Formulation of the claim
Sharia has historically prevailed over rationalist and secular currents.
Explanation
In Arkoun’s view, this claim refers to a historical process in which rationalism was not the dominant tendency in shaping the Islamic sphere; rather, it was overtaken by legalistic and orthodox formulations. What is meant is not merely the presence of rational ideas, but the limited impact they had in the face of dominant religious structures.
This predominance is understood as part of a long history in which the prevailing authority took shape, and in which rationalist projects failed to become a public horizon parallel to the authority of Sharia. The atom therefore distills an unequal relationship between the potential of critical reason and the historical dominance of the legal-religious system.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s theses that explain the closure of the modern Islamic sphere in the face of historical critique and humanism, and show how religious consciousness took shape under the influence of orthodoxy more than under that of rationalist currents. It thus connects with the book’s criticism of the mechanisms of exclusion that limited the presence of philosophical and scientific thought in Islamic history.
Limits of the claim
This atom should not be taken to mean a complete denial of the presence of rationalism in the Islamic tradition, nor should history be reduced to a simplistic binary between reason and Sharia. The intended meaning is the historical predominance of a particular system, not a sweeping judgment on all experiences and periods.