What is meant
Shahrur sees the legislative formulas in religious discourse as not being equivalent in meaning, so that “what was written” differs from “what was enjoined,” “what was prescribed,” and “what was admonished with.” The difference between these formulas indicates a difference in both signification and the legislative function of each.
The atom’s structure in the atlas
- Type of argument: Distinguishing
- Argument movement: The different legislative formulas do not carry a single meaning.
- Key terms: what was written, what was enjoined, what was prescribed, what was admonished with.
- Degree of centrality: Central.
It establishes a linguistic basis for unpacking the levels of legislative discourse, so that command, prohibition, counsel, and admonition are not read as a single level of obligation.
Links that help with reading
- Muhammad Shahrur Islam and Faith
- Legislation, Limits, and Prohibition
- Legislation in Shahrur distinguishes between the divine prohibited and human ijtihad
Basis
- Supporting text: “The passage distinguishes between different levels of legislation: what was written, what was enjoined, what was prescribed, and what was admonished with, and it sees the difference in formulas as indicating a difference in meaning and function.”
Degree of documentation
- Level: Directly documented
- Meaning of the level: The atom rests on an explicit witness close to the wording of the claim.
- Limits of the reading: The formulation above is an analytical summary, and is not treated as a verbatim quotation unless the witness is transmitted word for word.
Its function in the book
Its function here is definitional; it fixes a meaning or conceptual distinction that Shahrur relies on in building the idea.
Related to
Editorial note
This atom is essential for linking language to ruling in the author’s project.