Meaning
Shahrur holds that much of what has been attributed to Islam in jurisprudence is not an original ruling within it, but rather remnants of earlier legal traditions. Therefore, these rulings should not be understood as binding in themselves merely because they are attributed to Islam.
The Atom’s Structure in the Atlas
- Type of argument: critical.
- Movement of the argument: distinguishes between Islam and what jurisprudence inherited from earlier legal traditions.
- Central terms: jurisprudence, earlier legal traditions, Islam.
- Degree of centrality: pivotal.
This atom places inherited jurisprudence within the history of religions rather than within the founding text alone, thereby reducing the authority of direct attribution to Islam.
Links That Aid Reading
- Muhammad Shahrur: Religion and Power
- Critique of Heritage, Jurisprudence, and Exegesis
- Jurisprudence
- Islam
- Filial Piety Is an Innate Value, and Its Punishment Is Subject to the Legal Limits
Evidence
- Supporting text: “Much of what jurisprudence attributed to it is in fact remnants of earlier legal traditions.”
Location of the Evidence in the Book
- Book: Religion and Power.
- Location: in the opening sections of the book, within the critique of inherited jurisprudence.
- Type of evidence: close textual witness.
- Verification aid: Islamic jurisprudence is human and historical.
- Reading note: this passage serves as evidence because it points to the distinction between sharia and historical jurisprudence, supporting the idea that some rulings came from earlier remnants.
Degree of Documentation
- Level: directly documented.
- Meaning of the level: the atom rests on an explicit witness close to the wording of the claim.
- Limits of interpretation: the wording above is an analytical summary and should not be treated as a verbatim quotation unless the witness is quoted textually.
Function in the Book
Its function here is declarative: it establishes a conclusion on which the subsequent stages of the argument depend.
Related To
Note for the Reader
It is useful for criticizing the overlap between the juristic heritage and the Qur’anic foundation.