This page explains a conceptual relation between two poles within Shahrur’s thought, and how this relation functions in the construction of meaning.
Meaning of the relation
This relation means that consensus, as a human or historical agreement, does not possess in Shahrur an absolute authority over the text and reality. If consensus becomes a tool for closing off ijtihad, then it turns from a historical witness into an authority that blocks contemporary reading.
The two poles of the relation
- First pole: consensus
- Relation: is not
- Second pole: an absolute proof
Evidence
- Drying Up the Springs of Terrorism through Consensus Is Not an Absolute Proof
- Witness: Shahrur rejects the idea that consensus should be a final, closed proof that prevents inquiry and ijtihad.
Its effect in the knowledge map
This relation links criticism of consensus with criticism of traditional jurisprudence and the tools of epistemic authority. It draws a boundary between revelation and what people produce of agreements and ijtihads, and prevents history from being turned into an absolute source of obligation.