What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The cited passage states that the divine messages came to regulate coexistence and safeguard rights, in explicit contrast to “imposing coercion” and “producing a monolithic system.” These are the limits of the claim established here.
Atlas Explanation
The statement describes a social function of the messages as presented by the cited passage: to serve as a reference for organizing life among people and their mutual rights. This does not, at this point, entail specifying a particular institution or a detailed constitutional system.
Adjacent to this meaning, in his critique of justifications for absolute political obedience, is another passage in which Shahrur criticizes the transformation of obedience to those in authority into permanent obedience on the grounds of its connection to obedience to God. See Muhammad Shahrur: State and Society.
Synthetic Inference
The rejection of coercion and monolithicity may be read as a constraint on understanding the messages: they regulate relations and rights, rather than justify compulsion. This is a synthetic explanation of the import of the cited passage, not an independent definition of “monolithicity” or a complete description of his political theory.
For the broader context concerning the relationship between religion and authority, see The Civil State, Religion, and Authority. The claim atom’s relation to the book’s argumentative structure can likewise be traced through The Story of Moses and the Righteous Servant Symbolizes the Conflict between Knowledge and Law.
Open Question
Which rights, specifically, does the cited passage mean? And through what institutional mechanisms are they safeguarded in a plural society? This passage does not answer this, and an answer requires other documented passages from the book.