Intended Meaning
Shahrur links the construction of new knowledge to moving beyond a mind that is “content with synonymy.” But in the same statement, he couples synonymy with a return to the origin and prior engagement with the lawful and the forbidden. The claim is therefore a critique of a composite mode of inquiry, not an isolated judgment about a single word or term.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
Shahrur says: “New knowledge cannot be built with a mind that is content with synonymy, returning to the origin, and prior engagement with the lawful and the forbidden.”
He thus denies the possibility of building new knowledge while being content with these elements that he groups together in his statement.
Atlas Explanation
The Atlas distinguishes between two matters: the established fact that Shahrur criticizes being content with synonymy, and the established fact of a detailed definition of synonymy or an account of its methodological alternative. The first is supported by the cited passage; the second is not provided by this passage. The text should therefore not be understood as equating every use of synonymy with the impossibility of knowledge, but as criticizing contentment with it in the context in which he associates it with returning to the origin and prior engagement.
Synthetic Inference
This atom can be connected to the line of critique concerning the reproduction of inherited tradition in Critique of Heritage, Jurisprudence, and Interpretation. This is an interpretive connection that describes the direction of the argument, not the transmission of an additional definition of synonymy.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
What is the precise meaning of the synonymy that Shahrur rejects here? And what epistemic procedures does he regard as productive of new knowledge? This passage alone does not settle either question. Its available location is also limited to the first section of The Qur’an in Contemporary Thought, without a page number in the evidence for this statement.