The Idea
Arkoun assumes that what persisted after the foundational moment was not lasting innovation, but forms of repetition. This does not mean denying the existence of ijtihad or difference; rather, it means that the dominant movement in later history tended toward reproducing inherited forms. The text therefore suggests that continuity often rests more on preservation than on renewal.
Concise Formulation
What persisted later: repetition, not creativity
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim falls within the book’s argument about the historical transformation of religious meaning after the first beginnings. It does not describe the past for the sake of description alone; rather, it uses repetition to explain how the later structure took shape and how the inherited legacy was reestablished. Repetition thus becomes a sign of how religious history operates, and of the limits that creativity encountered.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in illuminating Arkoun’s critical view of Islamic history as a history of rearticulation rather than a history of continuous ruptures. This explains his interest in opening new questions before the text and interpretation. It also places the reader before the idea that continuity does not always mean vitality; at times, it may mean entrenchment in models.
Brief Evidence Passage
It indicates that what persisted later was repetition, not creativity. This does not mean denying ijtihad or difference, but rather saying that the dominant movement in later history tended toward reproducing inherited forms. Here, manifestations of continuity are often based more on preservation than on renewal.
Reading Questions
- What is meant by repetition here: is it copying the past or reestablishing it?
- How does this statement fit with Arkoun’s assessment of later religious history?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location within the book’s material.