Intended Meaning
Loyalty and disavowal, in this context, are a relationship of following or turning away. Shahrur links loyalty to conduct when he speaks of its becoming collective loyalty through the homogeneity of conduct, not by presenting conduct as the sole stipulated criterion for judging individuals.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
Shahrur defines the two concepts together: “Loyalty and disavowal: a relationship of following or turning away, then branching according to Islam, faith, nationality, and people.” In the context of his discussion of the ummah, he adds that “through the homogeneity of conduct, loyalty became collective,” and then explains that enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in God constitute the homogeneity of conduct that made those addressed an ummah.
Atlas Explanation
“Relationship of following or turning away” is read as a formulation of a relationship, rather than merely a label of identity. In this context, the reference to the homogeneity of conduct explains how loyalty becomes collective and how Shahrur calls a group homogeneous in conduct an ummah. The available evidence does not establish a comparable connection between disavowal and conduct. Nor does this reading require merging Islam, faith, nationality, and people; the text mentions them as domains according to which the meaning branches.
Synthetic Conclusion
The text combines the definition of loyalty and disavowal as a relationship of following or turning away with an account of the homogeneity of conduct in the formation of collective loyalty. It is therefore sound to describe the connection to conduct as established at the level of the group, while refraining from turning it into a comprehensive rule for individual conduct.
Open Question and Limits of the Reading
The evidence does not determine which specific acts count as following or turning away in each of the branches of Islam, faith, nationality, and people. Nor does it explicitly establish that loyalty and disavowal are not a mental stance or a slogan; this negation should therefore not be attributed to Shahrur on the basis of this evidence alone.