The Challenge of the Inefficiency of Traditional Islamic Rhetoric from the Perspective of Modern Arabic Rhetoric

In the contemporary era, many efforts have been made to update the knowledge of rhetoric. Therefore, the two terms "modern rhetoric" and "rhetoric modernization" are two of the most comprehensive terms among contemporary Arab scholars, which have occupied a significant part of contemporary rhetorical discourse from the late nineteenth century to the present day. Rhetoric modernization refers to a series of efforts that re-examine some or all of the issues of traditional rhetoric and make suggestions for its improvement. For the first time, Sheikh Muhammad Abduh from Al-Azhar called for updating the sources of rhetoric, and al-Jabr al-Zumt in his writings called for rhetoric modernization. The discourse of rhetoric modernization has always been challenged by the discourse of traditional rhetoric, and the beginning of rhetoric modernization has been accompanied by a critique of theoretical foundations, methodological issues, and the analytical approach of traditional rhetoric. From the beginning of the call to modernize rhetoric to the present day, criticism of traditional rhetoric has increased; therefore, reading the works done in the field of modern rhetoric, we encounter a significant amount of criticism that requires independent scientific research to provide a basis for avoiding excesses in judging and evaluating the rhetorical achievements of predecessors. This research has tried to examine and critique the criticisms of traditional rhetoric through a descriptive-analytical method and has achieved the following results by examining and criticizing the critical views of rhetoric modernization experts: The greatest criticism of contemporary scholars is the influence of rhetoric on Greek philosophical thought and the evaluation of texts. In a sense, their most important weaknesses are summarized in the incorrect comparison of traditional Islamic rhetoric with traditional Greek rhetoric, which have different socio-historical contexts, as well as incorrect comparison of rhetoric with contemporary critical schools that have different approaches and practical functions.