Formulation of the claim
The purposes of the Qur’an differ from the purposes of the Sharia.
Explanation
Arkoun criticizes turning the Qur’an into a human legal system clothed in a sacred character. He therefore distinguishes between the purpose of the Qur’anic text itself and the purposes formulated by the later juristic construction.
This distinction falls within his method of separating the levels of religious discourse, so that the foundational text is not reduced to its later legislative uses. It enables a reading that sees the Qur’anic purposes as not automatically equivalent to the purposes of the jurists.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom appears in the context of Arkoun’s critique of the dominance of the juristic reading of the Qur’an, and in a broader context that calls for reopening the field to a historical and critical reading of the text. It is connected to other atoms that distinguish between the Qur’anic text and its later formations within the tradition.
Limits of the claim
This atom does not mean denying the legislative value of jurisprudence, nor claiming that the Qur’an lacks any practical or normative dimension. The point is to reject reducing the meaning of the Qur’anic purposes to juristic purposes alone.
Brief evidence
The fact is that a number of secret, unthought, or impossible-to-think acts within
strict orthodox standards arise, are invented, and impose themselves on all levels of daily life.
To sort out these acts or inventory them, study them, and investigate them and their meanings is something neglected and forbidden
from the standpoint of official religion. This leads either to a clear and decisive distinction between the two levels of