Intended Meaning
The point here is to attribute a specific reading to Shahrur: in his view, the wording “cut off their hands” is not a text that requires literal amputation of the hand. This is a specific negative conclusion: it denies that amputation is mandatory; it does not present a complete alternative punishment.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The witness attributed to the book states: “He holds that ‘cut off their hands’ does not entail literal amputation.” Thus, Shahrur opposes treating literal amputation as a necessary conclusion from this phrase alone.
Atlas Explanation
The phrase “does not entail” is important for defining the claim: it does not deny the occurrence of the word “cut,” but denies that literal amputation is the meaning inevitably imposed by that word. The page therefore does not expand on another definition of cutting unless independent evidence for it is provided.
Conclusion
This atom records an interpretive shift from treating amputation as an inevitable consequence of the wording to treating the wording as not requiring it. This describes the scope of the claim in the witness; it is not a judgment on the soundness of the interpretation or its juristic preference.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The available quotation does not explain the positive alternative meaning of cutting, nor the conditions of the punishment or its practical form according to Shahrur. The wider context of the verbatim quotation is also unavailable in this package, so its original location must be consulted before drawing a broader conclusion.
Links That Help Reading
- Muhammad Shahrur: Toward New Principles for Islamic Jurisprudence
- Legislation, Limits, and Prohibition
- The Light Verse Sets a Minimum for Dress and Leaves the Rest to Custom
Toward New Principles for Islamic Jurisprudence · The Light Verse Sets a Minimum for Dress and Leaves the Rest to Custom