What Is Meant Here
The point is not to establish that reasons for revelation are wholly unrelated to rulings, but to record a formulation attributed to Shahrur that makes them more closely connected to Qur’anic narratives. The available evidence does not permit moving beyond this comparative formulation to a definitive restriction.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The referenced material reports that Shahrur “maintains that reasons for revelation relate to Qur’anic narratives more than they relate to legislative rulings.” This is a restatement of the evidence, not a verbatim quotation from the episode.
Atlas Explanation
The distinction between two formulations is important: that reasons for revelation are connected to narratives “more” than they are to rulings, and that they are “for narratives, not rulings.” The first compares two domains, whereas the second confines the domain to one of them. What is available here does not establish the exclusive formulation suggested by the previous title.
Conclusion
The atom may be retained as a provisional record of a claim attributed to Shahrur, after revising the title to a non-exclusive formulation. It should not be turned into a definitive report of his position before consulting the second episode and extracting or transcribing the spoken passage.
Open Question
What is the original wording in the second episode? Does Shahrur explain a criterion by which he distinguishes between the use of reasons for revelation in narratives and their use in rulings, or does he explicitly restrict them to narratives?