Formulation of the claim
Arkoun rejects turning Islamic reason into a fixed, infallible essence, and insists on linking it to lived history and its social conditions.
Explanation
For Arkoun, Islamic reason cannot be understood as a closed essence or a truth beyond history, because such an understanding removes it from its human domain and turns it into a deified entity. He therefore directs his critique at the way the concept is used when it is separated from writing, memory, and the imaginary, not at the existence of reason itself.
This position falls within his effort to dismantle representations that attribute to Islam or to Muslims a single, complete, and final reason. Reason, in this horizon, is read within the conditions of its production and transformations, not as a fixed given that stands above critique.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom lies at the heart of Arkoun’s critical thesis, which opposes turning major concepts into closed truths. It is linked to his attempt to reintroduce history and the sociology of writing into the understanding of how reason is formed, rather than restricting it to an abstract essentialist formula.
Limits of the claim
This atom does not mean denying the existence of reason in the Islamic experience, nor does it equate criticism of the concept with denying its role. What is intended is the refusal to deify it and freeze it outside history, not to abolish the possibility of studying it or questioning its uses.
Brief evidence
It should be known that human reason is one, and that describing it as Western or Islamic does not indicate a fixed essence, but rather changing linguistic, social, and historical conditions. Reason exercises its activity within specific situations, and establishes relations between things through lived experiences and bodies of knowledge that are open to critique and renewal. Therefore, the “Islamic reason” should not be elevated to the rank of a deified or infallible entity.
Related links
- Arkoun
- history