Formulation of the Claim
Analogy differs from metaphor, because each has a different scope and function in understanding the text.
Explanation
Arkoun places analogy within the framework of juristic inference, where it functions as a dogmatic tool tied to the production of legal judgment. Metaphor, by contrast, belongs to the linguistic and symbolic domain, and does not perform the same function that analogy performs.
Therefore, the relation between them is not one of synonymy or verbal closeness, but of difference in the nature of their operation and the limits of each concept. This distinction makes it possible to separate what is juristic and inferential from what is linguistic and semantic in the analysis of the text.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom comes as part of Arkoun’s effort to deconstruct the tools that became conflated in traditional readings of the text. His distinction between analogy and metaphor is consistent with his concern to show that understanding the Qur’an cannot be reduced to a single juristic logic, nor to transferring concepts from one domain to another without discipline.
Limits of the Claim
This atom should not be taken as a comprehensive judgment about all uses of analogy or metaphor; rather, it is a delimitation of their relation within this analytical context in Arkoun.