The Idea
The idea here is that sanctity was not always inherent to jurisprudence and sharia; rather, it was added to an organized human effort and then treated as if it were a transcendent given. The problem, then, lies in the mode of reception and sacralization, not in the existence of knowledge itself. What is meant is to expose the shift of human discourse from the sphere of interpretation to that of symbolic infallibility.
Concise Formulation
Sanctity was conferred on a purely human process
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This idea serves the book’s argument by showing how jurisprudential production turns into an authority that is difficult to challenge once it is clothed in sanctity. From here, the text links sacralization to the closing of the space of criticism, because what is presented as sacred is no longer open to review as a historical effort. This is a central part of the critique of fundamentalism.
Why It Matters
This idea shows that criticizing excessive sanctification does not mean discarding respect, but rather restoring the distinction between the divine text and the human work surrounding it. It is important for understanding Arkoun because he focuses on the mechanisms by which epistemic authority is produced in religion, and on how sanctity can obscure the historical origin of rulings and representations.
Reading Questions
- What is the difference between respecting religious tradition and treating it as if it were outside history?
- How does added sanctity affect the possibility of criticism and revision?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.