خلاصه ماشینی:
Specifically, I see three kinds of anarchic critique behind Social and Natural Sciences: that against the nation- state; that against secular Western world views; and, more subtly, that against power politics from Mu‘ éiwiyah to his latter-day successors.
I see the role of the analysis of anarchic and radical thought of Foucault and Habermas not as one contributing to the Islamic critique, but, rather, as one extending its precision and sophistication.
This article co-opts anarchic and radical discourse for the refutation of modern man, but in turn rejects the same thought by accepting the resolution of Islamic epistemologies.
Foucault very clearly locates the forces which created modern society by examining the change of two epistemes, from the Classical Age to the Modern Age. In his Archaeology of Knowledge, he makes a case that all history must be analyzed in terms of its own period.
From an Islamic perspective though, the conception of self is utterly opposed to that of modern Western epistemologies and thus any “truth” worked out within such societies must be declared a rejection of our nature and shirk.
From an Islamic critique, the Muslim thinker extends a critique, which is technically similar to anarchic thought, all the way to the forces which created the scientific framework for the rejection of Divine guidance and the elevation of Man. Habermas concerns himself, in the end, with technical problems of communication.