What Does This Relation Mean?
This relation connects two premises of reading: the denial of synonymy and the rejection of treating the Wise Revelation as poetic verses are treated. When a word is not padding and has a function, it cannot be assumed to be an aesthetic repetition or a word that can be replaced by a synonym without consequence. “The logic of poetry” here is an explanatory label in the atlas, not a quoted term: it refers to what Shahrur explicitly warned against, namely viewing the Revelation and dealing with its verses as poetry and poetic lines are viewed.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
Shahrur says that “every letter in it has a function, and every word in it has a task,” then describes the Revelation as “free of frivolity.” He links its eloquence to conveying meaning “with the fewest possible words and without synonymy or padding.” Eloquence consists in conveying meaning with the fewest words
In his interpretation of the Qur’anic verse al-Haqqah 41, he says that the point is to warn “against viewing the Revelation as we view poetry, and against dealing with its verses as we deal with poetic lines.” The rejection of synonymy among the terms of revelation
Yet, in his discussion of the arts, he does not present poetry as inherently forbidden. He says that the Revelation “did not prohibit poetry, storytelling, or any of the other arts of the word, nor did it criticize poetry and literature,” and that its criticism was directed at “the phenomenon of lack of commitment in poetry and literature.” al-Shu‘ara’ 224–226
The Atlas’s Explanation
The page does not equate poetry with padding, nor does it make the denial of poetic character a judgment on every poetic practice. Rather, it explains the function of this connection within the method of reading: the denial of synonymy and padding requires attention to verbal distinctions and the functions of words; the warning against treating the Revelation like poetic lines prevents those distinctions from being reduced to mere ornament or repetition without significance.
In this sense, the distinction is not a disparagement of poetry as an art, but a separation between the mode of receiving the Revelation prescribed by Shahrur and the treatment of poetic lines that he warned against projecting onto Qur’anic verses.
Synthetic Conclusion
The two pieces of evidence can be combined into a qualified rule of reading: synonymy or padding is not to be presumed in the wording of the Revelation, and a verse is not to be read as a formulation whose verbal precision may be overlooked in the name of aesthetic effect. This is an inference from combining his discussion of the function of wording and eloquence with his discussion of not treating verses as poetic lines; it is not a definition quoted from him for the expression “the logic of poetry.”
Open Question and Scope of the Page
The extent to which his statement, in the context of denying poetic character to the Revelation, that “poetry is illusion,” can be reconciled with his statement that the Revelation did not prohibit poetry and literature remains a question requiring broader examination of the contexts of the two books. This page does not conclude that Shahrur describes all poetry as illusion, nor does it derive from his criticism of poets a prohibition of poetry or art.