beyond the method of conclusion by analogy. This method, which was already known in antiquity is the first step towards an understanding of abstraction, but indeed only the first one. An example for better understanding: A conclusion of analogy would state that birds and bats are of the same kind because both fly. But this is of course not true when one tries to get deeper into the matter. Birds and bats are completely different animals with different bodies, behaviour, reproduction habits, sensory organs and systems of orientation. Zoologists would never imply that both animals have a relationship to each other because they both fly. Scientific reasoning does not look for analogies rather than homologies, structural relationships in function and form, which can explain more complicated questions. Al-Jabri insists that Arab reason with the notable exception of Averroes never abandoned conclusion by analogy and fell back in its development when Europeans began to “live the Averroist moment to this day”[vii]. He concludes: “This mechanism of analogy is anchored so deeply into Arab reason, that it had become the only way to contribute to the production of knowledge.”[viii]

When Averroes failed Arab civilization fell into decline, while Europe thrived and profited from Averroes new logical approach. This conclusion is not as sensational as some may think it is. The Latin translations of Averroes commentaries on Aristotle found an excited readership in European philosophy and theology because it made certain lost works of Aristotle available, but the main point is that European theology and philosophy already had formed an intellectual culture which was able to work on the contribution of Arab thinking. While many scholars and thinkers embraced Averroes he also triggered educated (and not so educated) criticism. In 1270 the bishop of Paris condemned Averroes teachings, which had the effect that his ideas got even more popular and the debates carried on even more intense.[ix] While Averroes held Aristotle’s writings as an absolute truth, Europeans neither did with Averroes nor Aristotle. Eventually the failure to get beyond the logic of antiquity did change the meaning of reason in the Arab civilization permanently. “If the concept of reason/mind in Greek culture and modern and contemporary European culture is connected to ‘awareness of causes’, namely to knowledge, as we previously demonstrated, the significance of the term reason (al-aql) in the Arabic language, and consequently in Arab thought, is related mainly to conduct and ethics. We find diverse and clear indications given by Arabic dictionaries accorded to the root (a-q-l) where the connection between these indications and ethical behavior is almost stereotypically pervasive and obligatory.” (FOAR p. 25)


Another part of Arab reason Al-Jabri criticizes passionately is the complex of history and historical thinking. Before he received his master degree in philosophy, Al-Jabri wrote a thesis on the Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), who got most famous for an immensely influential book on the history of Arab society (Muqaddimah). Khaldun beside other things developed his own methods of research and scientific reasoning, and was unlike Averroes not forgotten after his death. Instead he became another genius in the realm of Islam who was revered but not challenged. His work was taken as a final last line on the issue not as a foundation for criticism and hard questions. This is another difference between Arab and European culture, which had major consequences for both civilizations. Al-Jabri was deeply influenced by Ibn Khaldun, especially by his emphasis on the importance of history and historical thinking. In his “Critique of Arab Reason” he criticizes the lack of it in contemporary Arab minds:

“[T]he past and the present alternate in the arena of Arab consciousness, to the extent that the past can compete vigorously with the present even to the degree that it appears to be the ‘present’ itself. (…) It is true that we distinguish between: 1) the asr al-jahili (pre-Islamic era); 2) the asr al-islami (Islamic era); and 3) the asr al-nahdah (Renaissance or Modern era). However, this distinction is entirely superficial as we do not perceive it either through our consciousness, or by our perception as phases of evolution, where the later abolish the former, nor do we perceive them as distinct cultural epochs with attendant characteristics for each– rendering them connected or disconnected. On the contrary, we perceive these ‘three eras’ as separate islands, isolated from each other. (…) What ensues, then, is the presence of these three ‘cultural islands’ simultaneously in contemporary Arab consciousness. (FOAR, p. 44)

On several occasions certain interpretations of Al-Jabris texts connect his philosophy to the work of Michel Foucault, because Al-Jabri uses terms like “epistemology” or the French spelling “Épistémè” from time to time. Obviously many eulogies copy from each other and reproduce total nonsense. As one can check in the paragraph above Al-Jabri strongly rejects ideas which do not consider history as a transition in linear time. But Foucault’s concept of history does not consider history as a transition in linear time rather than a horizontal presence of discourses which connect different epochs and eras by the reproduction of certain constraints, which can be demonstrated most famously on Foucault’s idea about the term “confession”. Al-Jabri criticizes exactly the tendency in Arab societies to perceive time and history as “a static, motionless present” (FOAR, p. 44). He goes further: “I would say that the movement in Arab culture was and still is a movement of dependence and not that of a transition, since its time period is set by ‘motionlessness’ (sukun) and not by ‘motion’ in spite of all the movements, dynamics and activities it has undergone. (FOAR, p. 41)

Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri is a critic of the post-modern stance, because he thinks this point of view is one of the main reasons of Arab decline and a major obstacle to overcome when trying to heal its predicaments. It is a pity that many of his readers, as one can see in the Palgrave-McMillan compendium, do not understand him outside their limited knowledge of post-modern philosophy, which only consists of tiny pieces of Michel Foucault and Edward Said. Al-Jabris project is to change the method of Arab thinking towards reason and self-reflection. Instead of constantly adapting new ideologies with the same old mind frame, he wants to lead Arabs towards a new understanding of scientific reasoning their culture hasn’t been aware of for centuries. The main source of Al-Jabris idea of a change in methodology in Arab reason is of course not Michel Foucault but the French philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962). He quotes him one time in the German “Introduction” to “The Critique of Arab Reason”. “The history of science, as Bachelard put it, is the history of the errors of science.”[x]

Bachelard states that progress in science only happens through errors and the recognition of so called “epistemological obstacles”, which are in his display very often “answers without questions”.[xi] It is not the time and space here to go deeper into that matter, but experts among readers who are familiar with the history of chemistry may recall that in the 19th century chemistry had a large obstacle to overcome to build reliable models of gas molecules when chemists were stuck with the theory of the Phlogiston, a theory from the 17th century which stated that all materials that burn contain a hypothetical ingredient called Phlogiston. Bachelard wrote that chemistry made progress again after decades of standstill when chemists abandoned this theory and removed this “epistemological obstacle” from their scientific program. In short: Al-Jabri uses Bachelards concept of an “epistemological break” to mark the philosophy of Averroes as the only achievement in Arab culture which paved the way to scientific reasoning and he adopts Bachelards method which represents a model of self-reflection inside the philosophy of science, a recipe he wanted Arabs to acknowledge. And while Foucault and his followers have propagated a philosophy which claims to abandon any notion of a subject and furthermore try to dissolve the subject/object relationship, Al-Jabri criticizes strongly that Arab reason has never made it to form a literary culture of conscious reading subjects who identify the content of books as objects being separated from them.

“Why do we insist inside our framework of reading the tradition on the division of subject and object? Because the contemporary Arab reader is limited by his tradition and oppressed by its presence, which means that tradition absorbs him and takes away from him independence and freedom. Since he has joined the world all he ever knew is tradition, shaping him with a certain vocabulary, certain ideas, a language and a kind of thinking, consisting of fables, legends and imaginary fantasies and a certain relationship to the things around him, a form of certainty about truth and knowledge. He receives this without any critical understanding, without the slightest critical mind. Based on those received elements he sees the world, forms an opinion and grounds his basic understanding on these elements. The practice of thinking under these conditions is becoming a play of memory. If the Arab reader actually reads the traditional texts, his kind of reading is memorizing the letters, but not researching or exploring its meaning.”[xii]


Al-Jabri’s critique identifies three strains of contemporary Arab reason, which he equally considers as strong negative influences: Fundamentalism, liberalism and Marxism. All three phenomena are answers to the “challenges of the West in all its forms.”[xiii] The first one is Islamic fundamentalism: „The leading motives of the fundamentalist strain had been „authenticity“ (asala), a connection to Islamic roots and a defence of Islamic identity, using an interpretation of these terms which identify itself as the ‘true Islam’ contrary to the forms of Islam practised by the majority of Muslims.“ This way „every intellectual effort limited itself on the attempt to find solutions to all problems of presence and future by seeking for analogies in the past.“[xiv] The enormous burden tradition puts on present day politics has large consequences on the Arab mind, most of all as we demonstrated before a distorted understanding of history. But let us note here, that Al-Jabri is not a critic of Islam or hostile to religion. There must be a secular division between politics and religion and so Al-Jabri never rejects or even criticizes Islam from an Atheist point of view. In his philosophical mind frame neither ‘Western hegemony’ nor ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ are reason and rhyme to the problems of the Arab civilization. The myths of Islamism and demonising the West have become substitutes for the failures of Arab reason itself. Both are symptoms of the same problem: that the Arab mind has never internalized scientific reasoning and hence has never opened itself for universal reason and values.

The liberals, as Al-Jabri calls them, are not better. Islamists over exaggerate the presence of the past, Arab liberals completely deny the past’s validity. In the time Al-Jabri wrote this, the term “liberals” meant “elites”. Liberals are people who are well educated, rich and driven by long term political agendas. They have been mostly followers of Pan-Arabism. Their approach to politics is authoritarian and not “liberal” in the Western sense, because nearly all of them are full of contempt for their own people, the Arab and Muslim masses. Liberal politics in the Arab world has been the application of power without governance, a mostly dictatorial attempt to whip the masses towards their own happiness inside an undemocratic and corrupt state. Al-Jabri, who cared a lot about common people, saw no sense in copying European ideologies (like fascism and communism) and imitating Western concepts alien to the realities of the masses. In short: Al-Jabri was a democrat and wanted to promote democracy and human rights as basic concepts in a way Arab peoples are able to understand. Tradition or religion is not worthless, it is a resource people can rely on and take advantage of to master their issues. Al-Jabri’s goal is not to abandon tradition but to abandon a “traditional understanding of tradition”.[xv]

The arguments Al-Jabri provides to point out the failures of Arab Marxism are quite astounding. It is very obvious from his intimate knowledge of European philosophy that he has studied Marxism thoroughly. As a politically left wing activist he has been promoting a type of “social democracy”, as the term was used to describe the liberal, democratic parties which evolved from the workers movements in the 19th century. As Al-Jabri put it, Arab Marxists have been as well fundamentalists as their enemy brothers Islamism and Liberalism. Their uncritical copying of Stalinist political concepts (Arab Marxists have not been the only ones in this regard) has produced a “Marxist fundamentalism” which tried “to borrow from the godfathers of Marxism a finally approved dialectical method, as if the goal has been to prove the validity of the final method rather than applying it to the real circumstances.”[xvi]

All three of these strains are fundamentalist and wrong, because either way they all repeat the old Arab way of concluding by analogy and are not able to think beyond. Al-Jabris brilliant style of writing does not in any way promote a kind of disrespect for his subject. Quite in the contrary Al-Jabri is bringing back a lot of respect for Arab reasoning it has lost on the way. Everyone who is willing to engage in his philosophy will discover a richness of thought also one who is not speaking Arabic will find illuminating.


Time and space are limited and so I will end here, hoping I have given you a first impression of this remarkable thinker from Morocco. His idol Averroes died alone and miserable, looking at the ruins of his work, nearly forgotten by all his successors. It is my deepest wish that Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri will not repeat his fate. The Arab civilization was not ready for Averroes but at this historical moment of time it may be more open to Al-Jabri’s call. I want to close this little piece with a message to his Arab readers, in which he invites them to leave the past that has haunted Arab reason so much behind:

“Here we would hope that the committed, engaged reader will understand in one way or another – either consciously or unconsciously – the struggles and conflicts of the past. We have spoken here without any complexes and without preconceptions. It was not our goal and never our intention to secure victory for one side over the other – as we consider the past to belong to all, and we see that its struggles should be put behind all, neither should they remain with them nor before them.” (FOAR, p. X)



Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri: The Formation Of Arab Reason (2011)

Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri: Kritik der arabischen Vernunft. Die Einführung (2009)

Gaston Bachelard: Epistemologie. Ausgewählte Texte (1974)

G.R. Evans: Philosophy and theology in the middle ages (1993)

Eyadat/Corrao/Hashas (Edit.): Islam State and Modernity. Mohammed Abed al-Jabri and the Future of the Arab World (2018)



[i] „(…) a work that has not been studied yet (…)” Introduction in: Eyadat/Corrao/Hashas 2018

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] For instance: “Al-Jabris thesis is ideologically well-oriented, being situated in a broader framework of thought, aiming at a confrontation with the greatest past of Islamic thinkers in order to find out a thorough Islamic way to modernity.“ Campanini, Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri and Ibn Khaldun. A Path to Modernity in: Eyadat/Corrao/Hashas 2018

[iv] Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri: Kritik der arabischen Vernunft. Die Einführung (2009)

[v] Ibid.

[vi] If anyone recognizes the sometimes half-baked English, blame the translator. It is not a single person but a Lebanon based institution called “Center for Arab Unity Studies”, which is financially supported by the Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation.

[vii] Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri: Kritik der arabischen Vernunft. Die Einführung (2009)

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] G.R. Evans: Philosophy and theology in the middle ages (1993)

[x] Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri: Kritik der arabischen Vernunft. Die Einführung (2009)

[xi] Gaston Bachelard: Epistemologie. Ausgewählte Texte (1974)

[xii] Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri: Kritik der arabischen Vernunft. Die Einführung (2009)

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

%d Bloggern gefällt das: