This entry brings together 3 instances of the use of this verse in the books of Muhammad Shahrur, linking them to the concepts and arguments that appear around it.
Text of the Verse as Cited
These are God’s signs, which We recite to you in truth. And God does not desire injustice for the worlds.
Reader’s Answer
Question
How does Shahrur employ God’s saying, “And God does not desire injustice for the worlds,” in his interpretation of injustice, will, and volition?
Shahrur employs the verse to argue that injustice is not desired by God; the existence of the possibility of injustice within “volition” does not mean that God desires or carries it out. When injustice occurs, he interprets it as the result of a will on the part of the human agent that has decided between the two possibilities of justice and injustice, while being aware of the wrongness of the act and its consequences.
Shahrur reads the verse’s negation of God’s desire for injustice as a negation of God’s wish for injustice and of its occurrence as a divine will. Shahrur distinguishes between volition and will: volition, in his account, includes the two possibilities of justice and injustice, whereas will occurs when one of the two possibilities is decided upon and chosen. Shahrur attributes the occurrence of injustice to the will of the agent who chooses the act while understanding its consequences, rather than to God’s effective will.
Evidence and Location
State and Society — p. 109.
Limits of the Reading
- The evidence does not establish that this understanding is the only possible interpretation of the verse; rather, it establishes Shahrur’s use of it within his particular distinction between will and volition.
- The phrase “a human act” requires qualification: the evidence attributes the occurrence of injustice to the will of the person who commits it, but it does not present here a detailed general theory of all forms of injustice or all agents.
- The other attached evidence does not support a reading of verse 108, as it addresses verse 7 of Al ʿImran and Shahrur’s classifications of the Book and the Qur’an; it therefore cannot serve as direct support for this page.
Continue From Here
Brief Reading
Shahrur relies on the verse to make injustice a human act that is not attributable to God’s effective will.
Themes
- Faith-related
- Legislative
- Human and ethical
Related Concepts
- Divine will: 2
- God’s signs: 2
- Injustice: 2
Its Place in the Network of Concepts
It is connected to the concepts of justice and human choice within his theological framework.
Role of the Verse in the Argument
- Support: 2
- Context: 1
Instances of Use
- State and Society, p. 109: He makes it evidence that injustice is not attributable to God’s effective will, but rather to human choice when a person decides upon one of the possibilities of volition.
- Concept: Divine will
- Function of the verse here: Support
- Textual evidence: “For His—exalted be He—saying: {These are God’s signs … And God does not desire injustice for the worlds} (Al ʿImran 108), means that God does not desire injustice for the worlds.”
- the Book and the Qur’an, p. 217: He mentions it in the context of distinguishing cosmic/elucidatory verses from legal rulings.
- Concept: God’s signs
- Function of the verse here: Context
- Textual evidence: “- {These are God’s signs, which We recite to you in truth…} (Al ʿImran 108).”
- Drying Up the Sources of Terrorism, p. 93: He cites it to define injustice as the opposite of justice and fairness, which is one of the foundations of his conditions for fighting.
- Concept: Injustice
- Function of the verse here: Support
- Textual evidence: “Injustice in its general lexical sense … as in His—exalted be He—saying: {And God does not desire injustice for the worlds}.”
Related Books
This page is presented within the general atlas construction methodology.