Verses 17–29
The first set of verses tell of how the polytheists accused the Prophet of faking his genuine call [to God] in order to gain power. They felt that there was nothing special about him that entitled him but not themselves to receive the divine message or divine warning. They mocked the Day of Accounting and the very punishment that the Prophet was warning them of.
Here, God commands the Prophet to be patient: their mistakenness should not shake him or weaken in his resolve. Instead, he should remember God’s servants who continually turned towards Him in the face of life’s travails. In particular, these include nine prophets: David, Solomon, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Al-Yasaʿ, and Dhū al-Kifl. This section begins with David and mentions a few things about him.
Commentary
اصْبِرْ عَلَىٰ مَا يَقُولُونَ وَاذْكُرْ عَبْدَنَا دَاوُودَ ذَا الْأَيْدِ ۖ إِنَّهُ أَوَّابٌ ١٧
(38:17) Bear patiently what they say, and remember Our powerful (dhā al-ayd) servant David; he oft turned [to Allah] (innahu awwāb).
Ayd means “power”. David glorified God so powerfully that the mountains and birds glorified God with him. David was also a powerful king, had robust knowledge, and was a fearsome warrior. He killed Goliath (Jālūt), as God tells of in Sūrah al-Baqarah.
Awwāb is an intensive form of awb (“returning”, “going back”). It means here that he unceasingly turned to his Lord.
إِنَّا سَخَّرْنَا الْجِبَالَ مَعَهُ يُسَبِّحْنَ بِالْعَشِيِّ وَالْإِشْرَاقِ ١٨
(38:18) We made the mountains sing the glory [of Allah] with him (maʿahu yusabbiḥna) at eventide and morn.
The clearest reading of the text is that with him (maʿahu) describes sing the glory (yusabbiḥna), and sing the glory [of Allah] with him is what We made; that, God made the mountains sing the glory of God with him.
Typically, a prepositional phrase follows the verb it describes, not precedes it [that is, this would typically read yasabbiḥna maʿahu, not maʿahu yusabbiḥna]. The order of the words here expresses the idea that the mountains were imitating David’s glorification of God.
In , the prepositional phrase comes after the verb, as is conventional:
And We made the mountains and birds sing praise with David (sakhkharnā maʿa Dāwūd). ()
Here, the placement of with David after the verb emphasizes God’s hand in inspiring the mountains to glorify God with him.
The prepositional phrase occupies a different position in 34:10:
O mountains and birds! Turn [to Allah] with him (maʿahu)…. ()
Eventide (ʿashī) and morn (ishrāq) mean “evening” and “morning”, respectively.
We made (innā sakhkharnā): The particle innā denotes an explanation. This verse and the succeeding verses outline what is meant by David being powerful (dhā al-ayd) in his glorification, kingdom, and knowledge, and how he was oft-turning to his Lord.
وَالطَّيْرَ مَحْشُورَةً ۖ كُلٌّ لَهُ أَوَّابٌ ١٩
(38:19) And the birds flocked together (maḥshūratan)—all turning to Him.
Maḥshūrah comes from the root ḥ-sh-r and means “assembling flurriedly”. It means, “We made the birds congregate and sing praises with him.”
All turning to Him (lahu): This clause carries on from the sentence which said that the mountains and birds were glorifying God. It means that the mountains and birds ceaselessly turned towards God in their glorification; indeed, glorifying God is a sign of turning towards Him.
Possibly, him in to him (lahu) refers to David [rather than God], although that is unlikely.
God inspires the mountains and birds to glorify Him without David’s efforts because all things glorify God:
All things glorify His praise; however, you do not understand their glorification. ()
However, [the mountains and birds are specified here] since their glorification was in unison with his, and since the people could actually hear them glorify God. What it means for all things to glorify God has been discussed in the exegesis of ; it has also been explained that this means that all things actually glorify God; it is not merely as if they were glorifying God [that is, it is in the lisān al-qāl not the lisān al-ḥāl].
وَشَدَدْنَا مُلْكَهُ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحِكْمَةَ وَفَصْلَ الْخِطَابِ ٢٠
(38:20) And We strengthened (shadadnā) his kingdom and gifted him wisdom (ḥikmah) and clear [understanding of] speech (faṣl al-khiṭāb).
Al-Rāghib says:
Shadd [shadadnā] means “tying something firm”.
Here, “tying firm his kingdom” is a figure of speech meaning “bolstering his rule and judgment” through being formidable, having wealth and soldiers, administering soundly, and the other sorts of things that strengthen a king.
Wisdom (ḥikmah) originates from the root ḥ-k-m meaning “to discern the truth”, “to adjudge”. Here, it refers to correct, certain comprehension of what benefits the human being and his ascent to perfection. Some exegetes say that, here, it means “prophethood”, and others say that it means “the Psalms and knowledge of the religious law.” There are also other views. However, these views may all be dispensed with.
Clear [understanding of] speech (faṣl al-khiṭāb) is analyzing the words that a person speaks to another and distinguishing the truth from the falsehood in them. It is relevant to judging between two litigants.
Some exegetes say that faṣl al-khiṭāb means to speak concisely, neither verbosely nor curtly, so that the listener is neither bored nor uninformed. Others say that faṣl al-khiṭāb means saying the expression ammā baʿad (“as for what comes next”) since David was the first person to use that expression. However, the next verse, which is about the two litigants, supports our interpretation.
وَهَلْ أَتَاكَ نَبَأُ الْخَصْمِ إِذْ تَسَوَّرُوا الْمِحْرَابَ ٢١
(38:21) Has the story of the litigants (khaṣm) come to you? When they scaled [the walls] (tasawwarū) of the sanctuary.
Khaṣm is the verbal noun of the root kh-ṣ-m (“disputing”, “being inimical”); by it is meant people who have fallen into dispute. Tasawwarū means “to climb to the top of a high wall (sūr)”, just as tasannam means “climbing atop a camel-hump (sanām)” and tadharrī means “climbing a mountain-peak (dharwah)”.
Exegetes have explained miḥrāb as being an upstairs room or alcove. The rhetorical question “Has the story…come to you?” inspires curiosity at such an unusual thing and urges the audience to continue listening to the story. It means, “O Muḥammad! Have you heard the story of the disputing people who climbed the walls of David’s sanctuary?”
إِذْ دَخَلُوا عَلَىٰ دَاوُودَ فَفَزِعَ مِنْهُمْ ۖ قَالُوا لَا تَخَفْ ۖ خَصْمَانِ بَغَىٰ بَعْضُنَا عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَنَا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تُشْطِطْ وَاهْدِنَا إِلَىٰ سَوَاءِ الصِّرَاطِ٢٢
(38:22) When (idh) they came to David, and he was alarmed at them. They said, “Fear not! [We are] two disputers; one of us has wronged the other, so judge between us in truth. Be not unjust, and guide us to the right path.”
The adverb idh (“when”) describes tasawwarū, just as the previous occurrence of idh described the story of the litigants. It means that they did not come to David in his sanctuary the normal way; rather, they hopped over the walls and barged in without permission, and this alarmed him.
He was alarmed at them (fa-fazaʿa minhum): Al-Rāghib says:
Fazaʿa means “to shrink back in terror” and “to abhor a fearsome thing”. The verb fazaʿa is similar in type to the verb jazaʿa (“to be anxious about”, “to be unhappy about”). The verb fazaʿa cannot be used for God; that is, one does not say “I shrunk back in terror from God (fazaʿtu min Allāh) in the same what that may say “I feared God (khiftu minhu).”
It has previously been explained that khashyah (fear, awe) arises in the heart after it is disturbed and discomfited. Khashyah is a blameworthy emotion, unless it is vis-à-vis God. For that reason, the prophets fear (or are awestruck at) none other than God:
They fear [yakhshawn, from khashyah] none but Allah. ()
Khawf (fear, dread) arises in the heart upon encountering something abominable or hateful. It spurs a person to guard himself against evil and to defend against this unwanted thing. Unlike khashyah, which is linked to what one comprehends, khawf is linked to taking action ensuing an unpleasant matter. As such, khawf is not blameworthy in and of itself. Rather, it is good, for it impels a person to take appropriate precautions. As God says to His Messenger:
And if you fear [takhāfanna, from khawf] treachery from a group…. ()
Since fazʿ denotes drawing away from or abhorring a fearsome thing, it too occupies the realm of act, not sense. Therefore, fazʿ in and of itself is not a blameworthy reaction; rather, it is a praiseworthy one, insofar as it aids a person in determining a threat which needs to be protected against. Therefore, there is no harm in saying that David experienced fazʿ even though he was a prophet, and prophets fear none but God.
They said, “Fear not!”: When they saw that they had startled David, they wanted to calm and reassure him, so they said “fear not”—allaying alarm by allaying its root cause, which is fear.
[We are] two disputers; one of us has wronged the other: Meaning, “We are two disputing sides; one of us has wronged the other.”
“So judge between us in truth. Be not unjust (wa lā tushṭiṭ)”: Tushṭiṭ means “to be unjust” or “to be tyrannical”. It means, “Judge between us in accordance with the truth, and do not be tyrannical or unjust in your judgment. Guide us to a fair balance in this matter.”
إِنَّ هَٰذَا أَخِي لَهُ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ نَعْجَةً وَلِيَ نَعْجَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ فَقَالَ أَكْفِلْنِيهَا وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ ٢٣
(38:23) “This here is my brother; he has ninety-nine ewes, and I have one ewe. However, he told me, ‘Put her in my care,’ and he overpowered me in speech.”
This elaborates on what their dispute was about. “This here is my brother” is said by one of the disputants referring to a member of the other side, who was his brother.
Some exegetes have put forward this verse as proof that the smallest number that may take a plural form is two [instead of three, as is more common]. They argue this on the ground that they (pl.) scaled the walls and they (pl.) came to David are in the plural form. However, two disputers is in the dual form; this here is my brother also implies that there were two.
However, keeping the above in mind, it is clear that this view is incorrect, for it is possible for there to be multiple individuals on each of the two sides, as in:
These two adversaries dispute about their (pl.) Lord; and as for those who reject… ().
It is possible that the dispute was initially between two individuals; however, then others took one side or the other and backed his claim.
“He has ninety-nine ewes (naʿjah), and I have one ewe. However, he told me, ‘Put her in my care,’ and he overpowered me in speech”: A naʿjah is a female sheep. Put her in my care (akfilnīhā) means “put her under my custodianship and authority”. Overpowered me in speech means “he won out over me”. The rest is clear.
قَالَ لَقَدْ ظَلَمَكَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعْجَتِكَ إِلَىٰ نِعَاجِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْخُلَطَاءِ لَيَبْغِي بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَقَلِيلٌ مَا هُمْ ۗ وَظَنَّ دَاوُودُ أَنَّمَا فَتَنَّاهُ فَاسْتَغْفَرَ رَبَّهُ وَخَرَّ رَاكِعًا وَأَنَابَ ۩ ٢٤
(38:24) He [David] said, “He has been unjust to you in asking you to [add] your lone ewe to his ewes. Partners often transgress against each other, unless they believe and act righteously. But how few are they!” And David realized that they had tested him, and he sought forgiveness from his Lord and fell bowing and repenting.
Key Debate: David and the Two Litigants →
This is David’s reply. Perhaps he pronounced judgment before hearing both sides. Possibly, the owner of the 99 sheep may have had a right to the single sheep and hence had requested it from the other person. However, the owner of the lone sheep spoke emotionally in a way that aroused his sense of mercy and sympathy. Therefore, he [David] hastened to this estimation of the situation, and said, “He has been unjust to you in asking you to [add] your lone ewe to his ewes.”
The lām (in laqad) is for swearing an oath. According to exegetes, the verse implies that what he was asking as to add his ewe to his [otherwise, the verse literally reads, “He has been unjust to you in asking your sheep to his sheep”], and this is considered a second object of the preposition ilā (“to”). Therefore, the meaning of this verse is, “I swear, he has wronged you in asking you to add your sheep to his.”
“Partners often transgress against each other, unless they believe and act righteously. But how few are they!”: This concludes what David is saying and clarifies what he first said. Khulaṭāʾ are partners or associates who blend their wealth.
And David realized (ẓanna) that they had tested him (fatannāhu), and he sought forgiveness from his Lord and fell bowing and repenting (wa kharra rākiʿan wa anāb): Meaning that David recognized that they had tested him with this event, meaning that they had been a trial for him; fitnah [from which the verb fatannāhu arises] means “test” or “trial”.
Some exegetes say that ẓanna here takes on its conventional meaning; that is, it is to think something but not to be fully certain, or to suspect something. However, the fact that he repents and seeks forgiveness suggest that he knew (not merely suspected) that it had been a test; otherwise, he would have been repenting and seeking forgiveness over something he was unsure about. So, ẓanna should have the meaning of “he knew”.
According to al-Rāghib, kharra means for something to fall down in such a way that it makes the sound known as kharīr; kharīr is the sound that water, wind, and other things when they fall from high. Rukuʿ means “bowing”.
Repenting (anāb): According to al-Rāghib, this means “returning to Him in repentance and with sincerity of deeds”. It is from the verb root n-w-b meaning “a thing returning again and again”.
It means: “And David knew that this happenstance was a test which he had been tested with, and that he had erred, so he sought forgiveness from His Lord over what had transpired from him, and fell bowing and repented to Him.”
In accordance with what has been narrated about this story, most exegetes hold that the litigants were angels whom God sent to him to try him; the situation of these narrations will be discussed later.
However, the details of the story all support the idea they were angels who had taken form; the details being: their entering his sanctuary in an atypical way, to the point that they alarmed him; his realization that they had been a divine test for him and not a usual happenstance; and the next verse, which reads judge between the people in truth, and do not follow your whims (), which indicates that they were a divine trial to make him alert and strengthen his rule and judgment among the people.
With this in mind, [it is highly likely that] all of this (including the request for the sheep, and David’s saying “he has been unjust to you”) occurred as a dream or vision which the angels manifested in, not on the physical plane. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that a person does not bear religious responsibility [for their actions; in this case, for passing judgment] in a vision or dream. Religious responsibility only applies to the material, visible realm. This did not happen physically—that is, there were no physical litigants, and no real sheep, neither a single sheep nor the 99 sheep; rather, these were only things that were manifested to him. Therefore, David’s slip in this case occurred with respect to something that appeared to him in a circumstance where he had no formal religious responsibility. This is similar to the slip of Adam, who ate from the tree in the garden before falling to earth, which is the place where shariʿah and religious responsibility are ordained. David’s repentance and prayer for forgiveness are similar to Adam’s. Furthermore, God clearly deems David a caliph (), just as he deems Adam a caliph []. This has been explained more in the exegesis of the story of Adam in Sūrah al-Baqarah in volume 1 of this work [Arabic edition].
That being said, some exegetes do hold that the two litigants who barged in were human beings, and the situation was as described. In this case, “he has been unjust to you” is taken as a judgment evaluating the situation, along the lines of, “You have been wronged, unless he brought proof as to why he should have the sheep.” This is in order to adhere to what the intellect and narrations necessitate—namely, that the prophets are protected by God from error. Therefore, it is not possible for them to commit either major or minor sins.
Furthermore, insofar as God had just declared that He gave David solid judgment and clear [understanding of] speech, it would be contradictory for David to then err in judgment.
فَغَفَرْنَا لَهُ ذَٰلِكَ ۖ وَإِنَّ لَهُ عِنْدَنَا لَزُلْفَىٰ وَحُسْنَ مَآبٍ ٢٥
(38:25) So We forgave him that. He had a near place (zulfā) to Us and a beautiful return (maʾāb).
Zulfah and zulfā connote a station and prestige. Maʾāb means “return”. Zulfā and maʾāb are indefinite to connote a sense of grandeur. The rest of the verse is clear.
يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَىٰ فَيُضِلَّكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَضِلُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا نَسُوا يَوْمَ الْحِسَابِ ٢٦
(38:26) O David! We have made you a caliph (khalīfah) on the earth, so judge between the people in truth, and do not follow your whims, lest they divert you from the path of Allah. Those who stray from the path of Allah shall have a severe torment, for they forgot the Day of Accounting.
The readiest interpretation of the verse is that these words are being spoken to David in the context of “So We forgave David, and said this to him.”
The readiest interpretation of caliph here is that it refers to being a divinely appointed authority (khilāfah), in accordance with And when your Lord said to the angels: “I am placing a caliph on the earth” (). One feature of caliphate [khīlafah, which comes from the root meaning “to succeed”] is that a succeeding caliph mimics his successor in his attributes and acts. Therefore, the caliph of God on earth must conduct himself in a godly manner, intending and doing what God intends, decrees, and destines. He must judge and rule as God has decreed (and God adjudges rightly!), and must tread the path of God, not transgress it.
For this reason, so judge between the people in truth is linked to We have made you a caliph on earth with the conjunction so (fa-). This indicates that the intent here is to say that God made David a caliph in actuality, not just potentiality. That is, it is not just an honorific title; rather, God caused David’s rule to grow to fruition in the necessary aspects and granted him reign whereby he would judge between the people.
Some exegetes say that We have made you a caliph is saying that he succeeded the prophets who came before him; therefore, We have made you a caliph is linked to so judge between the people in truth by the conjunction so (fa-) because being a successor to a prophet is an enormous blessing which is fitting to be thankful for, and one demonstrates thankfulness for it by being just. Alternatively, it is said that it is because the role of passing judgment is one of the offices which a caliph passes to his successor, whether a caliph judges justly or not, and so judging is qualified by in truth to emphasise that he should do so correctly. However, these interpretations require some finagling to arrive at and are unsupported by the actual text.
Do not follow your whims, lest they divert you from the path of Allah: This is appended to the previous clause by and; the way it is placed face-to-face with the previous clauses gives the sense that it means: “And when judging, do not follow your whims, lest they deviate you from the truth, which is the path of God.” This verse supports the idea that the path of God is Truth (al-ḥaqq).
Some exegetes say that judge… in truth and do not follow your whims is not actually intended to be addressed to David but is actually meant for anyone who has authority over people to hear. Therefore, this verse advises authority figures in general to judge justly and disavow falsehood. This is because David was sinless and would only have judged truly and justly and would not have followed falsehood anyway.
However, there are some problems with the interpretation. For although it is true that commanding him is also a warning to others, the infallibility of the infallible and the fact that he does not rule but justly does not prevent the assignment of command and prohibition to him. For sinlessness (ʿiṣmah) does not remove a person’s free will. And as long as their choice remains, it is permissible and even obligatory to direct commands and prohibitions (taklīf) to them as it is directed to other people. This is because if the taklīf was not directed to the infallibles, there would be no meaning for obligation or prohibition with regards to them, and no difference between obedience and disobedience, so the meaning of infallibility, which is protection from disobedience, would have been void.
Those who stray from the path of Allah shall have a severe torment, for they forgot the Day of Accounting: This gives a reason for prohibiting following whims—because it goes hand-in-hand with forgetting the Day of Accounting, and forgetting it leads to a severe punishment. “Forgetting” here means “not being vigilant about it”.
This verse indicates that all ways in which people stray from the path of God through some form of disobedience are inseparable from forgetting the Day of Accounting.
وَمَا خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاءَ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا بَاطِلًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ ظَنُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواۚ فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنَ النَّارِ ٢٧
(38:27) And We did not create the heaven and earth and what is between them in vain; that is what the deniers think. Alas for the deniers, and the fire!
The previous verse spoke of the Day of Resurrection. This follows from it and is connected it with the conjunction and to offer two arguments for the reality of Day of Resurrection.
The first argument is in And We did not create the heaven and earth and what is between them in vain. This is an argument grounded in an end goal (min ṭarīq al-ghāyāt). If the creation of the heavens and earth and everything between them—and these things are created and transient; they come and go—was not for the sake of a fixed, eternal, intransient goal, it would have been in vain (bāṭil). And, by definition, a thing which is in vain (bāṭil) has no inherent goal; it cannot be realized in the real world.
However, it would not be possible for a wise God to do this, and there is no doubt in God’s wisdom.
Possibly, in vain (bāṭil) is meant in a general sense, to mean “playing around”. Were this the intended meaning here, this verse would be similar to the following verse:
And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them for amusement. We create them in truth. ()
Some exegetes hold that the verse is linked to the previous verse by and to give the message: “Do not follow your whims, for it leads you astray, and because God did not create the world for following whims. That is falsehood [or vain plain]. No, He created it for His oneness (tawḥīd) and for following the divine law.”
However, this interpretation is not in harmony with this verse:
Shall we treat those who believe and act righteously like those who cause corruption on the earth? Or shall we treat the reverent like the wicked? ()
That is what the deniers think. Alas for the deniers, and the fire! Meaning, “[They think that] He created the world in vain with no purpose, and that there is no Day of Accounting on which the end result of all matters shall be made clear. This is what the deniers imagine about the Resurrection. So woe betide them due to the punishment of the Fire!”
أَمْ نَجْعَلُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ كَالْمُفْسِدِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَمْ نَجْعَلُ الْمُتَّقِينَ كَالْفُجَّارِ ٢٨
(38:28) Shall we treat those who believe and act righteously like those who cause corruption on the earth? Or shall we treat the reverent like the wicked?
This is the second argument for the Resurrection. It establishes that the human being, like other created beings, must grow to perfection [rather than being created unchanging and already perfected]. The perfection of the human lies in his journey from potentiality to actuality in the arenas of knowledge and deed. For the unblemished inner instinct (al-fiṭrah al-ṣaḥīḥah) guides a person to two things: belief in the truth, and acting righteously. These are also the two things that rectify human societies on earth.
Those who believe and act righteously are the reverent (muttaqūn); they are the perfected human beings. Those who cause corruption (al-mufsidūn) in the earth—due so through their corrupt beliefs and deeds. They are the wicked (fujjār). They are the imperfect and the losers; they fall short in the measure of true humanity. As a corollary, this perfection or imperfection is necessarily tied in with leading a goodly life with a wholesome livelihood, or otherwise.
None contest that this worldly life, which they both share, operates under the laws of cause and effect and material agency. It operates equally on everyone—believer or disbeliever, perfect or imperfect. When someone works hard, and their efforts are backed up by the necessary material factors [for instance, sowing a rich field and caring for the crops properly], that person will succeed and live handsomely. Whoever does otherwise will live wretchedly.
Were the totality of life to be confined to the worldly life, which is equally shared by both groups [the virtuous and the wicked] with no difference, and there were no further phase of existence that would distinguish the two groups and which would be suitable for their condition, this would go against God’s solicitousness towards fulfilling anyone’s [lost] rights and justly looking after people’s rightful claims.
If you please, you could even say that treating these two groups [the virtuous and the wicked] equally, and ignoring what either deserves, would be against divine justice itself.
The verse—as you see—does not deny that believers and disbelievers are in the same situation; however, it contrasts those who believe and act righteously with those who do not (whether they be believers who do not act righteously, or otherwise). Then it presents a second comparison: between the reverent and the wicked.
كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ ٢٩
(38:29) A Book, We have revealed to you, blessed, so that they may ponder its signs and verses, and so that those with understanding may reflect.
This verse describes the Book. It also indicates that it was sent down once, as a whole, before its gradual revelation. This is because the command to ponder and reflect on it implies that it have been available as a complete book to ponder and reflect on, not merely as scattered leaves.
The juxtaposition between so that they may ponder and those with understanding may reflect implies that the pronoun they refers to all human beings.
It means: “We sent this book to you. It overflows with goodness and blessings for all people, but especially for those people who reflect upon it and are thereby guided by it.” Alternatively, “It provides conclusive proof for those with understanding; when they reflect upon the arguments and evidence it presents, they are guided to the truth.”
Examining Narrations
- The story of the disputants coming to David. This is related in al-Durr al-Manthūr, with some differences between the various narrations. Al-Qummī relates something similar in Tafsīr al-Qummī. It is also mentioned in al-ʿArāʾis and elsewhere, and is summarized in Majmaʿ al-Bayān as follows:
David used to pray often. Once, he said, “O Lord, you elevated Abraham by making Him your confidante (khalīl), and You elevated Moses by speaking to him.”
He [God] said, “O David! We tested them in a way that We have not tested you. If you wish, I shall test you.”
He [David] said, “Yes, O Lord, test me.”
And so, one day, when he was in his prayer-niche (miḥrāb), a dove alighted. Trying to catch it, he climbed out the window, when he saw the wife of Ūrīyā ibn Ḥannān [Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite] bathing. As soon as he saw her, he wanted her and resolved to marry her.
So he sent Ūriyā on some military expeditions and ordered that he be sent forward to the front of the chest (tābut) which held the Ark of the Covenant (sakīnah) [which was carried at the forefront of battle]. This was done, and he was killed. Then, when her waiting period (ʿiddah) had finished, he married her and sired a child by her; that child was Solomon.
That day, he was again in his prayer-niche, when two men appeared. He was startled by them, but they said, “Fear not; we are two disputants. One of us has wronged the other….” The conversation ensued as it does in the Qur’an.
Then one of the disputants looked at the other and laughed. That made David realize that they were actually two angels whom God had sent to him in the form of litigants to alert him to his mistake. So he repented and cried until foliage sprung up from his copious tears.
Then Majʿma al-Bayān says most aptly:
There is no doubt that such an act is corrupt. An ordinary person who did this would no longer be considered just, and their testimony would no longer be accepted in court. So how is it possible that this could be done by a prophet of God, given that God has trusted the prophets with His revelation and has made them His emissaries to His creation? One’s very ears recoil from such a thing!
Author’s comments: This story has been taken from the Torah. In fact, the Torah vilifies David even worse, so it has been somehow modified here as will transpire for you.
In short, the Torah says that, one evening, David rose from his throne and took a stroll along the palace rooftop. There, he beheld an exquisitely beautiful woman bathing. David sent a messenger to inquire about her, and he was told that she resembles the wife of Ūriyā al-Ḥittī (Uriah the Hittite). So David sent a messenger to bring her to him. She came to him, and he lay with her; at this time, she was not on her monthly period. After she returned home, she realised that she had fallen pregnant, and so she sent a message to David informing him of this.
At that time, Ūriyā was in David’s army and was off fighting the Banī ʿAmūn [the Ammonites]. So David wrote to Yuāb [Joab], the commander of his army, and ordered him to send Ūriyā to him. Ūriyā arrived at David’s palace and spent some days there. Then, David wrote a missive to Yuāb, placed it in Ūriyā’s hands, and ordered Ūriyā to deliver it to Yuāb. The letter said: “Situate Ūriyā in the midst of the heaviest fighting, and call back the reinforcements from around him, so that he is struck and dies.” This was done. Ūriyā was killed, and David was told.
When Ūriyā’s wife found out that her husband had died, she lamented him. After the time for mourning had passed, David sent for her, brought her to his house, and made her one of his wives. She bore him a son. However, David’s act was displeasing to the eyes of his Lord.
So the Lord sent the prophet Nāthān to David. Nāthān came to David and said to him, “There were two men in a city, one rich and the other poor. The rich one had many sheep and cows, but the poor man only had one little ewe which he had managed to acquire and which he tended to. A guest came to the rich man, but the rich man refused to give up any of his own sheep or cows to feed the guest. Instead, he took the ewe from this poor man and used it to feed the guest.”
David was enraged about what had happened to the man. He said to Nāthān, “By our living Lord! The man who did this should be killed, and four ewes given back to the poor man! For that rich man did this with no pity.”
Nāthān said to David, “But you are that man, and your Lord is censuring you. He says: ‘I shall afflict your household with evil, and I shall take your women from you before your very eyes. I shall give them to someone near you, who shall lie with them before all of the Israelites, and in broad daylight, as a recompense for what you did to Ūriyā and his wife.’”
David said to Nāthān, “I have erred before my Lord.”
Nāthān said to David, “Your Lord has absolved your sin. You are not going to die; however, you have made the enemies of the Lord gloat over your act. So the son who has been born to you from this woman shall die.” And the child fell ill for seven days and then died. Then Ūriyā’s wife bore another son to David, and that was Solomon.
- In ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā, in the section on the discussion between [Imām] al-Riḍa and leaders of different creeds and doctrines (maqālāt) that was held before [the caliph] Maʾmūn, it is related:
[Imām] al-Riḍa said to Ibn Jahm: “As for David, what do you say about him?
He said, “It is said that David was praying in his prayer-niche, when Iblīs took the form of a handsome bird, unlike any other bird that had been before. So David cut short his prayer and chased after the bird to catch it. It flew up to the roof, and so David followed it. Then it landed on the house of Ūriyā ibn Ḥayyān. When David went after it, he saw the wife of Ūriyā bathing. When his eyes fell upon her, he wanted her. David had already sent Ūriyā to war, and so he wrote to his commander and told him to send Ūriyā out near the chest (tābūt] [that held the Ark of the Covenant; that is, in the thick of battle]. This was done, and Ūriyā was victorious. This weighed heavily on David, and so he wrote to his commander a second time and told him to send Ūriyā again out near the chest (tābūt). This was done. This time, Ūriyā was slain, and David married his widow.”
[Imām] al-Riḍa struck his forehead with his hand and said, “From Allah we come, and to Allah we return ()! You are accusing a prophet of God of taking his prayers so lightly that he would abandon them to chase after a bird… and indecency… and murder?”
He [Ibn Jahm] said, “O son of the Messenger of God, then what was [David’s] error?”
He [Imām Riḍa] said, “Woe be upon you! David suspected that God had not created any creation wiser than himself. So God—the Mighty and Glorious—sent him two angels, who took human form in his prayer-niche. They said, ‘[We are] two disputers; one of us has wronged the other, so judge between us in truth. Be not unjust, and guide us to the right path. This here is my brother; he has ninety-nine ewes, and I have one ewe However, he told me, “Put her in my care,” and he overpowered me in speech’ (). So David hastened in his judgment and said, ‘He has been unjust to you in asking you to [add] your lone ewe to his ewes’ () without first asking the plaintiff to present his evidence or for his side of the story. This was David’s slip. It was about judging, not what you have made it out to be. Have you not heard God—the Mighty and Glorious—saying, ‘O David! We have made you a caliph on the earth, so judge between the people in truth, and do not follow your whims’ ()?”
Ibn Jahm said, “O son of the Messenger of God. Then what about the story of him and Ūriyā?”
[Imām] al-Riḍa said, “In David’s time, a woman whose husband died or was killed did not remarry, ever. David was the first person whom God—the Mighty and Glorious—allowed to marry a widow. Therefore, he married Ūriyā’s wife after Ūriyā had been killed and her waiting-period finished. This is what upset the people [and led to rumours] after Ūriyā was killed.”
- In Amāli al-Ṣadūq, with a chain of narration leading to Imām al-Ṣadiq, it says that Imām al-Ṣādiq said to ʿAlqamah:
You can never make people happy; you can never curb their tongues. Did they not accuse David of chasing a bird until he saw the wife of Ūriyā and lusted after her? And did they not accuse him of sending her husband into the thick of the battle [lit. “in front of the chest” which held the Ark of the Covenant] so that he would be killed, and then marrying her?
Discourse
The discussion “On the Story of David” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Possibly Elisha. [Trans.] ↩︎
Note that the first argument is burhānī (rational) and the second is jadalī (dialectical; that is, interrogating whether a claim or line or argument is valid or invalid without consideration of whether it is actually true). ↩︎
For instance, in similar circumstances in their worldly lives, or both being subject to divine judgment. [Trans.] ↩︎
It is related from Anas, from Mujāhid and al-Siddī, and through various chains from Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎
In the Biblical story, David tells Ūriyā to spend some time at home with his wife, but Ūriyā refuses to lay with her because it was customary for soldiers to abstain from spousal relationships before battle, and Ūriyā was a dedicated soldier. [Trans.] ↩︎
This summary is taken from 2 Samuel 11–12. ↩︎