Combat Is Linked to Hostility, Not Merely to Disbelief
Editorial verification status: This atom was extracted from an explanatory audio-visual source, and it has now been linked to the closest books within Shahrur’s project at the book level. For precise academic citation, consult the original book and the original episode together.
Statement Formulation
Shahrur distinguishes between the non-hostile disbeliever and the hostile disbeliever, and he considers combat to be linked to hostility, not to belief doctrine alone.
Explanation
He repeatedly states that the issue is not disbelief in itself, but the adoption of a practical hostile stance: war, incitement, or aggression. Therefore, a disbeliever may exist who is not fought, if he does not enter a state of hostility. This, for him, explains many of the verses of combat, which he reads within the context of actual conflict rather than within the context of abstract disagreement over belief. The dividing line is aggression, not mere difference in religion.
Its Place in the Episode’s Argument
This atom is the cornerstone in dismantling the common conflation between “disbelief” and “killing,” and it supports a rereading of the verses of combat.
Limits of the Claim
It does not say that every disbeliever is peaceful; rather, it says that the ruling differs depending on whether he is hostile or not.
Brief Quotation
“There is a hostile disbeliever and a non-hostile disbeliever.”
Nearby Links
- Shahrur - sovereignty
- Shahrur - the civil state
- Muhammad-Shahrur-religion-and-power