يَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلْخَمْرِ وَٱلْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَآ إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَٰفِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَآ أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا وَيَسْـَٔلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنفِقُونَ قُلِ ٱلْعَفْوَ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمُ ٱلْـَٔايَٰتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ
“They question thee about strong drink and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and (some) utility for men; but the sin of them is greater than their usefulness. And they ask thee what they ought to spend. Say: that which is superfluous. Thus Allah maketh plain to you (His) revelations, that haply ye may reflect.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
This text indicates that the phrase 'kezâlike yubeyyinullahu' in the verse means that just as Allah clarifies His rulings on istîzan (seeking permission) in a clear and detailed manner, He will similarly explain all other signs and proofs of His religion in the same way. Additionally, the text focuses on the different readings of the word 'ism' (İsm/Âsâm) in relation to the verse about hamr and meysir (gambling), and transmits that meysir encompasses every type of gambling, even children's games with walnuts. Finally, it discusses what the word 'afv' means in the context of spending, whether this is obligatory zakat or the etiquette of voluntary charity; Taberî prefers the view of Ibn Abbas, stating that it is not obligatory but rather a teaching of etiquette for the servants of Allah regarding voluntary spending.
والصواب من القول في ذلك ما قاله ابن عباس، على ما رواه عنه عطية من أن قوله: ليس بإيجاب فرض فرض من الله حقا في ماله. ولكنه إعلام منه ما يرضيه من النفقة مما يسخطه جوابا معه لمن سأل نبيه محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم عما فيه له رضا
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
In this text, Zemahşerî points out that the expression in the verse may appear contradictory (something being characterized as both 'revealed from their Lord' and 'tales/legends of the ancients'); however, he notes that this is not a contradiction but rather an expression made through mockery/ridicule (sukriye). He also draws attention to the fact that iron (hadîd) is an indispensable tool in people's work, livelihoods, and crafts, and that no craft can be practiced without iron or without something worked with iron.
فإن قلت : هو كلام متناقض ، لأنه لا يكون منزل ربهم وأساطير ؟ قلت : هو على السخرية
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Râzî, the verse was revealed concerning the fact that drinking wine leads to error in prayer (reciting disbelief) through intoxication, and it clearly states that the sin (ism) of wine outweighs its benefit. This necessitates that wine be made forbidden; for a thing that makes something forbidden is also considered forbidden. Additionally, the reasoning of those who claim the verse does not indicate prohibition is transmitted: the mention of benefits in the verse and the expression indicating a condition of that time rather than of the past.
فنزلت : صرح برجحان الإثم والعقاب ، وذلك يوجب التحريم . فإن قيل : الآية لا تدل على أن شرب الخمر إثم ، بل تدل على أن فيه إثما ، فهب أن ذلك الإثم حرام فلم قلتم : إن شرب الخمر لما حصل فيه ذلك الإثم وجب أن يكون حراما ؟
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Ibn Kesîr, this text explains that the verse about hamr (wine) and meysir (gambling) is a stage in the gradual process of prohibition, and in this verse it is mentioned that wine has both sin and some worldly benefits, but these benefits do not equal its religious and rational harm. Additionally, it is discussed whether the word 'el-afv' mentioned in the context of spending means wealth in excess of necessity, and whether this is abrogated by the zakat verse or merely explained by it.
ولكن هذه المصالح لا توازي مضرته ومفسدته الراجحة لتعلقها بالعقل والدين ولهذا قال الله تعالى ولهذا كانت هذه الآية ممهدة لتحريم الخمر على البتات ولم تكن مصرحة بل معرضة
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Kurtubî, in the context of this verse, hamr is something that obscures the intellect and drives a person toward quarreling, foul speech, abandoning prayer, and distancing from the remembrance of Allah; the comparison of the benefit within it with major sin shows that sin is superior to benefit, and this situation forms the basis for the ruling of prohibition. Additionally, different readings (كثير/كبير, نصب/رفع) are discussed and their effects on meaning are examined.
فالخمر تخمر العقل أي تغطيه وتستره
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Beydâvî, although there are some worldly benefits in hamr and meysir, the sin and corruption arising from them are greater than the benefits they provide; for this reason, Allah has indicated the abandonment of these two. Additionally, when a question is asked regarding spending, the answer is that 'el-afv' – that is, an amount that does not burden the person and is easy for them – is commanded to be given. According to this view, the word hamr is derived from obscuring the intellect, and meysir is derived from acquiring wealth easily.
وإثمهما أكبر من نفعهما أي المفاسد التي تنشأ منهما أعظم من المنافع المتوقعة منهما
Comparison
Common ground
Taberî, Râzî, Ibn Kesîr, Kurtubî, and Beydâvî converge on the point that the worldly benefits in hamr and meysir are smaller than the sin/harm they carry, and this comparison forms the basis for the ruling of prohibition. Additionally, there is a shared tendency regarding the word 'afv' in spending, indicating an amount that does not burden the person and represents surplus wealth.
Differences
While Taberî and Ibn Kesîr employ a transmission-heavy method, transmitting the views of companions and successors (Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada, etc.) and discussing whether 'afv' is obligatory or supererogatory, abrogation or clarification; Râzî grounds the matter more in logical/juridical inference (mulazama) and the reason for revelation. Kurtubî and Beydâvî, on the other hand, emphasize linguistic and rhetorical analysis such as different readings and word etymology. Zemahşerî stands apart within this group by focusing on a different verse and presenting a rhetorical analysis through the style of mockery and the functionality of iron; these differences arise from the exegetes' methodological preferences (transmission, juristic reasoning, language, jurisprudence).
Historical context
From the earliest representative Taberî onward, the transmission material has always been preserved, but in later exegetes (Zemahşerî, Râzî, Kurtubî, Beydâvî), elements of language, rhetoric, and logical inference become increasingly prominent. Ibn Kesîr returns to transmission, maintaining a position close to the early method. This shows that in the exegetical tradition, the methods of transmission and juristic reasoning developed intertwined over time, with one not completely replacing the other.
Modern connection
This comparative reading can remind us of the value of the habit of evaluating both benefit and harm together on a given matter, and of thinking deeply without rushing to hasty judgment. The understanding of giving 'what comes easily' in spending presents an inspiring perspective on social solidarity and measured generosity. Moreover, the example of exegetes approaching the same verse through different methods (transmission, language, logic) can point to the value of being open to various perspectives when learning knowledge and viewing this as an enrichment.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar