Location of the citation: The Qur’an in Contemporary Thought, p. 26.
Intended meaning
This citation does not deny all human reasoning; rather, it objects to monopolizing prohibition or legislation when it is attributed to God. Another citation supports the existence of a sphere for human reasoning in punishments through legislative parliaments.
What is attributed to Shahrur
The citation states: “No one may monopolize the right to prohibit or legislate in God’s name; permissibility and prohibition are attributes of God alone.”
Elsewhere, Shahrur presents punishments as a field for human reasoning “through legislative parliaments,” then links mercy to defining prohibitions and says: “For this reason, I concluded the prohibitions by making them fourteen, with neither addition nor subtraction permitted, and no one whatsoever may prohibit in place of…” The final phrase is reproduced as it reached us and is incomplete in the available text.
Atlas explanation
The qualification in the statement is “in God’s name.” The atom is therefore read as a rejection of monopolizing the divine attribute in prohibition, rather than as a simple denial of all human reasoning or human legislative regulation. This relates to a broader reading in Muhammad Shahrur Qur’an in Contemporary Thought.
Synthetic conclusion
The two passages combine two points: reserving permissibility and prohibition attributed to God for God alone, and identifying a sphere for human reasoning in punishments through parliaments. Thus, the atom does not entail a denial of every human legislative decision; rather, within the limits of the two citations, it rejects conferring a divine source upon a human decision.
Open question and limits of the reading
These pieces of evidence do not provide a detailed criterion applicable to every case for distinguishing permissible legislative reasoning from a decision that Shahrur regards as prohibition in God’s name. Moreover, the atom’s more explicit citation requires its location in the raw text to be checked before further detail is built upon it.
For the critical context related to the status of jurisprudence, see: Legislation, Limits, and Prohibition. To return to the source, see: Inherited jurisprudence is a human historical construct that does not possess authority equal to the Qur’an.
The Qur’an in Contemporary Thought · Inherited jurisprudence is a human historical construct that does not possess authority equal to the Qur’an