Intended Meaning
In this passage, jurisprudence is a “historical human understanding.” Its meaning emerges through its contrast with the Wise Revelation: Shahrur does not equate the two. Rather, he describes the Wise Revelation as “fixed in text and variable in content,” while describing jurisprudence as a historical human understanding.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The passage states: “the Wise Revelation as fixed in text and variable in content, and jurisprudence as a historical human understanding.”
Elsewhere in the book, he assigns the task of ijtihad regarding punishments to human beings “through legislative parliaments,” and says: “We cannot confine it to the reading of the first three Hijri centuries; rather, we must exercise ijtihad.” This establishes the presence of human ijtihad and rejects confining interpretation to a particular historical period.
Atlas Explanation
The distinction here is specific: “jurisprudence” denotes understanding, while “the Wise Revelation” is the other term in the contrast. The two terms should therefore not be used as synonyms. The phrase “variable in content,” meanwhile, describes the Wise Revelation in the text of the passage itself, and should not automatically be transferred as a definition of jurisprudence.
For connected reading: Muhammad Shahrur The Qur’an in Contemporary Thought، Critique of Heritage, Jurisprudence, and Interpretation، Jurisprudence، The Wise Revelation.
Synthetic Inference
At the level of synthesis, it is permissible to connect the description of jurisprudence as a historical human understanding with his call for ijtihad and his rejection of confining interpretation to the first three centuries. However, this connection does not, on the basis of these two passages alone, establish a detailed rule for every domain of jurisprudence or every form of its change.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The central passage does not explicitly state that “jurisprudence is not a sacred text.” It establishes the distinction between the Wise Revelation and jurisprudence, but stating the conclusion in terms of denying sacredness requires additional explicit evidence. Nor does this passage specify a detailed criterion for distinguishing between what remains and what changes in juridical application.