Formulation of the claim
Comparing translations with the Arabic text reveals degrees of mismatch in meaning.
Explanation
Arkoun relies on comparing translations with the Arabic text as a way to distinguish what remains of meaning and what changes in the process of transfer. The issue is not a preference for one language over another, but rather the observation of differences that appear when the text is read in more than one tongue.
From this perspective, translation becomes a field of inquiry rather than a transparent mirror of the original. It reveals that the passage of a text between languages does not occur without loss or displacement, and that these differences deserve attention in reading and analysis.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s concern with reading the Qur’an through a historical-critical lens, where meaning is not separated from the conditions of its reception and circulation. Comparing translations enters this horizon because it shows that when a religious text is transferred into other languages, it enters a network of semantic transformations.
This idea is also tied to his broader project of dismantling the taken-for-granted nature of literal understanding and highlighting the need for analytical tools that allow one to reconsider what appears stable in interpretive consciousness. Thus, comparison here comes as an epistemic step within a broader work of critiquing reception.
Limits of the claim
The atom does not mean that every translation is misleading, nor that it denies the possibility of conveying meaning. Nor does it place on comparison alone the responsibility for constructing interpretation as a whole; rather, it is limited to revealing points of divergence and difference.