How does contemporary Islamic philosophy (Muhammad Abid al-Jabiri, Taha Abd al-Rahman) position itself between the authority of reason and the authority of revelation, and which is more methodologically coherent?

This question lies at the heart of the contemporary Arab philosophical project and poses a fundamental problem: how can we construct a modern Islamic philosophy that transcends the classical dualism between reason and revelation (naql)? Al-Jabiri and Taha Abd al-Rahman represent radically divergent projects in approaching this problematic, and evaluating the methodological coherence of each requires careful analysis of their philosophical foundations.

Inadequate responses to avoid

From some defenders of al-Jabiri:

"Al-Jabiri is a true rationalist, while Taha Abd al-Rahman is a disguised traditionalist." This is a misleading simplification. Taha Abd al-Rahman is not "traditionalist" in the classical sense, but rather offers a radical critique of Western rationality from an advanced philosophical standpoint. Reducing his project to "traditionalism" misses its critical depth.

"The critique of Arab reason is the only scientific method." This claim needs justification. Al-Jabiri's project adopts a specific epistemology (genetic structuralism), which is not "the only scientific method" but rather a methodological choice with its own assumptions.

"Al-Jabiri liberated reason from the authority of revelation." This is a superficial reading. Al-Jabiri does not reject revelation (naql), but rather re-reads it within the conditions of its historical production. The alleged liberation is more complex than mere rejection or acceptance.

From some defenders of Taha Abd al-Rahman:

"Taha Abd al-Rahman definitively transcended the dualism." This is a strong claim that needs examination. Taha's concept of "fiduciary interpenetration" (al-tadākhul al-i'timānī) is an attempt to transcend dualism, but does it actually succeed? The question deserves analysis, not assertion.

"Philosophy jurisprudence (fiqh al-falsafa) surpasses all other projects." This is a dogmatic position. Every philosophical project has its strengths and weaknesses. Claims of absolute superiority contradict the spirit of philosophical critique.

"The supported reason (al-ʿaql al-mu'ayyad) is the final solution." This assumes what needs to be proven. Taha's concept of "support" (taʾyīd) is philosophically problematic and needs justification, not submission.

Why these responses are inadequate

They share the avoidance of precise methodological analysis of both projects. Serious discussion requires understanding the epistemological foundations of each and evaluating their internal coherence before making preferential judgments.

Al-Jabiri's project: Epistemology of rupture

Muhammad Abid al-Jabiri (1935-2010) built his project on the concept of "epistemological rupture" derived from Bachelard and Althusser. His famous quartet:
- Formation of Arab Reason (1984)
- Structure of Arab Reason (1986)
- Arab Political Reason (1990)
- Arab Ethical Reason (2001)

Methodological foundations:

1. Genetic structuralism: Al-Jabiri analyzes "cognitive systems" (bayān, burhān, ʿirfān) as structures governing knowledge production in Arab-Islamic culture.

2. Epistemological analysis: He distinguishes between the "rational" and "irrational" in heritage, considering that the demonstrative system (Averroist philosophy) represents the pinnacle of rationality.

3. Rupture with mystical heritage: He views "resigned reason" (Shia mysticism and Sufism) as an epistemological obstacle to the development of Arab rationality.

Position on reason and revelation:

Al-Jabiri does not reject revelation (naql), but subjects it to "historicist reading." The Quranic text for him is "religious rationality" read within the conditions of its historical revelation. Reason for him is not absolute, but "historical reason" conditioned by its cognitive systems.

The problem: this position leads to cognitive relativism. If reason is historically conditioned, how can it judge heritage? Does al-Jabiri not fall into logical circularity?

Taha Abd al-Rahman's project: Pragmatic fiduciary philosophy

Taha Abd al-Rahman (1944-) built a radically different project based on critiquing "philosophical tradition" (imitating Western philosophy) and constructing "philosophical creativity" from within Islamic experience. His fundamental works:
- Language and the Scale (1998)
- Philosophy Jurisprudence (1999)
- The Question of Ethics (2000)
- The Spirit of Modernity (2006)
- The Spirit of Religion (2012)

Methodological foundations:

1. Pragmatic logic: Taha develops logic that transcends Aristotelian formalism, integrating the pragmatic dimension into the core of logic.

2. Fiduciary theory: Humans are "fiduciary beings" entrusted with existence. This transcends the Western conception of humans as merely "rational beings."

3. Interactive integration: Instead of dualism or hierarchy, Taha proposes "interpenetration" (tadākhul) between reason, heart, and action, where each nourishes the other.

Position on reason and revelation:

Taha rejects the dualism altogether. For him:
- Abstract reason: Incomplete reason limited to formal mechanisms.
- Guided reason: Reason guided by religious law but remaining at the level of abstraction.
- Supported reason: Reason integrated with spiritual and practical experience, the highest level of reason.

Revelation (naql) for Taha is not an "external authority" but a "pragmatic horizon" that enriches reason. Revelation opens rational horizons that abstract reason cannot reach alone.

Comparative critical analysis

In terms of internal coherence:

Al-Jabiri's project faces internal tension: how can "historically conditioned" reason claim objective analysis of heritage? If contemporary reason is governed by its cognitive system, how does it judge traditional cognitive systems?

Taha's project is more internally coherent because it explicitly acknowledges its fiduciary position. But it faces another problem: how can dialogue occur with those who do not share the same "fiduciary horizon"? Is this not cognitive closure?

In terms of explanatory power:

Al-Jabiri provides a strong explanation for the "crisis of Arab reason" and its historical causes. His analysis of the conflict between bayān, burhān, and ʿirfān illuminates important aspects of Islamic intellectual history.

Taha provides a deeper explanation for the "crisis of modernity" itself, showing that the problem is not "Arab backwardness" but "the pathologies of Western modernity." His critique of abstract rationality intersects with postmodern critiques but from a different starting point.

In terms of practical program:

Al-Jabiri calls for "modernizing Arab reason" through resuming the Averroist project. But how can one "resume" a historical project in a radically different context?

Taha calls for "philosophical creativity" from within Islamic experience. His program is more ambitious but harder to achieve, as it requires rupture with prevailing Western models.

Mutual criticism

Taha's critique of al-Jabiri (in "Renewing the Method of Evaluating Heritage"):
- Al-Jabiri projects Western concepts onto heritage.
- His tripartite division (bayān/burhān/ʿirfān) is arbitrary.
- His position on mysticism is ideologically biased.

Al-Jabiri's implicit critique of Taha's project:
- Return to "origins" is romantic illusion.
- Rejecting modernity leads to civilizational closure.
- Mystical concepts (support, trust) are cognitively ambiguous.

Assessment from the perspective of methodological coherence

Both projects contain strengths and weaknesses:

Al-Jabiri's strength: Methodological clarity, reliance on modern epistemological tools, ability to dialogue with global thought.

Al-Jabiri's weakness: Reductionist tendency, projection of Western concepts, falling into cognitive relativism.

Taha's strength: Philosophical depth, conceptual originality, internal coherence, transcending dualisms.

Taha's weakness: Sometimes obscurity, difficulty of application, risk of self-closure.

From the angle of rational preference

From the perspective of "rational preference" (rajḥān ʿaqlī) adopted by this site, both projects offer important contributions:

Al-Jabiri helps understand the "epistemological obstacles" that prevent the development of Arab rationality. This is useful for developing critical methodology.

Taha helps transcend the "inhibiting dualism" between reason and revelation, proposing an integrative model. This is closer to the spirit of "manifestation and concealment" adopted by this site.

The greater methodological coherence, from this perspective, belongs to Taha Abd al-Rahman - not because his project is "correct" in absolute terms, but because it avoids the internal contradictions that al-Jabiri falls into, and provides a coherent framework for transcending the reason/revelation dualism.

Where we stand in this debate today

No resolution. The debate between the two projects has not been closed, but it has transformed notably since 2020. Al-Jabiri's passing (2010) made his project more an object of critical assessment than a living research program, while Taha Abd al-Rahman continued developing his fiduciary project in works like "The Frontiers of Vigilance" (2018) and "The Religion of Modesty" (2017), widening the gap between the projects in terms of productive dynamism. However, a new generation of researchers - in Morocco, the Gulf, and Malaysia - has begun transcending the binary polarization, benefiting from al-Jabiri's analytical tools without adopting his reductionist tendency, and from Taha's conceptual depth without closure within his system. Third approaches have also emerged (like Abd Allah al-Arawi's late works, and attempts by Hassan Hanafi and Abu Yarab al-Marzuqi) that reformulate the same question: not "reason or revelation," but "which rationality accommodates revelation without dissolving in it or negating it?" The general trend moves toward more complex syntheses that transcend the initial dualisms of both projects.

From the angle of rational preference (site methodology)

The rational preference methodology does not align with any project in a closed manner, but asks: which framework allows for more coherent probabilistic weighing of combined evidence? From this perspective, al-Jabiri's project provides valuable deconstructive tools but falls into self-tension when it judges heritage with reason that itself acknowledges its historicity - this weakens its objectivity claims. Taha's project avoids this tension by explicitly declaring its fiduciary position, but pays a price in communicability with those who do not share this horizon. Cumulative rational preference suggests that the most coherent framework is one that combines epistemological critique of heritage (al-Jabiri's strength) and openness to revelation as a cognitive source not reducible to its historical conditions (Taha's strength) - without meaning naive eclecticism, but conscious weighing of each position's costs and benefits. This is precisely what makes the question open and philosophically productive.