Verse 258 of Surah Al-Baqarah, like a brilliant gem within the constellation of Quranic verses, depicts a profound dialogue between Abraham (peace be upon him) and Nimrod, wherein the foundational themes of monotheism, divine lordship, and the contest between faith and disbelief are brought to light. This verse not only reflects the culture of dialogue in historical narratives but, by presenting theological challenges, serves as a mirror for contemplation on contemporary issues. This discourse, through the consolidation of lecture content and exegetical analysis, delves into the depths of the meanings of this verse. The aim is to provide a comprehensive, scholarly, and systematic exegesis articulated in a lofty and academic style that meets the needs of researchers and learned audiences. The present text, preserving all details and expanding semantic linkages, endeavours to reinterpret this verse within both its historical and contemporary contexts and to pave the way for a deeper understanding.
Verse 258 of Surah Al-Baqarah, continuing the preceding verses of this Surah, elucidates the concepts of faith, disbelief, and tyranny (Taghut), delicately intertwining these topics. This verse completes the theological framework of the Surah and, by presenting the debate between Abraham (peace be upon him) and Nimrod, deepens the subject of lordship and divinity. This linkage demonstrates the comprehensiveness of Surah Al-Baqarah in offering a coherent doctrinal system that encompasses faith and confrontation with tyranny.
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رَبِّهِ أَنْ آتَاهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ إِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِي يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ قَالَ أَنَا أُحْيِي وَأُمِيتُ ۖ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ
Have you not considered the one who disputed with Abraham concerning his Lord, because Allah had granted him sovereignty? When Abraham said, My Lord is He who gives life and causes death, he said, I give life and cause death. Abraham said, Indeed, Allah brings the sun from the east; so bring it from the west. Thus the one who disbelieved was confounded. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
The interpretation of this verse, with a focus on aspects overlooked by traditional exegeses, seeks innovation in Quranic understanding. Unlike past commentaries that primarily addressed common matters, this discourse, by exploring points neglected over centuries, attends to contemporary issues and todays intellectual needs. This approach, like a beacon in darkness, illuminates the path towards a novel and practical comprehension of the verses.
In ancient times, belief in a transcendent origin, albeit in various forms, was prevalent among all peoples. This belief, whether embodied in multiple gods or material idols, reflected the acceptance of divinity among humanity. This principle distinguishes fundamentally the history of the past from the modern era, where atheism has emerged as a distinct intellectual current.
The Quranic verse لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ (Al-Kafirun: 6), meaning For you is your religion, and for me is my religion, refers to diversity in lordship, while divinity as a common origin was accepted. This diversity indicates differences in lordship, not in the fundamental existence of God.
Disbelievers in the past regarded idols as intermediaries to draw them closer to God, much like how, in Islam, the Imams (peace be upon them) are recognised as intercessors before Allah. The verse لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى (Az-Zumar: 3), meaning that they may bring us nearer to Allah, confirms this belief.
In Islam, the Imams (peace be upon them) are recognised as servants of God and channels of divine grace, whereas disbelievers attributed independent efficacy to idols. This distinction clarifies the boundary between monotheism and polytheism in the concept of intercession.
Exaggeration concerning the status of the infallibles (peace be upon them), such as attributing divinity or lordship to them, results in deviation from monotheism. The formula There is no god but Allah, a unique gem, belongs solely to the Almighty God, and any alteration leads to polytheism.
Prostration before the infallibles (peace be upon them), when done with the intention of expressing gratitude to God, is permissible; however, prostration signifying worship is valid only for God. Maintaining this form, like guarding the sanctity of monotheism, prevents deviations.
The Imams (peace be upon them), as beacons of guidance, direct humanity towards Allah. The narration Remove us from the position of lordship underscores their emphasis on servitude and avoidance of any attribution of lordship to them.
The infallibles (peace be upon them), as manifestations of divine perfections, possess a derived infallibility originating from the existence of God. This perspective aligns with Islamic philosophy and the concept of divine manifestations, elucidating their position within the monotheistic system.
Islamic philosophies, such as those found in Asfar and Shifa, by ascribing existence to creatures, have departed from pure monotheism. Only God, according to the verse قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ (Al-Ikhlas: 1-2), has intrinsic existence, and other beings, including the infallibles or material entities, are manifestations of His action.
The narration The pen dried up regarding what is to be emphasises divine order and planning in the universe. This principle rejects the phenomenological and autonomous worldview of the universe and presents it as a systematically created entity.
In the modern era, particularly since the nineteenth century, denial of the transcendent origin has intensified, and the universe is perceived as a self-existent phenomenon. This challenge, unlike previous disputes which only focused on lordship, targets divinity itself.
Religious institutions have been unable to provide strong arguments when faced with scientific and atheistic inquiries. This weakness, like a heavy shadow, affects their capacity to respond to contemporary challenges.
In sociological sciences, religion is regarded as a tool for social cohesion, not a metaphysical reality. This viewpoint, akin to a cold breeze, challenges religious beliefs and highlights the necessity for scientific reasoning.
Certain Sufis, deviating from monotheism, perceive the universe as an autonomous phenomenon. This deviation, like a branch severed from the tree of monotheism, has weakened religious beliefs.
In historical narratives, even tyrannical figures such as Nimrod possessed a willingness to engage in dialogue. This culture of dialogue, like a bridge between faith and disbelief, facilitated rational disputation.
Even at the everyday level, the possibility of rational debate does not exist. This deficiency, like dust upon the mirror of truth, obstructs mutual understanding.
Key Point: Unlike Pharaoh, Nemrod personally engaged in argument with Abraham and demonstrated his scholarship.
Nemrod, by claiming "أَنَا أُحْيِي وَأُمِيتُ" ("I give life and cause death"), introduced himself as a deity and personally entered into dialogue. This independence and knowledge distinguish him from Pharaoh, who was dependent upon magicians.
Key Point: Abraham spoke cautiously and wisely to Nemrod to avoid conflict.
Abraham (peace be upon him), with prudence and wisdom, refrained from direct confrontation with Nemrod and challenged him through logical reasoning. This wisdom, like a gentle stream, directed the dialogue toward the truth.
Key Point: In his final argument, Abraham referred to "فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ" ("Indeed, God"), not "Lord," to bewilder Nemrod.
By emphasising the shared divinity (Allah), which Nemrod had accepted, Abraham based his argument on bringing the sun from the west. This strategy, like a precise key, unlocked the dialogue and astonished Nemrod.
Key Point: Religious sciences lack specialised courses in literature and etymology and remain reliant on ancient books.
Religious institutions lack specialised lessons in literature and the science of derivation (etymology). Their dependence on old texts such as "Matl" is akin to stagnation on the path of knowledge and prevents scientific progress.
Key Point: Derivation, like philosophy, is essential for understanding the Holy Quran and requires a literary-philosopher.
The science of derivation, like a deep root, is essential for comprehending the Quranic meanings. This science requires scholars who are both literati and philosophers to unfold the depth of the verses.
Key Point: The book "Principles of Atheism" examines and responds to reasons for atheism with scientific arguments.
The book "Principles of Atheism", adopting a scientific approach without reliance on Quranic verses or hadith, investigates the reasons for atheism and offers rational responses. This book, like a torch in darkness, paves the way for scientific dialogue with atheism.
Key Point: Traditional monotheistic books, reliant on verses and hadith, are ineffective for disbelievers and unnecessary for believers.
Traditional monotheistic books, predominantly based on Quranic verses and traditions, have no effect on non-believers and are unnecessary for believers. This critique underscores the need to revisit religious argumentative methods.
Key Point: Due to their heretical content, religious institutions restricted the book "Principles of Atheism".
The conservatism of religious institutions against scientific innovations, such as the book "Principles of Atheism," has hindered the expansion of rational discourse. This restriction, like a lock on the door of knowledge, has halted progress.
Key Point: The translation of "Principles of Atheism" requires a philosopher due to its scientific depth and complexity.
Translating this book into Arabic and English is a difficult task due to its philosophical and scientific intricacies, necessitating a scholar proficient in philosophy and literature.
Key Point: Verse 258 of Surah Al-Baqarah appears obsolete today due to the denial of divinity and lordship.
In the present age, where both divinity and lordship are denied, the verse appears obsolete because the previous context of dialogue (acceptance of divinity) no longer exists. This challenge, like a storm on the ship of faith, necessitates a re-examination of the verses.
Key Point: Contemporary polytheism manifests in flattery and acceptance of erroneous views, such as accepting "two plus two equals three".
Polytheism in todays society appears in the irrational acceptance of incorrect views and flattery of authorities. This deviation, like a shadow over rationality, distances from monotheism.
Key Point: In some Islamic societies, such as Saudi Arabia, dialogue is absent and cultural restrictions prevail.
In certain Islamic countries, cultural restrictions, such as the prohibition of womens driving, reflect the absence of dialogue and backwardness. These limitations, like chains on the feet of progress, hinder rational discourse.
Key Point: Iran enjoys diversity and tolerance due to the influence of the conduct of Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him).
Thanks to the Alawi conduct, Iran benefits from cultural diversity and tolerance of criticism. This diversity, like a flowing river, contributes to the dynamism of society.
Key Point: Some political figures have welcomed criticism, indicating a culture of dialogue.
The reception of criticism by certain political figures has created hope for the revival of a culture of dialogue. This approach, like a cool breeze, refreshes the societal atmosphere.
Key Point: Generous flexibility, rooted in the conduct of Imam Hasan (peace be upon him), is a model for crisis management.
Generous flexibility, embodied in the conduct of Imam Hasan (peace be upon him), indicates wisdom in preserving religion and managing crises. This conduct, like a guiding light, illuminates the path for religious politics.
Key Point: "أَلَمْ تَرَ" means "Do you not see?" and encompasses vision with the eye, heart, and mind.
The phrase "أَلَمْ تَرَ", meaning "Do you not see?", summons profound insight that includes both physical sight and spiritual discernment of the heart. This expression, like an invitation to reflection, calls the addressee to comprehend the truth.
Key Point: "أَلَمْ تَرَ" is a stipulative negative (Lam Istiqrari) and refers to general and certain knowledge.
This expression, as a Lam Istiqrari, emphasises the certainty and universality of vision and indicates comprehensive knowledge present in Quranic verses.
Key Point: "الَّذِي" refers to Nemrod, but the Quran focuses on the content and does not mention his name.
The Holy Quran employs "الَّذِي" instead of a proper name to concentrate on the content of the dialogue and its theological lessons. This focus, like a gem within a shell, highlights the verses semantic value.
Key Point: Historical details, such as the place of meeting between Abraham and Nemrod, lack reliable sources and are not mentioned in the verse.
The Quran, avoiding historical minutiae, concentrates on the message and content of the verse. This approach, like a clear stream, liberates eternal lessons from the confines of time.
Key Point: Some kings, such as Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, were scholars and jurists.
In Iranian history, kings like Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, who excelled in religious sciences, demonstrate the possibility of combining knowledge and power. These examples, like stars in the sky of history, illuminate the brilliance of scholarship.
Key Point: Some kings, such as Karim Khan Zand, were robust like a warhorse due to their physical strength.
The physical strength of certain kings, such as Karim Khan Zand, aided their political successes. This vigor, like a swift horse, propelled them in the field of power.
Key Point: Scholars and dervishes in past assemblies distinguished themselves through debate and sometimes dethroned one another.
In historical gatherings, debates among scholars and dervishes resembled intellectual dances and provided opportunities for self-display and asserting superiority. This culture reveals the historical roots of the verses dialogue.
Verse 258 of Surah Al-Baqarah, by depicting the argument between Abraham (peace be upon him) and Nemrod, presents two fundamental axes: the absence of atheism in past history and the existence of a culture of dialogue between faith and disbelief. In the past, the disagreement was over lordship, but divinity was accepted by all. Today, with the emergence of atheism and the denial of both concepts, this verse presents new challenges. Abrahams wisdom in employing shared divinity to bewilder Nemrod provides a model for rational dialogue. The critique of religious educational systems, the necessity to revisit argumentative methods, and emphasis on the science of derivation and the book "Principles of Atheism" offer strategies for reviving religious dialogue. The generous conduct of Imam Hasan (peace be upon him), as a model for crisis management, and the emphasis on preserving monotheistic formulas, such as "There is no god but Allah" and the prostration of lordship, prevent deviations. This verse, like an eternal light, invites us to reflect on monotheism, rationality, and dialogue.
Supervised by Sadegh Khademi
