Despite the certainty of Khums obligation in Islam, its scope has been a source of disagreement between Sunni jurists and Imami scholars. Sunni jurists have restricted this obligation to war spoils based on the context (siyāq), pursued merely through the adjacency of the Khums verse with jihād-related verses. Imami scholars, however, have extended it to profits from earnings, typically substantiated through narrations rather than attention to the verse's context. Yet context, as the system of discourse and the locus for surrounding indicators, not only does not restrict the obligation of Khums on earnings but also yields associated rulings within a broader scope. Employing a descriptive-analytical method with a critical approach, through consulting exegetical works of both schools and authoritative jurisprudential texts, and considering various types of contextual indication—verbal and non-verbal, arising from situational, customary, and rational indicators—this study concludes that the context relied upon by Sunni jurists, due to exclusive focus on incomplete verbal context and neglect of other components in the discursive system, is untenable. Conversely, the integrated system of context, with all its indication-producing elements, prevents the restriction of the generality of "ghanīma" and preserves its inclusiveness regarding absolute benefit—by virtue of indicators such as the relative pronoun "mā," the word "shay'," the root "ghanama," and the verbal form "ghanimtum"—while establishing, through non-verbal indicators, rulings pertaining to the object of Khums regarding target groups and the manner of its attachment to them