This page explains a conceptual relationship between two poles within Shahrur’s thought, and how this relationship functions in the construction of meaning.
Within a Broader Family
This relationship falls within the field of the function of the Qur’anic narratives in Shahrur’s thought. Its witness points to a specific aspect, and the family brings together moral lesson, knowledge, and the uncovering of historical laws, while negating the transformation of narratives into a direct source of legislation.
The Meaning of the Relationship
What is meant is that legal analogy, as a tool of derivation in the legislative sphere, may not be generalized so as to govern the understanding of Qur’anic narratives. The text therefore rejects transferring the method used to deal with juristic rulings into the realm of narratives, because this leads to confusion between the nature of the message and the nature of narration, and between what is definitive and what is ambiguous.
The Two Poles of the Relationship
- The first pole: legal analogy
- The relationship: does not extend to
- The second pole: Qur’anic narratives
Evidence
- The Qur’anic Narrative, vol. 2 via legal analogy does not extend to narratives
- Witness: - He rejects projecting legal analogy onto the Qur’anic narratives, and sees this projection as having led to confusion between the message and the narratives, and between the definitive and the ambiguous.
Its Effect in the Knowledge Map
This relationship gains its importance from the fact that it draws a cognitive boundary between two different domains within the conceptual map: the domain of jurisprudence and the domain of Qur’anic narratives. In this way, it prevents one reading from dominating the other and preserves the distinct functions of the Qur’anic text, so that the narratives are not reduced to the logic of juristic derivation, nor is jurisprudence understood on the basis of narrative storytelling.