Intended Meaning
Here, the atom does not mean that the three terms have already been fully defined; rather, it records Shahrur’s objection to conflating them into a single meaning within an interpretation he describes as traditional. Muhammad Shahrur: Drying Up the Springs of Terrorism
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The witness attributes to Shahrur opposition to «التفسير التراثي الذي يساوي بين الجهاد والقتال والغزو». This establishes his position against equating them, without, in this passage alone, providing a detailed definition of each term.
Jihad, Fighting, and the Critique of Violence and Jihad
Atlas Explanation
The atom is read as a record of a specific critical claim: its subject is the equation of three terms, not the assertion of their synonymy or the construction of distinctions among them without textual evidence. For the broader context of reading violence and fighting: Fighting.
Conclusion
As a synthesis, it can be said that criticizing their equation creates the need to examine the use of each term separately in the book’s materials, but it does not by itself determine the outcome of that examination or the distinctions to which it will lead.
Open Question and Limit
What definition does Shahrur offer for each of jihad, fighting, and raiding? And how does he demonstrate the distinction among them? This atom does not settle that question, nor does it support the claim that their equation led to despotism or expansion. See also: The Verses of Fighting and the Muhammadan Narratives Do Not Legislate Absolute Violence.
Drying Up the Springs of Terrorism · The Verses of Fighting and the Muhammadan Narratives Do Not Legislate Absolute Violence