Between the credit-based and the eternal between Taha Abdul Rahman and Abdullah Al Arabi

Arhila in the introduction of his book clarifies that reading the projects of Taha Abdel Rahman and Abdullah Al-Arabi reveals the sharp clash between those who wanted to adopt what Western modernity offered, found in Marxism a rescue ladder, and considered the closing of the page of Islamic heritage as the beginning of a revolution against absolute reason, and resorting to abstract reason as the West did, and those whose direction is to establish an Islamic modernity that aligns with the Islamic Arab discursive field; thus, freeing itself from dependency, and becoming independent in its orientations from Western modernity, and becoming the alternative; thereby giving that page which is intended to be closed its universal dimension based on "Islamic ethics," through which the spirit of modernity is realized for all who believe in it. The researcher cites two sayings, the first of which by Taha Abdel Rahman states: "Some - despite their weak knowledge of science in general and Islamic knowledge in particular - claim guardianship over all Muslims, and dictate to them how they should think about their religion, and their covert intention is to remove them from this religion without them realizing." The second quote by Abdullah Al-Arabi states: "He says he teaches logic while he actually teaches the craft of debate as established by the rhetoricians to suppress critical thinking (if he mentions it, say...). What is important to these people is not seeking the truth but doubt; apparently based on a contradiction in the opponent's speech (...). Some pretend to be concerned with foundational principles, while the real goal is to contain modern thought." And from what Arhila mentioned at the end of his book: "It seems that he increased the severity of the clash between the two directions; Al-Arabi's feeling that Taha's ideas were an obstacle to everything he aspired to; and that they made him feel that he had exhausted his historical role, and that his historicity was nothing but a secularism linked to a false materialism."