Formulation of the Claim
Qur’anic reason is neither Aristotelian nor Cartesian reason.
Explanation
Arkoun argues that Qur’anic reason is not understood as an abstract mental faculty, but rather as an orientation that addresses the human being in his or her totality. It therefore does not remain confined to formal inference or to separating thought from the other dimensions of human experience.
Arkoun also associates this reason with reflection and with openness to the heart, as well, which makes knowledge in the Qur’an tied to the presence of the whole human being rather than to the mind alone. In this sense, he distinguishes Qur’anic reason from philosophical conceptions that reduce reason to its purely theoretical dimension.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom appears within Arkoun’s deconstruction of the idea of reason in the Islamic tradition, where he seeks to highlight its difference from the philosophical models that shaped the concept of reason in the Greek or modern tradition. It helps build his argument that the Qur’an has a distinct epistemic horizon, one that cannot be reduced to the categories of classical philosophy or to modern rationalist conceptions.
Accordingly, the formulation does not stop at a verbal comparison; it performs a broader function within the book: distinguishing among modes of reasoning, and showing that Arkoun’s Qur’anic reading opens onto the human being as a composite unity of thought, heart, and experience.
Scope of the Claim
This atom does not mean to deny reason or diminish its value, but rather to restrict the meaning of reason here to its Qur’anic context as Arkoun understands it. Nor should it be burdened with an all-encompassing judgment on Aristotelian or Cartesian philosophy; instead, it specifies the place of Qur’anic reason within the book’s project.
Brief Evidence Passage
Qur’anic reason is not Aristotelian or Cartesian reason; rather, it addresses the human being in his or her totality and links reflection with the heart as well.
Related Links
Critique of Islamic Reason Text and History Critique of Reason