Surah Al-Baqarah, as one of the lengthiest and most profound chapters of the Holy Quran, is replete with theological, ethical, and sociological insights. Verse 108 of this Surah, focusing on inquiry and its role within the epistemic process, provides a framework for understanding the relationship between questioning, faith, and misguidance. This verse critiques the inappropriate questions posed by the people of Moses (peace be upon him) and warns against exchanging disbelief for faith, thereby emphasising the necessity of proportion and balance in inquiry. The present discourse, relying on the content of Quranic lectures alongside theological and sociological analyses, examines this verse. The objective is to offer a comprehensive and systematic exegesis that, whilst preserving all details, employs an elevated and scholarly language suitable for highly educated audiences, presenting Quranic knowledge in a scientific and academic format.
أَمْ تُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تَسْأَلُوا رَسُولَكُمْ كَمَا سُئِلَ مُوسَىٰ مِنْ قَبْلُ ۗ وَمَنْ يَتَبَدَّلِ الْكُفْرَ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَاءَ السَّبِيلِ
Do you wish to question your Messenger as Moses was questioned before? And whoever exchanges disbelief for faith has certainly gone astray from the right path.
Verse 108 of Surah Al-Baqarah introduces inquiry as a pivotal factor in determining the epistemic and spiritual status of individuals. This verse, by referencing the inappropriate questions posed by the people of Moses (peace be upon him), underscores the importance of the suitability of the question relative to the questioners capacity and need. Misguidance described as suwa as-sabil (the middle path) is indicative of incompetence in inquiry that leads to exchanging disbelief for faith. This notion aligns with the Quranic epistemology, which regards questioning as a tool either for growth or deviation.
Verse 108, by emphasising balanced inquiry, offers a theological framework for understanding the relationship between questioning and faith. This framework not only critiques unwarranted questions but also stresses intellectual freedom within the bounds of divine wisdom.
In traditional societies, humanity was divided into two groups: elites (prophets, saints, scholars) and masses (ordinary people with limited knowledge). This categorisation was rooted in epistemic differences and access to knowledge. The elites, as bearers of divine knowledge, played a guiding role, whereas the masses relied on traditions and simple beliefs.
In the modern world, with the expansion of technology and media, the boundary between elites and masses has become blurred. Ordinary people, from streets to marketplaces and taxis, have access to vast information and sometimes surpass the elites. This transformation has invalidated the traditional concept of the masses and imposed a heavier responsibility on the elites to update their knowledge.
In the past, jurists like Sheikh Ansari or Mirza Qomi dealt with people deprived of basic knowledge. Today, the publics enthusiasm for sciencefrom the pressure to enter universities to childrens technological skillsreflects a profound shift in collective awareness.
Modern elites sometimes falter even in the most elementary intellectual matters. For instance, a scholar who deems computers useless diminishes his scientific authority. This resistance is incompatible with contemporary societal needs and leads to the decline of the elites guiding role.
The sociological transformation of knowledge has altered traditional concepts of elites and masses. This evolution invites religious science to engage in renewal and dynamism, responding to a society that devours knowledge like fresh water.
Traditional seminary sciences, such as Makasib and Kifayah, although essential, are insufficient for addressing todays needs. The absence of a questioning culture in seminaries has led to imitation and intellectual barrenness. Students who avoid questioning and criticism cannot confront global challenges.
The ancillary sciences of seminaries, often derived from antiquated sermons, due to obsolescence and lack of suitability, fail to meet scientific and social needs. These sciences, like old books in a storeroom, exude a musty odour and act as intellectual narcotics rather than enlightenment.
Universities, with indiscriminate study and unguided questions, have witnessed the bankruptcy of humanities. This problem arises from a lack of mentors and proportionality in inquiry. Baseless questions are like pouring water from a jug into a small glasswasted effort.
Seminaries and universities must promote a culture of questioning. Students and seminarians should be encouraged to study from diverse sources, including non-Islamic and even antagonistic books. Such study opens a gateway to truth and strengthens certainty.
Educational systems, both seminary and university, must sow questioning as a seed in the soil of the mind. This transformation leads to scientific dynamism and responsiveness to societal needs.
Islam forbids no question but mandates suitability and the capacity of the questioner. This freedom, within the framework of divine wisdom, leads to epistemic growth. Verse 108, by critiquing the questions of the people of Moses, underscores this suitability.
The Holy Quran provides answers proportionate to the capacity of the audience. For example, regarding the question of the soul ("Say, the soul is of the affair of my Lord", Surah Al-Isra: 85), the response is succinct, whereas regarding the crescent moon ("Say, it is the appointed times for mankind", Surah Al-Baqarah: 189), the response is practical.
Just as a physician provides simple answers to an illiterate patient and scientific explanations to an informed one, religious responses must suit the audiences capacity. This analogy elucidates the wisdom of proportionality in inquiry.
Freedom of inquiry in Islam, like a boundless sky, leads to epistemic elevation provided it matches the questioners capacity. This principle calls religious scholars to responsible responsiveness.
Studying non-Islamic books, even those of adversaries, is essential to understand the world and strengthen certainty. A religious scholar must be comprehensive and benefit from diverse sources, like springs flowing into a sea.
Unreliable books on religions such as Christianity or Dervishism, due to lack of research, lead to mockery and misguidance. Criticism of these religions must be based on direct study of primary sources.
The story of Saadis wife, who fell into misguidance due to epistemic limitations, serves as a warning to religious scholars to maintain epistemic openness. A student who is limited and uninquiring like Saadis wife cannot possess scientific authority.
A religious scholar must be epistemically and scientifically stronger in engaging with other religions and cultures. This authority manifests the grandeur of Shiism in the world.
Comparative study and epistemic openness elevate religious scholars to scientific authority. This authority, like a steadfast pillar, preserves religion against global challenges.
Iranian Sunni scholars, if safeguarded from foreign influences, can play a positive role in Islamic unity. These scholars, owing to shared cultural roots, possess synergistic potential.
The compilation of the Six Authentic Books by Iranians signifies Irans historical role in shaping Sunni knowledge. This underscores the scientific superiority of Iranians in Islamic history.
Misconceptions such as the necessity of killing Shia to attain paradise stem from ignorance and lack of epistemic foundations. These misconceptions cause division and must be addressed through scholarly dialogue.
Irans historical role and its scholars participation in Islamic unity place a greater responsibility on religious scholars for scholarly dialogue and resolving misconceptions.
The existence of 260 years of guidance by the Infallibles is an unparalleled privilege of Shiism. This distinction calls Shia scholars to extensive study and persistent questioning.
The hypocrites utilisation of Nahj al-Balagha sermons exemplifies epistemic theft. Critiquing this theft must be undertaken scientifically and without insult.
An irritable reaction to questions indicates scientific weakness. A religious scholar must respond through debate and reasoning, not through anger or passivity.
The distinction of Shiism imposes a heavier epistemic responsibility on scholars. This responsibility, like a radiant torch, illuminates the path for future generations.
The exegesis of verse 108 of Surah Al-Baqarah imparts profound lessons in theology, epistemology, and sociology. This verse, by emphasising balanced inquiry, invites religious scholars to dynamism, extensive study, and responsible responsiveness. Contemporary societal transformations have diminished traditional boundaries between elites and masses, calling religious sciences to renewal and questioning. The study of non-Islamic books, scientific critique of misconceptions, and reinforcement of Islamic unity constitute critical responsibilities of scholars. This exegesis, like a window toward truth, paves the way for epistemic and social elevation.
Under the supervision of Sadegh Khademi
