Intended Meaning
This is not a neutral presentation of the term “abrogating and abrogated texts,” but rather Shahrur’s critique of the form in which it has “become established” in the tradition. He connects this critique to a practical consequence: applying rulings outside their proper contexts.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
Shahrur says: “The science of abrogating and abrogated texts, as it has become established in the tradition, is an illusion that led people to apply rulings outside their proper contexts.” The witness thus combines a judgment on this discipline in its traditional form with its effect on understanding and applying rulings.
Atlas Explanation
The phrase “as it has become established in the tradition” is an important qualification: it specifies that the subject of critique in this witness is the established traditional form of the concept. The statement alone is not sufficient to establish a detailed position on every meaning that the term naskh may denote.
Conclusion
The claim functions here as part of Critique of tradition, jurisprudence, and exegesis: it rejects an inherited interpretive tool because of the effect Shahrur attributes to it in the placement of rulings. To follow the term itself, see Abrogating and abrogated texts.
Open Question and Limits of the Witness
The available witness does not explain Shahrur’s alternative definition of abrogating and abrogated texts, nor does it identify specific rulings that he considers to have been applied outside their proper contexts. It is therefore not valid to derive a detailed methodology from this statement alone. The statement is situated in the context of the book through Muhammad Shahrur: The Book and the Qur’an.