Formulation of the claim
Arkoun holds that transcendent divine discourse differs from the human discourses that interpret it, and that they must not be conflated.
Explanation
Arkoun points out that revelation, as a transcendent discourse, does not correspond to the formulations human beings have produced to understand and explain it throughout history. From this perspective, distinguishing between the founding text and the layers of interpretation and exegesis that have surrounded it becomes a condition for understanding religion critically.
In this view, interpretation is not a direct extension of revelation, but a human layer shaped by language, context, and history. For that reason, ignoring this separation leads to treating interpretations as part of the sacred itself.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom comes within Arkoun’s critique of the contemporary inability to distinguish between what is attributed to revelation and what is the product of human reading. It is directly connected to his broader project of reconsidering the mechanisms of religious understanding and introducing the historical and critical dimension into the study of Islam.
Limits of the claim
This separation does not mean stripping interpretation of value or abolishing it, nor does it imply that access to revelation occurs outside language and interpretation. The point is to prevent equating revelation with everything that has accumulated around it in the form of human readings.
Brief evidence passage
Arkoun points out that revelation, as a transcendent divine discourse, does not correspond to the formulations human beings have produced to understand and explain it throughout history. Hence it is not correct to conflate transcendent divine discourse with human interpretive discourses. The distinction between the founding text and the interpretations and exegeses that have surrounded it becomes a condition for critical understanding.
Nearby links
- Arkoun