What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The cited passage states that interpretation is “referring the verse back to its objective reality or its theoretical rational law,” and that it is “specific to the ambiguous verses, not the determinate verses.” Accordingly, on the basis of this passage, Shahrur is not attributed with the claim that interpretation is a tool encompassing the determinate and ambiguous verses alike.
Atlas Explanation
This claim atom records a methodological boundary for the scope of interpretation: its subject is the ambiguous verses, not the determinate verses. It therefore connects interpretation to the distinction between the ambiguous and the determinate, without assuming that these terms are synonymous or that the cited passage has provided a full definition of either one.
Conclusion
This restriction may be understood as precluding the generalization of interpretation to all verses; this is an organizational inference from the wording of the cited passage, not an additional definition of the meaning of the determinate or ambiguous verses.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The available passage does not explain how an ambiguous verse is referred back to its “objective reality” or its “theoretical rational law,” nor does it specify criteria for application in particular examples. The raw text is also unavailable in the evidence field; it is therefore necessary to consult the Mother of the Book and Its Elaboration in order to establish a broader context and a more precise location.