This page explains a conceptual relationship between two poles within Shahrur’s thought, and how this relationship functions in constructing meaning.
Meaning of the relationship
This relationship means that traditional jurisprudence, as historical ijtihads of the Prophet, the Companions, and the early jurists, is not fit to serve as a direct basis for contemporary legislation. It is understood as material to be studied in order to grasp intellectual and juristic history, not as an obligatory reference to be followed legislatively in the present age.
The two poles of the relationship
- First pole: traditional jurisprudence
- Relationship: is not valid
- Second pole: for contemporary legislation
Evidence
- The Mother of the Book and its Elaboration via traditional jurisprudence is not contemporary legislation
- Witness: - The ijtihads of the Prophet, the Companions, and the early jurists are historical, and are studied rather than followed legislatively in the modern era.
Its impact on the knowledge map
This relationship acquires its importance because it draws a clear boundary between the juristic heritage on one side and contemporary legislation on the other. It also helps organize the conceptual map by preventing confusion between the historical value of jurisprudence as an intellectual heritage and its practical validity as a source for present-day codification. In this way, the relationship highlights the place of traditional jurisprudence within the scientific memory, not within the authority of current legislation.