What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The witness states that he “denies that revelation was sent down in seven aḥruf in the sense of multiple forms of revelation, and favors its having been sent down in the Quraysh dialect, while allowing for possible differences in pronunciation in oral transmission among the tribes.” Accordingly, this atom establishes three connected points: the denial of multiple forms of revelation in this sense, the preference for the Quraysh dialect, and the presentation of variation in pronunciation in oral transmission as a possibility.
Atlas Explanation
The governing distinction in the witness is between forms of revelation on the one hand and pronunciation in oral transmission on the other. Thus, possible differences in pronunciation among tribes are not presented as evidence of a plurality of texts, but as belonging to a different level from revelation itself.
Composite Inference
This atom can be connected to the broader structural reading that addresses language and the unity of the text, provided that the conclusion remains within its limits: the witness supports the denial of multiple forms of revelation, but does not offer here a detailed proof of every aspect of linguistic or textual unity. See The Quraysh tongue and the unity of the text support a non-synonymous linguistic epistemic project.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The brief witness does not set out the details of Shahrur’s reasoning for favoring the Quraysh dialect, nor does it explain the scope of the “seven aḥruf” under discussion. Moreover, variation in pronunciation is stated as a possibility, so this formulation should not be replaced with a detailed assertion about the history of oral transmission.