Formulation of the claim
Rituals and symbolic distinctions ground the identity of early Islam.
Explanation
In Arkoun’s thought, early Islamic identity does not appear as a fully formed given from the outset; rather, it takes shape through collective practices and distinguishing marks that give the community its boundaries and its distinctiveness. Rituals here are understood as visible acts that shape belonging and make it open to observation and repetition.
This meaning places rituals in a direct relation to the process of differentiation from the People of the Book and the polytheists, not on the level of doctrine alone, but on the level of what the community declares in the symbolic and practical sphere. Identity is thus understood here not as a fixed essence, but as a historical configuration strengthened through signs and rites.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s concern with interpreting the formation of early Islam within its historical and symbolic conditions, rather than as a structure fully ready-made. It converges with his broader theses that the religious field is also formed through practices and representations, not through texts alone.
Limits of the claim
This atom should not be taken to mean that early Islam is reduced to rituals alone, or that it denies the effect of text, religious experience, and political history in the formation of identity. Nor does it imply that symbolic differentiation was sufficient by itself to create early Islam.