Idea
This claim states that the Islamic schools later moved from living diversity to repetition and closed stability. With this shift, imitation became dominant, not direct ijtihad. This means that religious knowledge was no longer produced with the same degree of freedom, but was increasingly regulated by inherited rules that limited movement and renewal.
Concise Formulation
The Islamic schools: later closed themselves off: and imitation became entrenched
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim occupies a position opposite to the discussion of the early phase of openness, because it explains how the structure of thought changed from plurality to closure. Through this progression, the book builds a historical understanding of Islamic thought, not a fixed one. The issue is not the religion’s origin, but the way its epistemic institutions were later formed.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in showing the root of the problem that Arkoun is concerned with: how living thought turns into an inherited system that repeats itself. This helps in understanding his critique of tradition as an obstacle to renewal. It also reminds us that the history of ideas can witness openness and then contraction, not just a single straight line.
Brief Evidence
This claim states that the Islamic schools later moved from living diversity to repetition and closed stability. With this shift, imitation became dominant, not direct ijtihad. This means that religious knowledge was no longer produced with the same degree of freedom, but was increasingly regulated by inherited rules that limited movement and renewal.
Reading Questions
- What makes imitation a substitute for ijtihad in this understanding?
- How does this claim change our view of the history of Islamic schools of law?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.