This page gathers atoms that converge in wording or in argument. The comparison here helps identify where repetition occurs and where transformation occurs: Where does the same claim return? And where does its function change with the context of the book?
Each group presents the type of relationship and the most appropriate action for now. The action may be linking the pages, keeping them separate, or conducting a later review for possible renaming. Merging becomes useful when the argument, context, and function within the book coincide.
Critique of Islamic Reason
Type of relationship: strong convergence.
Most appropriate action for now: keep the atoms separate while linking them, because the central idea is almost the same, but the function of the critique of reason differs according to the book.
Reason: the three atoms formulate the critique of Islamic reason as an entry point for reforming religious understanding.
- Critique of Islamic Reason — The Human Formation of Islam
- The Project of the Critique of Islamic Reason — Fundamentalist Thought and the Impossibility of Foundation
- The Project of the Critique of Islamic Reason — Toward a Comparative History of the Monotheistic Religions
The Progressive-Regressive Methodology
Type of relationship: strong convergence.
Most appropriate action for now: link the atoms and keep each one in its book.
Reason: the atoms speak about a single method that connects the present with the past, moving back and forth, but the method’s presence shifts between the Qur’an, fundamentalism, and religious comparison.
- The Progressive-Regressive Methodology — Fundamentalist Thought and the Impossibility of Foundation
- The Progressive-Regressive Methodology — Readings in the Qur’an
- The Progressive-Regressive Methodology — Toward a Comparative History of the Monotheistic Religions
The Horizon of Fragility and Uncertainty
Type of relationship: close repetition.
Most appropriate action for now: link the two pages, with a later review of the possibility of unifying the title.
Reason: the two atoms agree that fragility and uncertainty open the door to revision without turning critique into despair.
- The Horizon of Fragility and Uncertainty — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- The Horizon of Fragility and Uncertainty — Readings in the Qur’an
The Politicization of Contemporary Islam
Type of relationship: strong convergence.
Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them.
Reason: both texts criticize the transformation of Islam into a political instrument within contemporary conflict, but the context of the two books may change the function of this critique.
- The Politicization of Islam in Contemporary Discourse — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- The Politicization of Contemporary Islam — Readings in the Qur’an
Legitimacy after the Prophet’s Death
Type of relationship: contextual convergence.
Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate.
Reason: the two atoms address the moment after the first death, but one focuses on legitimacy and the other on interpretation.
- The New Legitimacy after the Prophet’s Death — The Human Formation of Islam
- Legitimacy after the Prophet’s Death — Readings in the Qur’an
Distinguishing between the Oral and the Written
Type of relationship: strong convergence.
Most appropriate action for now: link the two atoms, while keeping each one in the context of its book.
Reason: the two atoms distinguish between the oral and the written and connect this difference to the formation of the Qur’anic text.
- Distinguishing between the Oral and the Written — Fundamentalist Thought and the Impossibility of Foundation
- Distinguishing between the Oral and the Written — Readings in the Qur’an
Critique of Classical Orientalism
Type of relationship: critical convergence.
Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them.
Reason: the two atoms criticize older research traditions, but the first addresses classical Islamic studies, while the second distinguishes Arkoun’s method from them.
- Critique of Classical Orientalism — Islamic Thought: Critique and Ijtihad
- Critique of Classical Orientalism — Readings in the Qur’an
The Priority of Modern Human Rights
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the two atoms formulate almost the same idea: human rights are a modern concept that took shape historically, and in these two formulations they do not appear as a direct extension of an older tradition. The difference between them in wording does not change the basic argument.
- The Priority of Modern Human Rights — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- Human Rights Are a Modern Idea — Islamic Thought: Critique and Ijtihad
Reverential Education Reinforces Sectarianism
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the two atoms criticize traditional religious education from almost the same angle: producing conformity and re-entrenching division instead of critical understanding. The difference in institutional context does not make the argument fundamentally different.
- Reverential Education Reinforces Sectarianism — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- Traditional Religious Education Reinforces Sectarianism — Islamic Thought: Critique and Ijtihad
The Historical-Anthropological Methodology
Type of relationship: contextual convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the first presents the horizon of reading that relies on history and anthropology, while the second criticizes a particular older method. There is a clear methodological point of contact between them, but they do not say the same thing.
- The Historical-Anthropological Methodology — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- Critique of the Historical-Philological Methodology — Islamic Thought: Critique and Ijtihad
Characteristics of Qur’anic and Prophetic Discourse
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: link the two atoms while keeping each one in the context of its book. Reason: the two atoms agree that Qur’anic and prophetic discourse goes beyond direct informational transmission and opens up meaning through its stylistic construction. The difference here is in the level of detail, not in the argument.
- Characteristics of Qur’anic and Prophetic Discourse — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- The Power of Qur’anic and Prophetic Discourse — Readings in the Qur’an
Rejecting the Opposition between Islam and Christianity
Type of relationship: contextual convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: both atoms engage in the comparison between Islam and Christianity, but the first warns against reducing the analysis to a direct opposition, while the second makes comparison itself a tool for understanding the historical trajectory. The relationship is therefore real, but it is not an identity.
- Rejecting the Opposition between Islam and Christianity — Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought?
- The Comparison between Christianity and Islam — From Manhattan to Baghdad
Arkoun and the Understanding of Applied Islamology
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the two atoms present applied Islamology as an entry point for understanding Islam through the human being, society, and history, not through abstract description alone. The difference in expressive force does not alter the unity of the concept.
- Arkoun and the Understanding of Applied Islamology — The Human Formation of Islam
- The Expansion of Applied Islamology — Islamic Thought: Critique and Ijtihad
The Sublimely Captivating as an Anthropological Phenomenon
Type of relationship: contextual convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the first atom situates the experience of beauty and awe within the anthropological horizon, while the second generalizes this perspective to religion as a whole. The similarity in methodological framework is clear, but the subject is not exactly the same.
- The Sublimely Captivating as an Anthropological Phenomenon — The Human Formation of Islam
- Religion as a General Anthropological Phenomenon — Battles for Humanism
The Need for a New Universal Ethics
Type of relationship: close repetition. Most appropriate action for now: link the two pages, with a later review of the possibility of unifying the title. Reason: the two atoms speak about the necessity of a universal ethics that transcends narrow divisions, but one connects it to a general human crisis, while the other places it within the horizon of the environment and development. The basis is almost the same, with a difference in orientation.
- The Need for a New Universal Ethics — The Human Formation of Islam
- A New Universal Ethics — Toward a Comparative History of the Monotheistic Religions
The Historical Formation of the Concept of God
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the two atoms affirm that the concept of God changes within languages and cultural contexts. The difference between them lies in the angle of presentation: the first is more general, while the second connects it to the context of secularization.
- The Historical Formation of the Concept of God — The Human Formation of Islam
- The Historical Transformation of the Concept of God — Islamic Thought: Critique and Ijtihad
Surat al-Tawba as a Moment of Historical Transition
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the two atoms separate while linking them. Reason: both read Surat al-Tawba as material for understanding a historical transition in Islam, not as an isolated exegetical text. The first emphasizes historical transformation, and the second emphasizes the historical reading itself.
- Surat al-Tawba as a Moment of Historical Transition — The Human Formation of Islam
- A Historical Reading of Surat al-Tawba — Readings in the Qur’an
Reading the Qur’an Historically and Linguistically
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: link the two atoms while keeping each one in the context of its book. Reason: the two atoms call for reading the Qur’an within its history and language, away from projecting the present onto it. The difference in title does not alter the core of the position.
- Reading the Qur’an Historically and Linguistically — The Human Formation of Islam
- The Critical Historical Reading — Fundamentalist Thought and the Impossibility of Foundation
Critique of Inherited Traditional Exegesis
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: keep the atoms separate while linking them. Reason: the two atoms criticize the transformation of inherited exegesis into a final answer, and call for keeping meaning open to questioning. This is an almost complete identity in argument, with a difference in wording.
- Critique of Inherited Traditional Exegesis — The Human Formation of Islam
- Inherited Exegesis Freezes Meaning — Readings in the Qur’an
The Critique of Islamic Reason Does Not Critique Religion
Type of relationship: strong convergence. Most appropriate action for now: link the atoms while keeping each one in the context of its book. Reason: the three atoms agree that the critique of Islamic reason directs the question toward historical forms of understanding, and through them opens the question of belief. The variation between the texts concerns the polemical function, not the basis of the idea.
- The Critique of Islamic Reason Does Not Critique Religion — The Human Formation of Islam
- The Project of the Critique of Islamic Reason — Fundamentalist Thought and the Impossibility of Foundation
- The Project of the Critique of Islamic Reason — Toward a Comparative History of the Monotheistic Religions
What Results from Convergence?
These groups reveal that Arkoun returns to specific issues in different books, then changes their position within the argument. Thus convergence here does not indicate sameness alone; it shows how an idea moves between multiple functions: at one time an epistemological entry point, at another an institutional critique, and at another an ethical or historical horizon. For this reason, strong convergence predominates on the page more than complete identity: in Arkoun’s work, a concept often functions as a node that is redeployed according to the book and the question.
What appears here are travelling concepts: Critique of Islamic Reason, the progressive-regressive methodology, historical reading, the distinction between the oral and the written, modern human rights, a new universal ethics, and the historical concept of God. These concepts are connected across books and perform differing roles. Their repetition places the idea in a new polemical context, where meaning is generated both by the shift in position and by verbal repetition at the same time.
In terms of distribution across books, some books appear more present in the intersections. The Human Formation of Islam and Readings in the Qur’an recur as crossing points with most of the files: the first for formulating the anthropological-historical vision, and the second for testing it in the reading of the Qur’anic text. Where Is Contemporary Islamic Thought? appears closer to formulating the contemporary problem and the critical diagnosis. As for From Manhattan to Baghdad and Battles for Humanism, they appear here to a lesser degree, because the atoms drawn from them tend mostly toward more specialized concepts or toward an ethical extension farther from the center of Qur’anic formulation.
As for what does not recur, it too deserves reading. The presence of atoms that seem unique to a particular book reveals that Arkoun distributes his ideas according to the epistemic function of each book. When an idea appears only once, it may be tied to a specific polemical context that does not require generalization, or to a stage in the development of the project that did not appear in the same formulation in the other books. In this sense, rarity points to the specificity of the question within each book.
From Similarity to Dialogue
The reader can use these convergences to test the limits of the idea itself: Where does it settle? And where does it change? The comparison here looks for the element that remains when the wording changes, and also for the sites of similarity. In this way the page becomes a reading tool, because apparent similarity may conceal a difference in function: a single idea may operate in one book to question traditional exegesis, and in another to establish a new ethical horizon.
First example: the group Critique of Islamic Reason together with The Critique of Islamic Reason Does Not Critique Religion. Bringing them together reveals that Arkoun precisely defines the field of his critique: historical forms of understanding, the institutions that grant legitimacy to certain readings, and the ways belief is formed within history. Here similarity turns into a test of the limits of critique: Does it operate as an epistemic critique, or does it enter into doctrinal confrontation? This difference turns the two atoms from repetition into an internal dialogue about the legitimacy of critique itself.
Second example: The Progressive-Regressive Methodology together with The Historical-Anthropological Methodology. The first proposes a back-and-forth movement between the present and the past, while the second regulates what ought to be seen within history and the human being. If the reader reads them together, they will notice that Arkoun uses two levels of method: a level that explains movement between times, and a level that defines the object of inquiry within this movement. Here the productive tension appears between method as a path and method as a horizon.
In this way, the page moves from a guide to similarities to a tool for discovering tensions within similarity: we ask what recurs, what changes when it recurs, and what reason leads Arkoun to reformulate the same idea in different locations. This reading makes similarity a sign of movement, not of stasis.
From Similarity to the Question
1) Critique of Islamic Reason
When the atoms of “Critique of Islamic Reason” converge in more than one book, the question shifts from defining the project to examining how it works within each book-context. Does it operate here as a tool for dismantling the inherited tradition, or as an entry point for rebuilding the conditions of religious understanding? And how does its significance change when it moves from a book focused on the human formation of Islam to another that confronts fundamentalist grounding or compares the monotheistic religions?
2) The Progressive-Regressive Methodology
The repetition of this atom in different books opens a question that goes beyond terminological similarity: Is the progressive-regressive methodology a description of movement between past and present, or does it take on a different mode of operation in each applied field? In other words, how is this method reshaped when it is used to read the Qur’an, to dismantle fundamentalism, or to build a historical comparison between religions, and what does this shift reveal about the limits of the method itself?
3) The Priority of Modern Human Rights
The convergence of this atom with other formulations raises a question about the place of modernity in Arkoun’s project: Are human rights presented as an external standard by which tradition is measured, or as the historical result of a new human consciousness whose conditions must first be understood? And if the convergent atoms affirm that modern rights are not a direct extension of the past, how does Arkoun justify giving them this priority without turning them into a final judgment on tradition?