Formulation of the Claim
The three foundational texts did not achieve historical universality.
Explanation
For Arkoun, this claim indicates that the major founding texts remained present as original references, but they did not encompass the whole of Islamic history within a single, unified order. Universality here is not merely broad presence, but the capacity to contain diverse historical experience and bring it into a single coherent horizon.
This means that Arkoun distinguishes between the centrality of these texts in shaping religious consciousness and the limits of what they actually accomplished at the level of historical coverage. Their relationship to history, then, remains one of foundation and partial encompassment, not final completion.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s critique of the idea that the foundational texts alone suffice as an adequate explanation of the entire Islamic experience. It supports his broader thesis that Islamic history was shaped by trajectories too extensive to be reduced to a single textual authority or to three adjacent authorities.
Limits of the Claim
This judgment does not deny the value of the foundational texts or their central impact; it is limited to the claim that this impact did not become a fully realized historical universality. Nor does it imply that history stood entirely outside them; rather, their containment of it was not comprehensive.