What Does the Text Attribute to Shahrur?
In its presentation of hakimiyya in Sayyid Qutb, the text states: “It concludes that hakimiyya in Sayyid Qutb was transformed into a takfiri ideology that divided the world into Islam and jahiliyya, and permitted the use of force, bloodshed, and violence to establish the desired order.”
Thus, the evidence here is limited to a critique of the outcome of Qutbian hakimiyya: its transformation into a takfiri binary that sorts the world, together with its resulting justification of violence. The page does not use this evidence to establish a broader judgment about every use of the term “jahiliyya” or about Mawdudi.
The Atlas’s Explanation of the Relation
This page connects the critique of hakimiyya in Sayyid Qutb with the division of the world into “Islam” and “jahiliyya” in Religion and Power. The connection is not one of synonymy between jahiliyya and hakimiyya or disbelief; rather, it is a function that appears in this discursive context, where classification supports a binary conception of the world.
For the general evidence, see: Qutb’s Hakimiyya Divides the World into Islam and Jahiliyya. For the structure of this context, see: Qutb Transforms Hakimiyya into a Takfiri Ideology.
Synthetic Conclusion
Within the limits of this evidence, the relation may be understood as a critique of transforming hakimiyya into a criterion that sorts the world according to the binary of “Islam/jahiliyya.” When this binary is coupled with the takfiri hakimiyya described by the text, it becomes connected to the authorization of violence. This conclusion is restricted to the context of Sayyid Qutb; it is not a general definition of the term “jahiliyya” in all its uses.
Open Question and Limits of the Reading
This page does not establish that every use of jahiliyya by Shahrur, or by others, leads to takfir or violence. What is certain here is the context in which the text describes Qutbian hakimiyya as a takfiri ideology that divides the world into Islam and jahiliyya.