Intended Meaning
The term does not mean that understanding is impossible. Rather, it means that the reader cannot claim to possess a complete and final understanding of the Wise Revelation. Thus, the contemporary reading is not presented here as the conclusion of all readings.
For general context: Muhammad Shahrur: Guide to the Contemporary Reading of the Wise Revelation and The Method of Contemporary Reading.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
Shahrur explicitly states that “our contemporary reading of the Wise Revelation is not its final reading.” He explains this by saying that whoever “claims to understand God’s Book in its entirety, from beginning to end, with absolute understanding” is, in his words, claiming “partnership with God in knowledge.”
In the same passage, he goes on to judge that books of exegesis that interpret the Wise Revelation from beginning to end have no scientific value or credibility for him. He connects this to what he sees as their reliance on biblical exegesis, circumstances of revelation, and the sayings of the forebears. As part of his argument, he invokes the related verse: al-Ra’d 43.
Atlas Explanation
This is a methodological claim about the limits of reading. It is not merely a preference for a new reading over an old one, but a rejection of granting any human reading the status of absolute or final understanding. Accordingly, the contemporary reading proposed by Shahrur presents itself as a reading that may be followed by other readings, rather than as a complete grasp of the text.
Synthetic Inference
This constraint can be understood as preventing exegesis from becoming a closed epistemic authority: rejecting “the final reading” entails, at minimum, keeping open the possibility of revising a reading. This is an inference from Shahrur’s formulation in this passage, not a detailed rule whose every application is explained by the cited evidence.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
This evidence alone does not set out the practical criteria for judging between competing readings, nor does it explain how to test what Shahrur calls their “credibility in application.” After this statement, he declares that the principles of his method have a scientific basis and then refers the reader to their presentation. Likewise, his rejection of books of exegesis here is his own judgment in this context; the evidence alone is insufficient to detail every degree of this rejection or its exceptions.