What Does the Claim Mean?
The claim does not say that wine and gambling are permissible; rather, it distinguishes between their being prohibited and their being called an “absolute prohibition.” The cited passage ties this distinction to the possibility of balancing harm and benefit.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The cited passage states: “Some prohibited matters are not an absolute prohibition, but rather a prohibition that leaves room for balancing harm and benefit, as in wine and gambling.”
Accordingly, wine and gambling serve here as examples of prohibited matters that, in his view, do not fall under absolute prohibition.
Atlas Explanation
The expression indicates that “prohibition” and “absolute prohibition” are not synonymous in this presentation. The prohibition is established in the statement, but the cited passage adds a distinguishing feature: room remains for balancing harm and benefit.
Qualified Conclusion
The atom may be read as a distinction within the discourse of prohibition: according to this cited passage, not all prohibited matters are at the same level of prohibition. This conclusion does not go beyond the two examples mentioned and what the statement explicitly says.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The cited passage alone does not explain how harm and benefit are to be balanced, the criterion for moving from prohibition to absolute prohibition, or the extent to which this distinction applies to other cases. Nor does this evidence alone establish a connection between the issue and the notion of the fixed and the variable, or the domain of ijtihad.
For reading in the source context: Muhammad Shahrur: Mother of the Book and Its Elaboration. For the thematic context: Legislation, Limits, and Prohibition.