This page explains a conceptual relationship between two terms within Shahrur’s thought, and how this relationship functions in the construction of meaning.
Within a broader family
This relationship falls within Shahrur’s reading of monism as a negation of plurality in social and political life. Its witness clarifies one aspect of the outcome, and the family gathers together images of backwardness, injustice, despotism, and ruin.
The meaning of the relationship
This relationship indicates that monism is understood here as an attribute pertaining to what is divine, not as a rule applicable to people’s lives or their social organization. The meaning derived from the witness is that the unity of God differs from the reality of human beings, and that human society is founded on plurality, not on singleness.
The two terms of the relationship
- First term: monism
- Relation: property
- Second term: divine, not fit as a social model
Evidence
- State and Society through Monism Is a Divine Property, Not a Social One
- Witness: It confirms that plurality is the principle of existence apart from God, and that monism is a divine property that is not fit as a social or political model.
- State and Society through Monism Is a Divine Property, Not a Human Model
- Witness: Monism is a divine property, not a human model. Monism is a divine property, not a social one. It separates the unity of God from the plurality of human society.
Its effect on the knowledge map
This relationship gains its importance from the fact that it draws a clear boundary between the divine sphere and the social sphere within the conceptual map. It prevents the transfer of the attribute of divine oneness into a social or political conception, and it supports the idea that human society should be understood on the basis of plurality and diversity, not on the basis of monism.