Meaning
The author holds that the consensus relied upon by jurists in matters of fighting is neither binding evidence nor conclusive proof. For him, it is a historical and sectarian consensus, not a comprehensive universal ruling fit for absolute binding force.
Structure of the Atom in the Atlas
- Argument type: Critical.
- Argument movement: Juristic consensus concerning fighting is not conclusively binding evidence.
- Central terms: consensus, jurists, fighting, binding evidence.
- Degree of centrality: Central.
The atom critiques the authority of consensus when it becomes an argument that closes off the possibility of inquiry. It distinguishes between the value of juristic history and absolute binding force in disputed questions.
Links That Aid Reading
- Muhammad Shahrur: Drying Up the Sources of Terrorism
- Critique of Heritage, Jurisprudence, and Exegesis
- Fighting
Support
- Supporting text: “The consensus relied upon by jurists in matters of fighting is not binding evidence, because it is more historical and sectarian than universal.”
Degree of Documentation
- Level: Directly documented.
- Meaning of the level: The atom rests on explicit evidence closely aligned with the wording of the claim.
- Limits of interpretation: The wording above is an analytical summary and should not be treated as a verbatim quotation unless the evidence is cited word for word.
Its Function in the Book
Its function here is argumentative; it supports, or prepares the way for, a larger conclusion in the chapter.
Note to the Reader
This atom breaks the sanctity of consensus in matters of fighting.