Formulation of the claim
Arkoun refuses that texts be read in a reverential way, just as he refuses that they be reduced to a single interpretation that simplifies them more than they can bear.
Explanation
Arkoun insists that reverence alone is not enough for critical understanding, because a reading that settles for sanctification disables questioning. At the same time, he does not accept reduction, because it misses the text’s complexity and its place in history.
Its place in the book’s argument
This idea enters into Arkoun’s defense of a critical reading that goes beyond surrender to authority on the one hand, and harmful simplification on the other. It is part of his method of opening the text to history and knowledge rather than fixing it in a ready-made meaning.
What the atom does not say
This formulation does not explain the details of the method Arkoun proposes in place of the two readings, nor does it separate the difference between a reverential refusal and a reductionist refusal into two independent points.
Brief evidence passage
At that point, the Qur’an becomes in their view the only legal text that can be used ethically, judicially, and legislatively in daily life. They believe that this meaning is tied to every word in it, every expression, and every verse. But at the same time, they reject the possibility of translating the Qur’an accurately into another language, except in terms of general meanings, on the grounds that its Arabic expression is transcendent and singular. Yet semiotic linguistic analysis reveals that these mechanisms are not absolute in this way.
Related links
Arkoun, history