What Is Meant Here?
What is meant is a direct boundary on the meaning of combat in this context: assassinations and the bombing of civilians are not included within it; rather, they are described as departures from it.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
In the book Muhammad Shahrur: Draining the Sources of Terrorism, it is stated: “He considers assassinations and the bombing of civilians to be a departure from the meaning of combat.” This judgment denies that the two acts qualify as combat in the sense in which Shahrur uses the term in the cited passage.
Atlas Explanation
The text does not equate combat with assassinations or the bombing of civilians. The statement does not merely criticize the two acts; it holds that attributing them to combat is inconsistent with the very term “combat.” To trace the term in a broader context, see Jihad, Combat, and the Critique of Violence and combat.
Synthetic Conclusion
This atom may be read as a constraint on using the term “combat” to justify targeting civilians; however, this is an inference from the statement’s function in drawing the boundary, not an independent, detailed definition of every form of violence.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The cited passage does not provide a complete definition of combat or a list of its conditions, nor does it detail forms of assassination or the cases in which the designation of civilians applies. This page is therefore limited to the explicit judgment it contains.