The Idea
The text distinguishes between prophetic discourse and the jurist’s discourse, and gives the former an open, metaphorical, and polysemous character. This means that prophetic discourse cannot be reduced to a single final reading; rather, it keeps meaning in motion and open to reflection. The jurist, by contrast, tends to fix meaning within a narrower legal formula, and so the contrast here appears as one between a horizon of meaning and a horizon of closure.
Concise Formulation
The prophetic discourse is: an open, metaphorical, and polysemous discourse
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim is important in the overall argument because it identifies the source of tension between the original text and the later modes of interpreting it. When juristic understanding becomes dominant, the possibilities of reading opened up by the first discourse become narrower. The text therefore uses this distinction to show that the problem of meaning does not lie in revelation itself, but in the way it is read and codified.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in showing how Arkoun separates the richness of the first discourse from the later closure in interpretation. This helps explain his concern with plurality and open meaning, not as a rejection of religion but as a call to read it with broader awareness. It also reveals the centrality of interpretation in his project.
Brief Evidence
The text distinguishes between prophetic discourse and the jurist’s discourse, and gives the former an open, metaphorical, and polysemous character. Meaning in prophetic discourse cannot be reduced to a single final reading; rather, it remains in motion and open to reflection. The jurist, however, tends to fix meaning within a narrower legal formula.
Reading Questions
- Why is prophetic discourse described as open and metaphorical?
- How does the jurist’s discourse alter the nature of the original meaning?
Level of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.