Epistemological Dimensions of Al-Muqtataf’s Coverage of World War I

This study examines the coverage of the First World War (1914–1918) in Al-Muqtataf, one of the earliest Arab scientific and cultural journals to interpret global events through a rational and analytical framework. Rather than adopting a news-driven or emotionally charged narrative, the magazine approached the war as a complex political, economic, and civilizational phenomenon, emphasizing causality, long-term consequences, and the ethical implications of modern science in warfare. The analysis is based on a corpus of 74 articles published between 1914 and 1918, examined through a historical-analytical approach combined with sociocognitive critical discourse analysis inspired by van Dijk. The study investigates language, style, intellectual orientation, and editorial positioning toward the conflicting powers, particularly the Ottoman and British empires, with close attention to neutrality, ideological framing, and discursive silences. The findings show that Al-Muqtataf maintained a predominantly rational and conservative discourse grounded in scientific explanation and moral reflection, deliberately distancing itself from political mobilization and emotive rhetoric. While the magazine articulated an early critique of Western modernity and the militarization of science, it largely avoided direct engagement with decisive Arab political issues such as colonial partition and national self-determination. This selective neutrality reveals both the intellectual strength and the historical limitations of elite cultural journalism in a colonial context. Theoretically, the study demonstrates how epistemological neutrality can function as a form of discursive power, shaping political meaning through omission as much as articulation. Historiographically, it challenges Eurocentric narratives of World War I by centering Arab scientific journalism as an active, though constrained, intellectual response to global crisis. By reframing Al-Muqtataf as a strategic discursive actor rather than a neutral transmitter of knowledge, the article contributes to broader debates on media, expertise, and intellectual responsibility in times of war.