The exegesis of verse 219 from Surah Al-Baqarah, serving as a gateway to a deeper understanding of Qur'anic knowledge, provides an opportunity for contemplation upon the structure and content of the Divine Word. This verse, which poses inquiries regarding khamr (intoxicants), maysir (gambling), and infq (spending in charity), addresses not only jurisprudential and ethical issues but also, through profound questioning, directs the intellect towards reflection on both worldly and hereafter matters. In this treatise, employing a scholarly and systematic approach, the content of the verse and its associated exegetical difficulties are analysed. Furthermore, through reflection on pedagogical methods in religious sciences, the necessity of scientific debate, free critique, and responding to doubts is emphasised. This examination utilises refined allegories and a dignified linguistic style, composed for erudite audiences and researchers of religious sciences, to shine as a beacon along the path of truth-seeking.
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ ۖ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِمَا ۗ وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ
They ask you concerning intoxicants and gambling. Say: In both is a great sin and benefits for people, but their sin is greater than their benefit. And they ask you what they should spend. Say: The surplus beyond need. Thus Allah makes clear to you the signs, that you may reflect.
Verse 219 of Surah Al-Baqarah presents three fundamental interpretive challenges for exegetes:
At first glance, the question about khamr (intoxicants) and maysir (gambling) alongside infq (spending in charity) appears unrelated. However, from a social exegetical perspective, this linkage may allude to the impact of intoxicants and gambling on financial and ethical behaviours. Intoxicants and gambling, as two moral afflictions, can hinder acts of spending and charity, since these practices often squander financial resources and impair reason. The Divine response, which considers the sin of these two greater than their benefit, invites reflection upon ethical and financial priorities.
The question mdh yunfiqn (what should they spend?) is also posed in verse 215 of Surah Al-Baqarah:
يَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ ۖ قُلْ مَا أَنْفَقْتُمْ مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَلِلْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ وَالْيَتَامَىٰ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ ۗ وَمَا تَفْعَلُوا مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بِهِ عَلِيمٌ
They ask you what they should spend. Say: Whatever good you spend is for parents, relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer. And whatever good you do, indeed Allah is Knowing of it.
The differing answers in verses 215 (specifying the recipients of spending) and 219 (emphasising al-afwthat is, surplus beyond need) may indicate the gradual development of spending legislation or the diversity of audiences. From a sequential interpretive standpoint, this difference could reflect the stages of legal enactment in early Islam, initially clarifying the categories and subsequently the quality of spending.
The separation of tattafakkarn (you may reflect) in verse 219 and f al-duny wa al-khirah (in this world and the hereafter) in verse 220, which follows, poses a structural question:
فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ ۗ وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْيَتَامَىٰ ۖ قُلْ إِصْلَاحٌ لَهُمْ خَيْرٌ ۖ وَإِنْ تُخَالِطُوهُمْ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ الْمُفْسِدَ مِنَ الْمُصْلِحِ
In this world and the hereafter. And they ask you about orphans. Say: The best is to reconcile their affairs. And if you mix with them, they are your brothers. And Allah knows the corrupter from the reformer.
From the perspective of Quranic eloquence, this separation may serve to emphasise the significance of reflection upon the dual spheres of this life and the hereafter. It is as though the Divine Word, acting as a bridge between these two verses, guides the mind towards contemplation of broader dimensions. This uncommon structure is an invitation to profound scrutiny of the interrelation and context of the verses.
Verse 219 of Surah Al-Baqarah, by posing inquiries concerning intoxicants, gambling, and spending, not only clarifies practical rulings but also, through an invitation to reflection, paves the way for deeper exploration of Quranic knowledge. The interpretive challenges presentednamely, the connection between intoxicants and spending, the repetition of the spending question, and the separation of tattafakkarn and f al-duny wa al-khirahrequire precise structural and semantic analyses. These challenges, akin to a mirror, reflect the necessity for scientific debate and profound contemplation within the Divine discourse.
Scientific debate is like a seed sown in the soil of students minds, from which grows a robust tree of reasoning and logic. The absence of debate renders the mind chaotic and discourse scattered. From the methodological standpoint of Islamic sciences, debate is not merely a tool for strengthening argumentation but also an ethical duty towards truth.
Debate organises the mind, fortifies logic, and deepens understanding. The lack of debate constitutes an injustice to the Noble Quran, the teacher, and the student alike.
Systematic study is akin to a key that opens the doors to profound comprehension of sacred texts. Without preparation and study, the analysis of religious texts degenerates into superficiality. From the perspective of religious education, study is a prerequisite for producing authentic and deep knowledge.
Neglecting debate in understanding the Quran is like turning away from a light that illuminates the path of guidance. This act is not only an injustice to the Quran but also to the teacher and the student. From the viewpoint of scientific ethics, debate signifies scholarly piety and commitment to truth.
The Noble Quran is like a boundless ocean; mere listening never penetrates its depths. Unlike literary works such as the Shahnameh, the Quran necessitates rational and critical interaction. From the philosophy of interpretation, this characteristic indicates the complexity and profundity of Quranic meanings.
Group debate, resembling a harmonious dance of thoughts, enhances reasoning skills. Small groups of two or more create a space for exchange of opinions and intellectual growth. From the psychology of learning perspective, this method aids motivation and deepens learning.
Traditional religious sciences courses, such as Kifyah, Mukib, and Rasil, are sometimes examined without in-depth study, yet the Quran is not like this. Due to its depth and complexity, this celestial book demands more precise study and debate. From the methodological viewpoint of religious education, this difference indicates the necessity for specialised approaches in interpretation.
The Noble Quran is like a deep sea that even the prophets could not fully comprehend. This claim points to the infinite meanings of the Quran and human limitations before it. From the standpoint of Islamic theology, this view aligns with the notion of a deep sea.
Conciseness in interpretation is like clipping the wings of thoughts flight. Comprehensive exegesis requires thorough and profound examination of the verses. From the perspective of scientific interpretation, this critique emphasises the importance of comprehensiveness in analysing religious texts.
The true exegete is like a diver who plunges into the ocean depths of Quranic meanings and interprets a verse in multiple layers, without contradiction. This criterion refers to the ability to uncover multiple and contextual meanings of the Noble Quran.
An exegete must interpret a verse continuously, in diverse meanings and without contradiction, as though diving in the profound sea of Quranic meanings.
Many existing exegeses, rather than exploring the Quranic content, focus merely on syntax, morphology, and literature. This limitation is like a barrier enclosing the deep understanding of Quranic knowledge. From the history of exegesis perspective, this critique stresses the necessity of revising interpretive methods.
Scientific debate, like a clear stream, liberates the mind from chaos and dispersion and paves the way for deep comprehension of the Noble Quran. Critiques of the absence of study, conciseness, and limitations of current exegeses reveal the necessity for reconsideration of educational methods in religious sciences. The criterion of the true exegete is the ability to dive into the depths of Quranic meanings, attainable only through debate and profound contemplation.
Excessive sanctification of God, the Prophet, the Imams, the Noble Quran, narrations, and religious scholars is like a wall that blocks the path of critique and questioning. This culture prevents scientific growth and free dialogue. From the philosophy of religion viewpoint, freedom of critique is essential for the advancement of religious knowledge.
Excessive sanctification is like a cage that shackles the intellect and prevents questioning and scientific development.
God, with intrinsic sanctity, Himself invites critique and questioning:
فَرَجَعَ الْبَصَرَ كَرَّتَيْنِ يَنْقَلِبْ إِلَيْكَ الْبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَهُوَ حَسِيرٌ
He [the sinner] returns his sight twice, turning back to you humiliated and weary. (Al-Mulk: 4)
This verse is akin to an invitation to reflection and critique of Divine creation, which signifies Gods trust in the perfection of creation and the Holy Quran. From the perspective of Islamic theology, this invitation points to the dynamism of human intellect when confronted with Divine truth.
In the book Principles of Atheism, objections to God are raised and answered, as if a dialogue between doubt and truth has taken form. This method refers to a scientific confrontation with doubts and the strengthening of faith through critique. From the perspective of rational defence of religion, this approach serves as a model for scientific response.
Reciting verses and narrations to silence questioners is like closing the doors of dialogue. This action prevents scientific and religious growth. From the philosophy of science viewpoint, free dialogue is essential for the advancement of knowledge.
The book Woman, by commencing with sensitive topics such as dress code and human relations, addresses objections directly. This method is like a mirror that candidly reflects social and religious issues. From the sociology of religion perspective, this view emphasises the necessity of confronting contemporary challenges.
We have preferred some of them over others. (Al-Baqarah: 253)
Prophets and saints, despite their exalted status, possess deficiencies at varying degrees. These deficiencies refer to their human limitations. From the Shia theological perspective, this view aligns with the concept of Ismah Tanzili (gradational infallibility).
Absolute and intrinsic infallibility belongs solely to God. Prophets and Imams have Ismah Tanzili, which depends on their existential ranks. From the Islamic theological viewpoint, this distinction emphasises the limitations of created beings in relation to God.
Books on the purification of the Prophets focus on cleansing them instead of addressing their existential ranks. This approach is like attempting to cover the sun with ones hand. Instead of purification, one should delineate the gradations of the Prophets to clarify their existential ranks.
The Imams, like the stars of the celestial guardianship, possess different ranks. The Khumsa Tayyiba (Companions of the Cloak) and the Tisah Thaniya (from Imam Sajjad عليه السلام onward) have distinct ranks. From the Shia theological perspective, this distinction corresponds with the concept of the Single Light and existential gradations.
Religious knowledge, due to educational limitations, has rarely addressed the subject of Wilayah. This deficiency is like leaving a page blank in the book of knowledge. Revising educational curricula to include this topic is essential.
Khidr was superior in the esoteric, and Moses in the apparent, like two rivers with different sources. Comparing them is incorrect due to the difference in their specialisations. From the perspective of Quranic story exegesis, this view stresses the distinction of prophetic ranks.
Comparing Moses and Khidr is like comparing two birds with different wings. There is no analogy between them because their expertise fields differ. From the philosophy of comparison perspective, attention to specialised contexts in evaluating personalities is necessary.
Questioning the Imams and religious scholars is not only permissible but is like clear water essential for scientific growth. This right supports the dynamism of religious knowledge. From the philosophy of science viewpoint, critical dialogue is essential for the advancement of knowledge.
Just as a patient questions a doctor, one may also question God and the Prophets. This example is like a torch illuminating the right to question. From an epistemological perspective, questioning plays a fundamental role in acquiring knowledge.
He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned. (Al-Anbiya: 23)
This verse is not a prohibition of questioning, rather an invitation to reflection and critique. From the rhetorical exegesis perspective, this verse is informative and encouraging, stimulating reason to engage in questioning.
God, like a wise teacher, invites questioning and answering. This invitation signifies His trust in the perfection of creation and the Holy Quran. From the perspective of Islamic theology, this view emphasises the dynamism of intellect confronting Divine truth.
In the era of the Imams, due to cultural and scientific limitations, deep questions were less frequently posed. This limitation was like a shadow over the sun of knowledge. From the history of science perspective, this view refers to developments in the culture of questioning.
Today, the virtuous and the wicked, like two sides of a scale, are respectively better and worse than in the past. This characteristic refers to ethical and religious transformations in the End Times. From the perspective of eschatological theology, faith and wickedness reach their zenith in this era.
The wickedness of Ibn Muljam is an intrinsic matter, not merely the result of an external act. Killing is like a fruit from the tree of intention, but wickedness lies in the roots of the heart. From the philosophy of ethics perspective, this view stresses the role of intention in evaluating actions.
Indifference to massacres in lands such as Palestine and Iraq is like the silence of zeal in hearts. This critique points to the weakness of social solidarity in the Islamic world. From the sociology of religion perspective, empathy and collective responsibility are divine duties.
Censorship instead of responding is like a suffocation that stifles scientific dialogue. This approach prevents the growth of religious knowledge. From the political philosophy viewpoint, freedom of expression is essential for scientific progress.
Censorship is like a wall blocking the path of scientific dialogue. Responsiveness is the key to opening the doors of truth.
Questioning the authenticity of Nahj al-Balaghas statements about women indicates the prejudice of some. This questioning is like a spark that prompts reason to reflect. From the perspective of textual criticism, examining the sources and meanings of religious texts is essential.
The monotheism of Mofazzal is the result of the dialogue between Ibn Abi al-Ouja and Imam Sadiq عليه السلام. This dialogue is like a brilliant example of scientific response to doubts. From the history of theology perspective, this view highlights the role of the Imams in rational defence of religion.
Mofazzals anger at Ibn Abi al-Oujas questioning belongs to him, not to Imam Sadiq عليه السلام. This critique refers to the necessity of patience in the face of questions. From the perspective of Islamic ethics, patience and wisdom in dialogue are essential.
Imam Sadiq عليه السلام, through active listening and logical response, convinced Ibn Abi al-Ouja. This method is like a model for scientific and ethical dialogue. From the philosophy of dialogue perspective, listening and logical response are keys to success.
Mofazzals monotheism was written according to Mofazzals intellect, not Imam Sadiq عليه السلامs intellect. This critique refers to the adaptation of responses to the capacity of the audience. From the perspective of theological interpretation, answers must correspond with the audiences level of understanding.
Religious knowledge must, by creating platforms for responding to global doubts, remain like a flag standing firm against the storm of doubts. This proposal emphasises the necessity of active participation in global dialogue. From the perspective of religious communications, media play a key role in defending religion.
Violence and anger in response to questions are like fire burning the bridges of dialogue. Restraint and politeness are keys to preserving scientific dignity. From the perspective of Islamic ethics, patience and wisdom in interactions are essential.
The critique of excessive sanctification and invitation to questioning are like a breeze clearing the dust of prejudice from the mind. The dialogue model of the Imams, especially Imam Sadiq عليه السلام, indicates the importance of listening and logical response. Religious knowledge must open the doors of dialogue, respond to global doubts, and avoid censorship.
Censorship in religious knowledge is like a lock that keeps the doors of knowledge closed. Instead of responding, censorship creates suffocation. From the philosophy of science perspective, this approach hinders the growth of religious knowledge.
Rejecting a research thesis due to criticism by religious scholars is a sign of prejudice. This action is like damming the stream of thought. From the philosophy of science viewpoint, freedom of critique is necessary for scientific progress.
The theft of mobile phone parts is an example of immorality in society, as if social trust has been stolen like a jewel. From the sociology of deviance perspective, this behaviour refers to cultural influences on ethics.
Revising educational methods in religious knowledge is like reconstructing an ancient building that must be fortified with new knowledge and dialogue materials. Avoiding censorship, encouraging critique, and scientific response pave the way for the flourishing of religious knowledge.
The exegesis of verse 219 of Surah Al-Baqarah is like a window towards the boundless Quranic knowledge; it not only clarifies practical rulings but also invites the mind to reflect deeply on the world and the hereafter by posing profound questions. Interpretive difficulties of this verse, from the connection between intoxicants and charity to the separation of you think deeply and in this world and the Hereafter, require precise analyses and scientific debate. The critique of excessive sanctification, Gods invitation to questioning, and the Imams dialogue model indicate the importance of inquiry and responsiveness in religious knowledge. Revising educational methods, avoiding censorship, and encouraging global dialogue are like torches illuminating the path of seeking truth. This writing, in an exalted and scientific language, has endeavoured to elucidate these teachings for educated audiences.
Supervised by Sadegh Khademi