of Nokounam (May His Sacred Soul Be Honoured) (Session 169)
The interpretation of the eleventh verse of Surah Al-Baqarah, which addresses the behaviour of the hypocrites and their false claim of reform in response to accusations of corruption, opens a gateway to a profound understanding of the psychology of hypocrisy and its ethical and theological complexities. This verse, akin to a mirror revealing hidden truths, portrays the dual nature of the hypocrites through a divine dialogue. This text, synthesising and reformulating the lecture delivered on 12/12/1387 (Iranian calendar), presents a comprehensive and scholarly analysis of this verse. The objective is to provide a systematic and refined text for learned audiences, employing specialised language alongside metaphors and allegories, to elucidate the psychology of hypocrisy, the paradox of the claim to reform, and the role of divine speech in unveiling corruption.
The eleventh verse of Surah Al-Baqarah, with its dialogical structure, resembles a scene from a divine drama, portraying the interaction between the hypocrites and their interlocutors. This structure accentuates the negative attribute of hypocrisy in claiming reform while facing accusations of corruption.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَٰكِن لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ
Translation: When it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "Indeed, we are but reformers." Behold! Verily, they are the corrupters, but they perceive it not.
This verse, through the prohibition of corruption and the hypocrites response, points to the paradox between the claim to reform and the reality of corruption.
Hypocrisy, like a shadow concealing the truth, is an ethical and social disorder in which hypocrites conceal their corruption under the guise of benevolence.
The eleventh verse of Surah Al-Baqarah, through its dialogical structure, exposes the nature of hypocrisy in its false claim to reform. This verse invites psychological and theological analysis of hypocrisy and emphasises the necessity of profound examination.
The use of the passive verb Qla in the phrase Wa-idh qla lahum raises a fundamental question: Who is the speaker of this prohibition? Is it God, the Prophet, the believers, or all of these?
If Qla is attributed to God, the Prophet, and believers collectively, it gains generality, implying that any individual or institution on the divine path can admonish the hypocrites. However, if restricted to God alone, it acquires a particular and sublime meaning.
The use of Qla instead of Qla Allh is a precise choice in the architecture of divine speech, containing profound implications. This choice indicates the degradation of the hypocrites and their unworthiness of direct address from God.
Some commentators, such as Mulla Sadra, have interpreted Qla broadly, attributing it to God, the Prophet, or believers without emphasising its specific meaning. This approach overlooks the depth of the Quranic discourse.
Mulla Sadra, in his commentary (Volume 1, page 412), attributed Qla to God, the Prophet, or believers, considering all possibilities plausible. This interpretation, like a structure without foundation, lacks the necessary precision.
Some commentators, like those satisfied with merely the peel of the fruit, have neglected the profound Quranic content and devoted their efforts to formal discussions.
In the Tasnim exegesis (page 270), Qla is interpreted generally to indicate universality, without specifying a particular inviter. This interpretation disregards the subtleties of the Quranic speech.
The verb Qla in the verse, with its ambiguity and precision, points to the degradation of the hypocrites and the exalted status of divine speech. The critique of traditional exegeses emphasises the necessity of attention to Quranic subtleties and avoidance of superficial interpretations.
The hypocrites, by the phrase Innamm nanu mulin, claim that only they are reformers and that others, whether believers or disbelievers, lack this qualification. This claim, like a mask over the truth, reveals their arrogance and deceitfulness.
The Quran, with the phrase Al innahum humu al-mufsidn, introduces the hypocrites as the only true corrupters, exonerating both disbelievers and believers from this attribute.
Disbelievers, despite their doctrinal deviation, have an ideology and social system and are not considered corruptors, whereas hypocrites, like aimless winds, fuel social and ethical corruption through their wavering.
The phrase Wa-lkin l yashurn indicates that the hypocrites are unaware of their corruption and sincerely believe they are reformers.
The ignorance of the hypocrites results from self-deception, not conscious lying. They, like those who see themselves in a broken mirror, are unaware of the reality of their conduct.
God, with L yashurn, in a way affirms the hypocrites sincerity in their claim to reform, but this sincerity stems from their ignorance.
Psychological analysis of hypocrisy, like exploring the depths of a dark ocean, due to its complexity and subtlety, is one of the most difficult exegetical subjects that traditional texts have failed to address adequately.
وَإِذَا لَقُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَالُوا آمَنَّا وَإِذَا خَلَوْا إِلَىٰ شَيَاطِينِهِمْ قَالُوا إِنَّا مَعَكُمْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُسْتَهْزِئُونَ
Translation: When they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe," but when they are alone with their devils, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mocking."
This verse reveals the dual behaviour of the hypocrites in their encounters with believers and disbelievers, exposing their wavering.
The eleventh verse of Surah Al-Baqarah, by focusing on the psychology of hypocrisy, unveils the paradox between the claim of reform and the reality of corruption. The hypocrites ignorance of their corruption, resulting from self-deception, distinguishes them from both disbelievers and believers and necessitates interdisciplinary analysis.
Traditional interpretative methods, like narrow and worn paths, have been confined to formal and lexical discussions and have neglected the deep psychological and theological analysis of hypocrisy.
Psychological analysis of hypocrisy, like a key to unlocking epistemological locks, requires an interdisciplinary approach combining social psychology, theology, and ethics.
The improper combination of Arabic and Persian linguistic rules in commentaries, like an unstable building, has led to ambiguity and errors in conveying meanings.
Religious sciences, like a farmer neglectful of roots, have overlooked key issues such as the psychology of hypocrisy and focused on formal discussions.
The critique of traditional interpretative methods and the emphasis on psychological and interdisciplinary analysis underscore the necessity
