Intended Meaning
The author holds that the consensus relied upon by jurists in matters of fighting is neither a binding proof nor a final argument. In his view, it is a historical and school-based consensus, not a universal and comprehensive ruling suitable for absolute obligation.
The Atom’s Structure in the Atlas
- Type of argument: Critical
- Argument movement: Juristic consensus on fighting is not a binding final proof.
- Key terms: consensus, jurists, fighting, binding proof.
- Degree of centrality: Central.
This atom critiques the authority of consensus when it turns into an argument that closes off inquiry. It distinguishes between the value of juristic history and absolute obligation in disputed issues.
Links That Help Reading
- Muhammad Shahrur: Draining the Sources of Terrorism
- Critique of Heritage, Jurisprudence, and Exegesis
- fighting
Basis
- Supporting text: «The consensus relied upon by jurists in matters of fighting is not a binding proof, because it is historical and school-based more than universal».
Degree of Documentation
- Level: Directly documented
- Meaning of the level: The atom relies on an explicit witness close to the wording of the claim.
- Limits of the reading: The formulation above is an analytical summary and is not treated as a verbatim quotation unless the witness is quoted word for word.
Its Function in the Book
Its function here is argumentative; it supports a larger conclusion in the chapter or prepares for it.
Editorial Note
This atom breaks the sanctity of consensus in the chapter on fighting.