Reader’s introduction
This page does not attempt to reduce the concept of «God» to a comprehensive metaphysical definition. The available atom in the book Islam and the Human Being supports a specific claim: permission and prohibition are God’s right alone; neither a messenger, a jurist, nor a state possesses it. The entry therefore begins from this specific legislative function, rather than from generalizations unsupported by the atom.
The meaning supported by the atom
The atom God alone possesses the authority to permit and prohibit records the supporting text: “No one has the right to prohibit or permit … because God is the sole holder of the right to permit and prohibit.” The atom explains that the point is to prevent human interpretation or the authority of religious institutions from being transformed into an independent source of religious obligation.
This formulates a relationship between God and legislation within a particular context. It does not equate «God» with «prohibition,» nor does it by itself establish all the attributes or relationships that may appear in other books.
Distinctions and adjacencies
- God and religious authority: The atom rejects attributing the right to permit and prohibit to religious authority; this does not preclude examining the roles of jurists in explanation or application.
- God and the state: According to the claim supported here, the state cannot transform its law into a religious prohibition merely through political coercion.
- God and the messenger: The atom distinguishes between the divine reference point for permission and prohibition and the roles of the message or proclamation; every detailed claim requires its own evidence.
How should this page be read?
Compare this page with the atom prohibition and the page legislation, limits, and prohibition, then consult the concept of God in the book Islam and the Human Being. Do not treat similarity of words as evidence of synonymy or of a relationship not stated by the text.
Limits of the evidence
This page is based on a documented atom from a single book and therefore does not claim to be a comprehensive lexicon of all uses of «God» in Shahrur’s work. The analytical formulation is slightly broader than the supporting sentence, but it remains constrained by it and does not infer unmentioned attributes.