booke

muhammad shahrur’s life and workxlviiof a neo-Whiteheadian system, parts of the latter’s truly and uncompromiseduniversality seems to have been lost.On the whole, though, Shahrur’s attempt to set up the universallyhuman aspects of the Qur"an and then to apply these to his legalexegesis is eminently successful. No other modern Muslim writer,except perhaps Fazlur Rahman, has managed to combine both atheoretical critique and a concrete analysis of the qur"anic text thatcovers such a large area of Islamic law. Indeed, Shahrur’s writingson the rules of bequests and inheritance law, polygyny, women’sdress codes, and personal status law, all developed on the basis ofhis theory of limits, constitute a landmark in the development ofmodern Islamic thought and deserve broad attention. Moreover, hiscompelling fusion of European philosophical concepts with a qur"anicworldview has not only achieved the establishment of a ‘theory’which Shahrur saw as vital for overcoming the intellectual crisis ofArab nationalism, but also forcefully addresses the current crisis provokedby radical Islamism.True, much of the idealism, scientific positivism, and high-flownenthusiasm for evolutionary progress that characterised nineteenthcenturyEuropean philosophy seems a bit alien to the disillusioned,postmodern spirit of our current time. Undoubtedly, what was thencalled rational, universal and moral may be seen now as irrational,context-bound, and interest-driven; and the ideal of an irreversibleprogress of human knowledge climaxing in a total grasp of absoluteknowledge may seem to some either as too simplistic or entirelyanachronistic. Shahrur’s conviction that the ethical ideals of al-isl§mare indivisible and eternally valid will be unacceptable to those whodeconstruct this as just another product of a monotheistic worldviewin the tradition of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology, ignoring nonmonotheisticand nontheistic/nontranscendent ethical models (e.g.,choice theory or situation ethics). His faith in the incorruptiblerationality of modern philosophy and in the moral efficacy of themodern sciences may appear too naïve to those more critical in theirappraisal of what philosophers and scientists have contributed towhat is irrational and evil in the modern age. Many of Shahrur’sown interpretations will be seen as too subjective and arbitrary, orincompatible with a rigorous, falsifiable, and verifiable system oftextual analysis. And his absolute trust in the essential goodness ofsecular, parliamentary legislation and his unbroken optimism thatthis embodies the humanness of society much better than the #ulam§"s