Formulation of the Claim
Qur’anic philology alone is not sufficient for understanding Qur’anic meaning.
Explanation
Arkoun holds that tracing Qur’anic words back to their linguistic origin or to their social history does not encompass the meaning they carry within the text. Philology, in this respect, remains a partial method if it is detached from a broader approach that addresses Qur’anic meaning in its complexity.
This means that the critique is directed at being satisfied with this entry point as a sufficient interpretation of the Qur’an. For him, Qur’anic words are not treated as signs with fixed meanings that are exhausted simply through derivation or historical referral.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s objection to methods that confine the Qur’anic text to a narrow linguistic study. It parallels his broader thesis on the need for tools of reading that go beyond limiting oneself to philology, because philology alone does not disclose the layers of meaning or settle the relation between the text and its religious and historical context.
Limits of the Claim
This critique does not mean abolishing philology or denying its usefulness in the study of the Qur’an. What is meant is the rejection of turning it into the sole tool that fully explains Qur’anic meaning.