The idea
The text argues that secondary texts do not possess sanctity in themselves; rather, they acquire it from their proximity to the Qur’an as the founding text. They are therefore not an independent source of holiness, but a dependent extension of the centrality of the origin. This idea defines the degree of authority that can be granted to these texts in religious consciousness.
Concise formulation
Secondary texts: acquired a derived sanctity from the Qur’an
Its place in the book’s argument
This claim appears within an argument that distinguishes between the origin and what branched off from it, and between the founding text and the commentaries and mediating layers that accumulated around it. In this way, the book explains how some later texts become a powerful religious reference not because they possess an independent sanctity, but because the religious community has assigned to them part of the sanctity of the origin.
Why it matters
This idea shows that Arkoun does not treat tradition as a single homogeneous body of equal value; rather, he distinguishes between degrees of reference and authority. It is important for understanding his critique of systems of sanctification that make what is secondary appear to be primary, thereby closing the door to review and differentiation.
Brief evidence passage
These secondary texts do not possess sanctity in themselves; rather, they acquire it from their proximity to the Qur’an as the founding text. They are therefore not an independent source of holiness, but a dependent extension of the centrality of the origin. This relation thus determines the degree of authority that can be granted to them in religious consciousness.
Reading questions
- How does the concept of derived sanctity change the way later texts are viewed?
- What does religious discourse lose when the secondary is treated as if it were primary?
Documentation level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.