قالَ لَقَد ظَلَمَكَ بِسُؤالِ نَعجَتِكَ إِلىٰ نِعاجِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ كَثيرًا مِنَ الخُلَطاءِ لَيَبغي بَعضُهُم عَلىٰ بَعضٍ إِلَّا الَّذينَ آمَنوا وَعَمِلُوا الصّالِحاتِ وَقَليلٌ ما هُم ۗ وَظَنَّ داوودُ أَنَّما فَتَنّاهُ فَاستَغفَرَ رَبَّهُ وَخَرَّ راكِعًا وَأَنابَ
He said: ‘He has certainly wronged you by asking your ewe in addition to his ewes, and indeed many partners bully one another, except such as have faith and do righteous deeds, and few are they.’ Then David knew that We had indeed tested him, whereat he pleaded with his Lord for forgiveness, and fell down prostrate and repented.
EXEGESIS
Khulaṭāʾ (partners) is the plural of khalīṭ, meaning business partners. It comes from khalaṭa meaning to mix, because the business partners mix their wealth in each other’s.
Ẓanna (knew), although ẓanna means to assume and is a degree lower than knowledge. Some have argued that it means here that he knew (ʿalima). What is more appropriate is that he had a strong estimation. If ʿalima was intended it would have been used; using ẓanna should have a reason here.
Kharra (fell down) is from kharīr, the sound that water makes when falling from a height. Kharr is to fall down while making a sound, like the crashing down of the sky, the roof collapsed (kharra) upon them from above (16:26). When a person falls down to prostration while praising God, the same word can be used, Only those believe in Our signs who, when they are reminded of them, fall down (kharrū) in prostration and celebrate the praise of their Lord (32:15). In this case it should then mean that Prophet David (a) fell down prostrate while mentioning the praises of God.
Rākiʿ (prostrate) comes from rukūʿ, the bowed position that one adopts in daily prayers. It is said that rākiʿ here has the meaning of sājid, because one cannot perform sajdah (prostration) without going through rukūʿ (bowing). More likely though, any sort of bowing motion can be called rukūʿ.
Anāb (repented) comes from inābah, meaning to return to God in repentance.
EXPOSITION
Upon hearing the claimant’s complaint about the greed of the rich man, who wished to take from him what little he had, Prophet David (a) was understandably incensed, as all the prophets of God have a love for the poor and they are angered when witnessing the injustices and economic imbalances existing in society. Apparently, without hearing the defendant first, Prophet David (a) exclaimed, He has certainly wronged you by asking your ewe in addition to his ewes.
He then continued with an exhortation and reminder, and indeed many partners bully one another, saying that such injustices unfortunately happen frequently between people who are close to each other. This may be because they have a lot of dealings with one another and intimately know each other’s financial situations. There is an important lesson here about being just and equitable towards one’s business partners that all readers should take to heart.
This statement is key in telling us why Prophet David (a) declared his opinion on the matter. He was witness to the social realities of his time, whereby the rich defrauded the poor and flaunted the rule of law and fairness. It was his feelings of compassion that swayed him to hastily make his opinion known on the matter.
That is why Prophet David (a) follows his exhortation up with a reminder, except such as have faith and do righteous deeds, and few are they. The exception to this tendency is those who are not afflicted by greed and avarice, and of these the outstanding example is the faithful who look to the hereafter. Unfortunately, true faithful who have managed to overcome such base desires are few and far apart. Indeed, the Quran often mentions that only a small portion of people are truly righteous: few of My servants are grateful (34:13).
It is said that as soon as he uttered this, the angels disappeared and Prophet David (a) realised that everything that had occurred was a test from God, Then David knew that We had indeed tested him. Prophet David (a) understood that he had not performed in the test as well as he should have (even though, as we mentioned, his behaviour was exemplary and impeccable in many aspects).
Prophet David (a) immediately pleaded with his Lord for forgiveness and fell down prostrate and repented. Many exegetes say that the mistake of Prophet David (a) was that he passed judgement in this case before hearing out both parties. The proponents of this view say this was contrary to the conventions of judgeship and an abandoning of the recommended course of action. A judge should not declare to one party that the other has certainly wronged you without first reaching certainty about that by listening to both sides. This argument is not convincing at all though and makes little sense. It is not just convention or recommendation for a judge to listen to both parties in a case, but rather an essential part of justice. This is something that is universally accepted by all courts of law. It is reported that Prophet Muhammad (s) put his hand on Imam Ali’s (a) chest when sending him to Yemen, and said: ‘Certainly God will guide your heart and fortify your tongue. When two contenders sit in front of you do not judge between them until you have heard from the second as you did from the first.’ Indeed, perhaps the second contender could have said that he had a hundred ewes and the other man stole the one he had from him.
To answer this, many exegetes have claimed that the statement, He has certainly wronged you, really intends to say: if it is as you claim, then he has certainly wronged you. This simple addition is meant to lessen the blame on Prophet David (a), however this seems contradictory to the following sentences that indicate that he did in fact judge hastily and did not provide such a caveat to his judgement. Furthermore, even if we assume such an omission in the verse, it does nothing to lessen the fact that he did not actually let the defendant speak.
The reason those exegetes claim that such matters are simply convention is because they do not wish to ascribe sin to Prophet David (a). However, this cannot come at the cost of corrupting some of the basic foundations of justice. The answer should be less problematic and more obvious than that, most likely Prophet David (a) had not actually passed any judgement yet in this matter nor ruled in favour of one party or the other, he only hastily expressed himself and let his feelings be known, as his heart went out to the poor man who had lost what little he had to the rich man. This meant that he was not perfectly impartial in that case, as befits a judge. This is why he then immediately realised as soon as he had misspoken that God had tested him, as he remembered what the contenders had said when they first entered, So judge justly between us, and do not exceed [the bounds of justice], and show us the right path. Now in hindsight, the statements of the contenders made it abundantly clear to Prophet David (a) that all of this was about reminding him how to be the best judge.
Furthermore, the case brought before Prophet David (a) was not a real case at all, but as mentioned it was brought as a test from God by the angels in a vision to Prophet David (a), so he had not actually acted biasedly towards any of his subjects. By sending the contenders to scale the wall of his sanctuary, Prophet David (a) was caught off guard and God apparently wished to test him if he could retain his composure even in extreme circumstances.
God wished to teach Prophet David (a) an important and essential lesson about judgeship, that he should not let his feelings for one side or another ever sway him in justice, no matter if those feelings were based on a sense of charity and helping the needy. This is made abundantly clear by verse 26. Hence, there was no sin committed in this regard because there was no injustice committed to anyone by Prophet David’s (a) hasty statement; it was only a theoretical exercise and an important lesson that God wished to impart to His prophet.
While we can agree that this is certainly not a sin, there is also a wisdom of mentioning such visions, and that is to show that the prophets, despite their many miraculous merits, were still human beings with room for growth.
Needless to say, this amazing story resonates deeply with the surah’s main theme of wonder. This also ties into the story mentioned in the commentary of the beginning of the surah, where we discussed how the Meccan elite offered Prophet Muhammad (s) wealth and power if he would simply let go of his call to Islam. He replied that if they had given him the sun in his right hand the moon in his left, he would not do so. Like Prophet David (a), Prophet Muhammad (s) had no interest in worldly wealth and in fact despised those who used their wealth to further injustice and corruption. This is a theme that is revisited throughout the surah later, and explicitly stated after all the prophets of this chapter are remembered: Indeed We purified them with the exclusiveness of the remembrance of the abode (verse 46).
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
There are many reports that claim to relate what these verses are about, and they are all based on the Biblical narrative discussed in the final section of the commentary on this verse. We only repeat it here because it has been reported so often, even though it is not worthy of being recounted. We mention here the version quoted and heavily criticised by Ṭabrisī:
It is said that David (a) used to pray much, and he said: ‘O Lord, you have blessed Abraham more than me and taken him as your close friend, and have blessed Moses more than me and spoken to him directly.’
He said: ‘I have tested them by the likes of which I have not tested you. If you wish I may test you similarly.’
He said: ‘Yes my Lord, test me.’
One day, when he was in his sanctuary, a bird came by and he wished to grab it. The bird flew away to a small window in his sanctuary, and David (a) followed it. From there he saw the wife of Ūriyā ibn Ḥayyān bathing, so he desired her and wished to marry her. So he commanded Ūriyā to go on military expeditions and to take a position in front of the Ark of the Covenant. Ūriyā did that and was killed.
When her waiting period finished, David (a) married her. She then gave birth to Solomon (a).
Then, one day, when David (a) was busy with worship in his sanctuary, two men came to him and he was alarmed. They said: ‘Do not be afraid. [We are only] two contenders: one of us has bullied the other,’ and the rest of the verses until and few are they.
At this point one of the men looked at the other and laughed. At this point David (a) realised they were angels that God had sent in the form of men to prompt him to think about his mistake. David (a) then repented and cried and from his tears grew a plant.
As background to this story, it is mentioned that Prophet David (a) had ninety-nine wives, whilst Ūriyā had only the one, and the case of ninety-nine ewes supposedly reminded him of that.
It is clear from this story that it attributes at least two major sins to Prophet David (a): firstly, the sin of plotting to kill an innocent believer; secondly, the sin of lusting after another person’s wife. What makes it even worse is that it is not even a claim of a momentary lapse or mistake, but rather a well thought out and premeditated murder, planned over weeks or maybe even months. Furthermore, many variants mention that Prophet Solomon (a) was born from this marriage, and that the event with the contender angels happened after his birth. This would mean that Prophet David (a) went on for years without repenting for his actions. Only those who believe that prophets could commit grave sins should hold such a view.
It is reported that Imam Ali (a) said: ‘I will not come upon any man that claims that David (a) married Ūriyā’s wife except that I will lash him with the two legal (ḥadd) punishments: one for prophethood and one for Islam.’ This means that one punishment will be meted for disparaging a prophet of God, and one other for disparaging a fellow Muslim.
Many exegetes severely criticise this story. For example, Ṭūsī says it is a story that has been told by ignorant people and is a fabricated lie and in clear contradiction to the principle of the infallibility of prophets. Zamakhsharī says this would not be appropriate to claim about some unknown Muslim, let alone a high ranking prophet of God. Rāzī says that the preceding verses were all listing merits of Prophet David (a), and this story is in direct contradiction with all those merits. It is simply preposterous, he says, to claim that God holds up Prophet David (a) as a good servant, an exemplar of patience, wisdom, strength in faith, and closeness to God, and then would relate a story in which Prophet David (a) clearly had no patience, no self-control, and no fear of God, but rather plotted to kill another believer.
In addition to ascribing lust and indirect murder to Prophet David (a), there are two other problems with this narration: 1. It is contradictory to the verses of the Quran earlier that praise Prophet David’s (a) intense worship. The story claims that Prophet David (a) was easily distracted from worship, childishly chasing a bird. 2. It is also in contradiction to the verses that told us the birds were at Prophet David’s (a) command and would join in his worship, instead a bird was supposedly acting as a distraction and fleeing from him.
Furthermore, as is apparent from the story, there is no way to consider this to be a minor sin, as some have suggested, arguing that prophets may commit minor sins (which is also a rejected position). Because of all this, Rāzī has even gone so far as to say that even mentioning this story is forbidden and should not be done.
It is reported that Imam al-Riḍā (a) was sitting in a gathering with the caliph Maʾmūn, and the Imam was discussing the infallibility of the prophets with Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Jahm. He asked Ibn al-Jahm what they say regarding Prophet David (a), to which he related the aforementioned story. The Imam slapped his forehead with his palm and said: ‘Indeed we belong to Allah, and to Him do we indeed return [2:156]. You have attributed to one of the prophets of God – peace be upon them – disregard towards his prayers, leaving it to chase after a bird, then indecency, then murder?’ He said: ‘O son of the Messenger of God, what was his mistake?’ The Imam said: ‘Woe to you, certainly David (a) only thought that God had not created a more knowledgeable creature than him. So God, glorious and mighty, sent to him two angels who scaled the sanctuary’s wall and said, two contenders: one of us has bullied the other … and he browbeats me in speech. So David (a) acted hastily with regards to the defendant, and declared He has certainly wronged you, and he did not ask the claimant to present evidence, and he did not turn to the defendant and say to him: “What do you say?” So his mistake was regarding the established practice of judging, not what you claim. Have you not heard that God, glorious and mighty, says: O David! Indeed We have made you a vicegerent on the earth?’ He said: ‘So what is his story regarding Ūriyā then?’ Imam al-Riḍā (a) replied: ‘In the time of David (a), when a woman’s husband died or was killed, she was not to wed ever again after him. So the first one to whom God, glorious and mighty, allowed to marry a woman whose husband had died was David (a) who married the wife of Ūriyā after he had died and she finished her waiting period. This is what was hard for people [to accept] before the time of Ūriyā.’
This tradition is very useful in explaining the origin of the Biblical narrative that made its way into Islamic tradition. Prophet David (a) was targeted for slander because he wished to break an evil tradition that existed at the time. Furthermore, as Deuteronomy 7:1-4 explicitly tells us, the attitude of the Israelites with regards to marrying a Hittite were extremely negative, which may have fuelled the motivation for creating scandal. Ūriyā being a convert to Judaism would only have fuelled Prophet David’s (a) detractors.
Because of this, people claimed that he had already lusted after Ūriyā’s wife before, and in fact had him intentionally killed in battle. Such vile slanders and baseless accusations unfortunately made their way into Israelite traditions and later into Islamic ones. There is a close similarity in this case with the slander aimed at Prophet Muhammad (s) when he married his stepson’s divorced wife Zaynab bint Jaḥsh, with baseless rumours claiming he too saw her and desired her and then married her after she was divorced. This is because it was against their custom to marry the divorced wife of the stepson. In fact, many of the exegetes that accept the slanderous story regarding Prophet David (a) themselves draw a comparison to Prophet Muhammad (s).
In this regard it has been reported from Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘People’s pleasure cannot be owned, nor their tongues controlled. Did they not slander David that he followed a bird until his gaze fell upon the wife of Ūriyā and lusted after her? That he placed her husband in front of the Ark until he was killed and then married her?’
Despite all his merits and services, Prophet David (a) was viciously slandered, because he opposed some of the ignorant customs of his times. All this is strongly linked to the theme of spitefulness and conceit (shiqāq) that was brought up in the beginning of the surah. In spite of Prophet David (a) wishing to do good to his people, they treated him in such a manner.
Aside from the narrations mentioned earlier, there are other stories suggested as well:
- From Jubbāʾī, that Ūriyā had proposed to a woman and then Prophet David (a) heard of her beauty and so asked for her hand and married her before Ūriyā. He was then reprimanded by God for having love for the world and acting on desires, and for proposing to a woman to whom another had proposed even though he had many wives.
- That he had secretly wished that Ūriyā would fall in battle because him and his wife had come to him to seek his judgement and he had seen her and found her attractive and secretly hoped to marry her, however without acting on it in any way.
- That when Ūriyā fell in battle this did not sadden Prophet David (a) as much as the death of his other soldiers because he had secretly hoped to marry his wife.
- It is claimed that according to the law at the time if a man died leaving behind a widow, his relatives had priority in marrying her, only if they did not wish to do so was the right given to others. Prophet David (a) proposed to her regardless and because of his position no other suitor dared come forward.
- A man and a woman came to him seeking judgement. When he saw her he was taken aback by her beauty and it occupied his mind later in worship.
- At the time, it was a custom that if a man desired another man’s wife he would ask him to divorce her so that he may marry her. Prophet David (a) desired Ūriyā’s wife and asked him to divorce her so that he may marry her. Ūriyā was shy to refuse Prophet David (a) and did so. Prophet David (a) married her and she gave birth to Prophet Solomon (a). He was then reprimanded, that having so many wives, and being of such a high station, he should not have asked Ūriyā to divorce his only wife.
As is apparent, most of these are simply variants of the original story we mentioned earlier, which has been modified in a way to make it seem less abominable. However, as we already established that story to be a lie, there is no need to try and keep any of it.
Rāzī suggests a completely different story which he says is based on a report. According to this version, a group of Prophet David’s (a) enemies plotted to kill him. They knew that he used to withdraw on a specific day for solitary worship. They decided to use that as an opportunity to kill him, scaling the wall to his sanctuary. But when they entered, they saw other people present and they quickly came up with a story about a supposed contention to divert Prophet David (a) from taking action against them. Prophet David (a) was, however, aware of their ploy and wished in his heart to take revenge against them. However, he then realised that God was testing him and his patience and he repented for the feelings he had.
While this story does not have the major flaws of the aforementioned, it is not in harmony with the verses. The apparent meaning of the verses is that Prophet David’s (a) realisation that he was being tested was after issuing his statement, has certainly wronged you, and this indicates that this statement was related to his test and that is what he repented for. Also, Rāzī’s story is not very convincing in explaining why Prophet David (a) should repent for wanting to take action against his would-be assassins, which would be completely justified.
Abū Ḥayyān suggests a slight modification to this, probably attempting to address this flaw. He says that the contenders were human beings who had genuinely entered to seek his judgement regarding their contention, but because of their daring entrance and their coming at an unusual time, Prophet David (a) had assumed they were assassins. This is why he then sought forgiveness for his hasty assumption. This view is a relatively satisfying one, however, what we mentioned earlier seems more correct, as it is more in line with the following verses that emphasise judging justly.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
The story of Prophet David (a), Ūriyā the Hittite, and his wife Bathsheba is originally told lengthily in the Old Testament as follows:
- In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
One evening, David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said: ‘She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.’ Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was experiencing her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying: ‘I am pregnant.’
So David sent this word to Joab: ‘Send me Uriah the Hittite.’ And Joab sent him to David. When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were, and how the war was going. Then David said to Uriah: ‘Go down to your house and wash your feet.’ So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master’s servants and did not go down to his house.
David was told: ‘Uriah did not go home.’ So he asked Uriah: ‘Haven’t you just come from a military campaign? Why didn’t you go home?’
Uriah said to David: ‘The Ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!’
Then David said to him: ‘Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back.’ So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. At David’s invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master’s servants; he did not go home.
In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it he wrote: ‘Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.’
So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David’s army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.
Joab sent David a full account of the battle. He instructed the messenger: ‘When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, the king’s anger may flare up, and he may ask you: “Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn’t you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? Who killed Abimelek son of Jerub-Besheth? Didn’t a woman drop an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?” If he asks you this, then say to him: “Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.”’
The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. The messenger said to David: ‘The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance of the city gate. Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king’s men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.’
David told the messenger: ‘Say this to Joab: “Don’t let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.” Say this to encourage Joab.’
When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.
As is apparent, this Biblical version has been cleaned up slightly in the Islamic traditions that relate it. In addition to the terrible acts that those ascribe to Prophet David (a), this moreover ascribes to him the sin of adultery, the sin of drinking alcohol, and the sin of betrayal (he commands his men to fall back and leave Ūriyā to die).
It is no wonder then that according to the narration mentioned earlier, Imam Ali (a) said he would mete out the legal punishment to anyone claiming this story to be true.
The Biblical story then continues with the tale of the ewes:
- The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said: ‘There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup, and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
‘Now a traveller came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveller who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.’
David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan: ‘As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.’
Then Nathan said to David: ‘You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.”
‘This is what the Lord says: “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.”’
Then David said to Nathan: ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’
Nathan replied: ‘The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.’
[1] Tabrisi, 8/735.
[2] Zamakhshari, 4/87.
[3] Raghib, p. 539.
[4] Tabari, 23/92; Alusi, 12/175; Mizan, 17/193.
[5] Tibyan, 8/553-554; Furqan, 25/229.
[6] Raghib, p. 277.
[7] Tabrisi, 8/735. It is said that Abū Ḥanīfah used this verse as evidence that rukūʿ (bowing) suffices instead of sajdah (prostration) when one recites verses with a compulsory prostration in them (Zamakhshari, 4/88). It has also been said that rukūʿ can be used figuratively to mean prostration (sajdah) (Alusi, 12/175-176).
[8] Mizan, 17/193.
[9] Tibyan, 8/554; Mizan, 17/193.
[10] Razi, 26/348.
[11] Fadlallah, 19/247.
[12] Tibyan, 8/553.
[13] This statement has led some commentators to claim (as we shall discuss in the next sections) that Prophet David (a) had committed a sin, because why else would he repent, they argue. It is said that Prophet David (a) remained in prostration for forty days, only stopping for prayers and other necessities (Tabrisi, 8/735).
[14] Tibyan, 8/553; Tabrisi, 8/735; Nemuneh, 19/259. Makārim Shīrāzī suggests it was tark awlā (abandoning the best course of action).
[15] Ahkam, 4/1637.
[16] Ahmad, 1/96; Abu Dawud, 2/160; Bayhaqi, 10/86; Ibn Sad, 2/337; Ibn Asakir, 42/348. Indeed, this is good advice for life in general, i.e. not to judge matters without looking at both perspectives.
[17] Qurtubi, 15/178. Nemuneh, 19/248, argues that they were indeed humans and that since they did not object it means that Prophet David’s (a) judgement was sound. He nevertheless repented because he felt that he had not heard both sides. There is some merit to saying that they were humans, as it seems odd to mention that they scaled the wall if they were indeed angels that had manifested as human beings.
[18] Tibyan, 8/553; Tabrisi, 8/735; Razi, 23/384, who also suggests it is possible that the second contender admitted to the veracity of the first contender’s claim, but God has simply omitted that (see also Qurtubi, 15/177). If so, that is a significant omission indeed.
[19] Mizan, 17/193-194. This has been used as a criticism by Razi, 26/382-383, saying that if this were the case the angels would have lied when they said they are contenders. This is not a very convincing criticism though, as the purpose of the whole affair was to test Prophet David (a) and it was thus a theoretical exercise. This is similar to Prophet Abraham (a) being commanded to sacrifice his son as mentioned in the previous surah (37:102), while he was not actually required to do that. Qurtubi, 15/173, suggests a slightly different solution, saying the whole event was posed as a theoretical legal question, such as saying ‘a man says to his wife such-and-such a thing, what is the outcome?’ This answer has faced its own criticism as well, with some saying that it does not matter if it was theoretical because Prophet David’s (a) mistake related to the method of judging and not about the judgement itself. This is a valid point, but seeing as the whole purpose of the mock trial was to teach Prophet David (a) this lesson, it does not create a problem regarding prophetic infallibility (Fadlallah, 19/249). For such a criticism to be valid, it would mean that Prophet Moses (a) should have sinned when he failed to be patient and asked questions when travelling with Prophet Khiḍr (a).
[20] Nemuneh, 19/249.
[21] Mudarrisi, 11/348-349.
[22] In some reports it is said that this was Satan in the form of a golden bird. This makes the story even worse as it suggests that the Devil could mislead a prophet of God.
[23] This was considered the most dangerous place, as the fighting was at its thickest there.
[24] Tabrisi, 8/736. For slight variations of this see Qummi, 2/229; Tabari, 23/93-96; Thalabi, 8/185-186; Baghawi, 4/58-60; Qurtubi, 15/166-169; Suyuti, 5/300-302. Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī points out that none of the exegetes provide any chains of narration for these stories (Ahkam, 4/1636; see also Tantawi, 12/151-152, who points out that whatever chains do exist are all weak and Isrāʾīliyyāt). Some reports say he cried for forty days, others mention up to 30 years (Thalabi, 8/194). These should be exaggerations.
[25] Tabari, 23/91.
[26] There are some exegetes who did hold this view and believed this story to be true, see for example Tabari, 23/97; Baghawi, 4/60-61; Qurtubi, 15/170-188; Ahkam, 4/1639.
[27] Tibyan, 8/555; Tabrisi, 8/736; Thalabi, 8/190; Zamakhshari, 4/81; Razi, 26/379; Baydawi, 5/27-28.
[28] Tibyan, 8/554. See also Baydawi, 5/27; Tantawi, 12/150-151.
[29] Zamakhshari, 4/81. This is also echoed by Razi, 26/377.
[30] Razi, 26/377-379.
[31] Claiming that the bird was in fact the Devil only makes the story even worse. Besides, if we assume it was the Devil, Prophet David (a) should have known it is not a bird once he was unable to subdue it to his will, instead of comically chasing after it.
[32] Razi, 26/379; when he himself relates it, he only relates it very vaguely.
[33] Uyun, 1/171-172.
[34] ‘When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.’
[35] Amali.S, p. 164.
[36] Tibyan, 8/554; Tabrisi, 8/735; Zamakhshari, 4/81; Razi, 26/380. A slight variant of this claims that Ūriyā proposed to her and then went missing after a battle, and in the meantime David (a) proposed to her. This made Ūriyā extremely sad, as he was unmarried and David (a) already had ninety-nine wives (Thalabi, 8/190).
[37] Tibyan, 8/554.
[38] Tabrisi, 8/735; Thalabi, 8/190; Razi, 26/380.
[39] Tabrisi, 8/735.
[40] Tabrisi, 8/735-736.
[41] Zamakhshari, 4/80-81. This is the view adopted by Zamakhsharī, but he offers no evidence as where such a strange custom should have originated from or indeed why it should have been allowed to continue by God, let alone have a prophet engage in it. In later works, this view is also attributed to Ibn Masʿūd (Baghawi, 4/59), as well as Ibn Abbas (Qurtubi, 15/175). Related to this some have reported that Saʿīd ibn Rabīʿ said to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf when he migrated to Medina: ‘This is my wealth, I will give you a portion of it, and I have two wives and I will give up one of them for you.’ (Ahkam, 4/1636, Ibn Sad, 3/125). Even if this one isolated narration was true, closely considering it shows that it is quite different to what Zamakhsharī is saying.
[42] Razi, 26/381-382. Alternatively, he suggests that Prophet David (a) sought forgiveness for the would-be assassin instead. In this case, he pleaded with his Lord for forgiveness means Prophet David (a) pleaded that the assassin would be forgiven. He also adds that this is why Prophet David (a) is held up as an exemplar of patience in the earlier verse.
[43] Muhit, 9/151; this is adopted by Tantawi, 12/150, as well. They add that the second defendant should have admitted the truth of the claimant’s statement, otherwise Prophet David (a) would not have passed judgement. They relate a report purporting to that as well.
[44] 2 Samuel 11:1-27.
[45] 2 Samuel 12:1-14.