Formulation of the Claim
Direct access to God’s speech through human language is impossible.
Explanation
For Arkoun, this claim is tied to the question of language as a human medium that does not coincide with the divine absolute. Every religious utterance that reaches people passes through forms of expression, understanding, and circulation; therefore, spoken or written discourse cannot be equated with divine speech itself.
From here the idea appears within Arkoun’s critique of the claim of transparency in receiving sacred texts. The point is not to deny the faith-based referent, but to draw attention to the fact that access to meaning remains governed by human and historical mediations.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom belongs to a broader line of argument that clarifies the limits of interpretation and the need to distinguish between divine speech as it is presumed at its absolute level and its linguistic and interpretive representations within history. It supports Arkoun’s theses that stress that religious discourse cannot be apprehended outside the conditions of language, culture, and institution.
Limits of the Claim
This atom should not be taken to imply a denial of revelation or a dismissal of the religious value of texts. Nor does it mean that meaning is nonexistent; rather, it means that attaining it does not occur in a direct manner or in a way that coincides with the absolute.