The idea
The text says that the legal-theological discourse granted legitimacy to existing regimes. The meaning here is that certain forms of religious interpretation were not merely explanations of texts; they also helped entrench actual power. Thus, rather than being a field of critique and accountability, religious language in some cases became a tool for conferring legitimacy on what already existed.
Condensed formulation
The legal-theological discourse: grants legitimacy to existing regimes
Its place in the book’s argument
This claim lies at the heart of the critique of the relationship between religious knowledge and political power. It shows that religious discourse can become a medium that eliminates critical distance between rule and justification. It therefore serves the book’s broader argument, which reexamines the structures that made religion closer to reinforcing the system than to questioning it.
Why it matters
Its importance lies in the fact that it explains one aspect of the intertwining of the religious and the political in Islamic history as presented by the text. When legitimacy is bestowed on existing regimes in the name of legal discourse, it becomes difficult to distinguish between rule and speaking about rule. This helps explain Arkoun’s call to critique the tools that produce legitimacy, rather than merely accepting their outcomes.
Brief evidence
Certain forms of legal-theological discourse grant legitimacy to existing regimes. The point is not simply to explain texts, but to participate in stabilizing actual power. In this way, religious language in some cases shifts from a field of critique and accountability to a tool for conferring legitimacy on what already exists.
Reading questions
- How does legal-theological discourse work to grant legitimacy?
- What is the effect of this overlap between religious interpretation and the political system?
Documentation level
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.