Intended Meaning

Shahrur holds that the word hand in the Qur’an is not confined to the bodily organ. It may refer to power, domination, protection, and mastery; therefore, it should not be automatically interpreted as the upper limb alone when explaining the verse on theft.

The Atom’s Structure in the Atlas

  • Type of argument: interpretive
  • Movement of the argument: it opens the meaning of hand to power and mastery rather than to the bodily limb alone.
  • Central terms: hand, power, domination, verse on theft.
  • Degree of centrality: primary.

This atom supports reading the verse on theft beyond anatomical restriction, and complements the atom [[sources/كتب/محمد-شحرور-نحو-اصول-جديدة-للفقه-الاسلامي/claims/atoms/القطع لفظ واسع المعنى|cut is a broad term of meaning]].

Grounding

  • Supporting text: “The hand may mean domination, protection, power, and mastery.”

Place of the Grounding in the Book

  • Book: Towards New Foundations for Islamic Jurisprudence.
  • Location: within the discussion of the verse on theft and the meanings of cut and hand.
  • Type of grounding: close textual witness.
  • Marker for verification: hand, power, domination, so cut off their hands.
  • Reading note: the passage is suitable because it directly links the meaning of hand to non-bodily possibilities in the context of the verse on theft.

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 should not be treated as a verbatim quotation unless the witness is cited textually.

Its Function in the Book

Its function here is to establish another side of the interpretation: not only is cut polysemous, but hand itself is not reduced to the limb.

  • The verse on theft does not impose amputation
  • [[sources/كتب/محمد-شحرور-نحو-اصول-جديدة-للفقه-الاسلامي/claims/atoms/القطع لفظ واسع المعنى|Cut is a broad term of meaning]]

Editorial Note

This atom does not settle the form of the punishment; rather, it fixes the linguistic premise that prevents restricting the verse to bodily amputation.