Formulation of the Claim
Juridical and institutional reading does not merely explain Qur’anic Islam; rather, it produces for it a particular interpretation that directs how it is understood.
Explanation
Arkoun holds that juridical reading, when it becomes an institutional reading, does not remain a mere transmission or disclosure of meaning; rather, it enters into the making of meaning itself. It does not reflect Qur’anic Islam as it is, but instead formulates it within a specific interpretive horizon that imposes a particular mode of understanding on the text.
For this reason, what is presented as an explanation of Islam becomes part of the history of its formation within religious consciousness. The point is not to deny the value of this reading, but to draw attention to the fact that it contributes to producing a particular image of Islam, not to presenting the Qur’anic meaning in its original purity.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s critique of the dominance of juridical and institutional interpretation over the understanding of Islam, and within a broader context that distinguishes between the Qur’anic text and the images of it produced by interpretive authority across history. It is close to the book’s thesis, which examines how Islam was formed as an epistemic and institutional tradition, not as a single fixed and immediate given.
Limits of the Claim
This atom does not mean that every juridical interpretation is invalid or that jurisprudence has no value; it points only to its effect in forming a particular image of Islam. Nor should it be made to bear a comprehensive judgment on all forms of religious reading.