The exegesis of Verse 102 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which addresses topics of sorcery, magic, and soothsaying, is among the intricate and multifaceted subjects within Qur'anic sciences. This verse, by alluding to the role of devils in teaching sorcery and the mission of the angels Harut and Marut, raises profound questions in jurisprudential, theological, and social domains. The present treatise, adopting a scientific and systematic approach, analyses this verse and related subjects and, using an elevated and sophisticated style commensurate with learned audiences, examines legal rulings, subject-matter identification, and methodological critiques in religious sciences. Employing literary allegories and spiritual references, this text endeavours to present the scientific and literary richness while preserving the authenticity of Qur'anic content.
وَاتَّبَعُوا مَا تَتْلُو الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَىٰ مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ ۖ وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَٰكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُوا يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ ۚ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ ۖ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّقُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَزَوْجِهِ ۚ وَمَا هُمْ بِضَارِّينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنْفَعُهُمْ ۚ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُوا لَمَنِ اشْتَرَاهُ مَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنْ خَلَاقٍ ۚ وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَوْا بِهِ أَنْفُسَهُمْ ۚ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ
Translation: They followed what the devils recited during Solomons reign; and Solomon did not disbelieve, but the devils disbelieved by teaching mankind sorcery, and what was revealed to the two angels in BabylonHarut and Marut. But neither of them taught anyone until they said, We are only a trial, so do not disbelieve. Yet they learned from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone except by Allahs permission. And they learned what harms them and does not benefit them. Indeed, they knew that whoever purchased it would have no share in the Hereafter, and how evil was that for which they sold their soulsif they only knew.
Verse 102 of Surah Al-Baqarah, by referring to the teaching of sorcery by devils and the role of the angels Harut and Marut, examines the relationship between knowledge, faith, and disbelief. This verse, elucidating the devils role in diverting people through sorcery and the angels warning to avoid disbelief, emphasises the importance of responsible utilisation of knowledge. Sorcery, as a double-edged sword, may serve either as a divine test or a means of deviation.
Verse 102 of Surah Al-Baqarah, by clarifying the roles of devils and angels in teaching sorcery, underscores the significance of intention and application of knowledge. This verse invites avoidance of misuse of sciences and attention to divine will in all phenomena.
One of the fundamental inquiries in Islamic jurisprudence pertains to the legal rulings on sorcery, magic, and soothsaying. Are these sciences intrinsically forbidden, disbelief-inducing, or permissible? The answer requires meticulous analysis of the subject matter and jurisprudential criteria. No science, including sorcery, is intrinsically forbidden; its prohibition depends on its usage and effects. Like a gardener who recognises the nature of a flower before judging it, the jurist must precisely examine the subject.
The unfounded culture of prohibition in Islamic societies, like a heavy shadow, has affected the religious atmosphere and led to unjustified restrictions. This approach, rooted in ignorance and lack of reasoning, has resulted in violation of rulings and distrust toward religious science. For instance, declaring sorcery forbidden without precise definition causes ambiguity and confusion in rulings.
Some traditions, such as the sorcerer is a disbeliever or the sorcerer of Muslims should be killed, but the sorcerer of disbelievers should not, are unacceptable due to lack of reasoning and discriminatory rulings. These traditions, which consider sorcery inherently disbelief-inducing or punishable by death, conflict with judicial justice and the doctrine of divine unity in action. Disbelief is a denial of belief, and execution without judicial procedure is illegitimate.
Tradition: الساحر كافر، و ساحر المسلمين يُقتل و ساحر الكفار لا يُقتل.
Translation: The sorcerer is a disbeliever; the sorcerer of Muslims must be killed, but the sorcerer of disbelievers must not be killed.
Analysis: These rulings, due to discrimination and lack of legal reasoning, are inconsistent with Islamic judicial justice.
In some jurisprudential texts, types of sorcery such as Chaldean sorcery, illusions, or reliance on the properties of spices (like turmeric and pepper) are presented without precise definitions. These incoherent definitions have caused ambiguity in rulings. For example, Namima (sowing discord) has been introduced as a type of sorcery, which is inconsistent with scientific and jurisprudential logic.
Jurisprudential rulings on sorcery, magic, and soothsaying must be issued based on accurate subject-matter identification and jurisprudential reasoning. The culture of unfounded prohibition and unsubstantiated traditions have diminished the credibility of religious science. Islamic jurisprudence requires reconsideration of these rulings with emphasis on justice and reason.
Some traditional jurisprudential texts, such as Makasib al-Muharramah, suffer from methodological deficiencies due to lack of scientific structure, subject-matter identification, and solid reasoning. These texts, which issue rulings without precise definitions of topics such as sorcery, soothsaying, and jurisprudential typology, have led to confusion in understanding rulings. These deficiencies, like a rootless tree, have weakened the foundations of religious science.
The teaching methodology of these texts in academic centres, which emphasises memorisation and repetition of traditional texts, limits students' ability to analyse new issues. This method, like stagnant water, hinders the dynamism of religious science and reduces its credibility against modern legal systems.
Trusting popularity (common acceptance of an opinion) and consensus (agreement among scholars) without referencing scripture, tradition, and reason lacks legal validity. Many rulings related to sorcery and soothsaying have been formed on these unsubstantiated bases, leading to deviation in religious science.
Scholars ignorance of the nature of occult sciences such as sorcery and soothsaying in past centuries led to issuing unsubstantiated rulings. This ignorance, like thick fog, obscured the truth and diminished the influence of religious science worldwide. For example, during the Constitutional era, some scholars misunderstood the concept of constitutionalism and likened it to incorrect interpretations.
Religious science requires methodological revision, including subject-matter identification, scientific reasoning, and avoidance of unsubstantiated popularity and consensus. This revision, like a fresh breeze, can revive the dynamism and credibility of religious science.
Subject-matter identification, like a key to unlocking doors of understanding, is a prerequisite for issuing valid rulings. Without precise knowledge of the subjectsuch as sorcery or soothsayingdeclaring prohibition or permissibility lacks validity. The gardener and flower analogy, where the gardener knows the nature of the flower before judging, aptly illustrates this principle.
