Sad 38:20–24

The word: الْحِكْمَةَ (al-hikmah) appearing in verse 38:20: وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحِكْمَةَ وَفَصْلَ الْخِطَابِ (and gave him wisdom, and a decisive speech), as obvious, means wisdom, that is, 'We had blessed him with the precious assets of reason, insight and vision.' Some elders have suggested that it means 'nubuwwah', the station and mission of a prophet. As for the second gift: فَصْلَ الْخِطَابِ (fasl al-khitab: translated here as: a decisive speech), it has been explained in different ways by commentators. Some have said that it means power of oration - and the fact is that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was a great orator. He was the first one who started saying اَمَّا بَعد (amma bad: after that) following hamd and Salah in his religious sermons. Some others have said that it means the ability to make a decision at its best, 'that is, Allah Ta’ ala had given him the ability and power to resolve disputes and decide matters comprehensively. The truth of the matter is that the words used in the Qur'an seem to have ample room for both meanings, and both are meant. Incidentally, the translation done by Mau1ana Ashraf ` Ali Thanavi (رح) - 'Faisla kar denay wali taqrir' - helps accommodate both meanings. (And so does the English translation given above.)

Commentary

In these verses, Allah Ta'ala has mentioned an event relating to Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) . The way in which this event has been described in the noble Qur'an, it tells only this much that Allah Ta’ ala had put him to some test by sending two disputing parties into his place of worship. Alerted thereby, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) sought forgiveness from Allah Ta’ ala, and fell in prostration, and He forgave him. Since the real purpose of the noble Qur'an at this place is to communicate that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) used to turn to Allah Ta'ala in every matter of concern he faced, and should he ever sense the least slip issuing forth from him, he would immediately seek forgiveness for it. Therefore, no details have been given as to what that test was, and what was that slip he committed against which he sought forgiveness, something that Allah Ta'ala forgave him for.

Therefore, some investigative and cautious commentators have said in their explanation of these verses that Allah Ta'ala has not given a detailed description of this slip and test relating to this great prophet of His due to some particular wise consideration. Hence, we too should not go about pursuing it, and whatever has been mentioned in the noble Qur'an should be precisely what we should believe in. Even a great research-oriented commentator of the class of Ibn Kathir has elected to follow this rule and has observed silence as far as details of this event are concerned. Then there is no doubt that this is the ideal course of caution, moderation and sound policy. Therefore, the learned from among the early forbears of Islam (salaf) used to say: ابھموا ما ابھمہ اللہ (What Allah has left ambiguous, you too let it remain ambiguous). In this, there is wisdom, and expedient consideration. Then, it is obvious that it means the ambiguity of matters that do not relate to what we do and what we take as halal and haram and, as for matters that concern the collective deeds of Muslims, any ambiguity existing there has already been removed by the Holy Prophet ﷺ through his word and deed.

But, there are other commentators who have tried to determine the exact nature of this test and trial in the light of pre-Islam narratives. In this connection, there is that vulgar yarn that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) happened to have cast a look at the wife of Uriah, who was one of his military officers, that put the desire of marrying her in his heart and he, in order to get Uriah killed, entrusted with him a dangerous mission in which he was really killed and later on, he married his wife. It was to admonish him on this act of his that these two angels were sent in human form and shape.

But, this narrative is doubtlessly from among the absurdities that had found currency among Muslims under the influence of Jews. This narrative has been taken from the Bible, the Book of Samuel II, chap. 11. The only difference is that, in the cited reference, an open charge has been leveled against Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) that he had (refuge with Allah) committed adultery with the wife of Uriah prior to marriage. As for these narratives accommodated in some exegetical works, the part relating to adultery has been deleted. It appears that someone looked at the Judaic narrative, took out the allegation of adultery, and did an edit-copy-paste job while explaining the above mentioned verses of the noble Qur'an - although, this book of Samuel itself is inherently baseless, while this narrative has the status of absolute lie and fabrication. For this reason, all authentic commentators have sternly rejected it.

In addition to Hafiz Ibn Kathir, ` Allamah Ibn Jauzi, Qadi Abu-s-Saud, Qadi al-Baidawi, Qadi ` Iyad, Imam Razi, ` Allamah Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, Khazin, Zamakhshari, Ibn Hazm, ` Allamah Khafaji, Ahmad Ibn Nasr, Abu Tammam, ` Allamah ` Alusi and many others have declared it to be a lie and fabrication. Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes:

"Some commentators have mentioned a tale at this point most of which has been taken from Judaic narrations. Nothing the following of which is obligatory is proved in this matter on the authority of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . Only Ibn Abi Hatim has reported a Hadith here, but its authority is unsound."

In short, in the light of many proofs - some detail of which is available in Tafsir Kabir of Imam Razi and Zad-ul-Masir of Ibn-ul-Jauzi - this Hadith report goes out of the pale of discussion totally as far as the Tafsir of this verse is concerned.

Maulana Ashraf Thanavi (رح) has explained this element of test by saying that these two adversaries climbed over the wall, barged in and started addressing him so insolently that they started off by asking Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) to be just and not to be unjust. This audacity would have been reason enough for an ordinary person who would have answered them only by punishing them. Allah Ta’ ala tested Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) by seeing whether he too is enraged and punishes him or listens to them demonstrating the high moral traits of pardon and forbearance.

Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) came out successful in this test, except a little slip that remained - when he was giving his verdict, rather than address the perpetrator of injustice, he addressed the one oppressed which betrayed a certain element of partisanship - but, he immediately got alerted, fell down in prostration and Allah Ta’ ala forgave him. (Bayan-ul-Qur’ an)

According to the explanation of this 'slip' given by some commentators, when Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) found the defendant silent, it was without listening to what he had to say, and rather having listened to the plaintiff only, he said things as part of his advice that virtually appeared to be supportive of the plaintiff - although, he should have first asked the defendant as to what his stand was. This statement of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was, though, simply advisory in nature, and time has not yet arrived for the final judgment in the case, however, for a great prophet of his caliber, it was not befitting. To this very thing he was later alerted and fell into prostration. (Ruh-ul- Ma’ ani)

Some others have said that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had managed his time in a manner that every twenty four hours of a day and night one or the other member of his household would be found engaged in some act of devotion to Allah like ` ibadah, dhikr and tasbih. On a certain day, he submitted before Allah Ta’ ala, 'My Lord, there is not a single moment of day and night during which one or the other member of the household of Dawud is not busy with ` ibadah, Salah, tasbih and dhikr before Thee!' Allah Ta’ ala said, '0 Dawud, all this comes from My taufiq. If I do not help you do it, you cannot do it on your own - and one of these days I am going to leave you on your own.' Thereafter, came a day when something different took place. That was a time when Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was supposed to be engaged in worship. When this unforeseen thing happened, his timetable was shattered, and he got busy with resolving a dispute. No other member of the household of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was engaged in remembering Allah at that time. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was alerted immediately. He recalled the self-congratulatory statement that had slipped out of his tongue. He realized he had made a mistake. Therefore, he sought the forgiveness of Allah and fell in prostration. This explanation is supported by a saying of Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ which has been reported in the Mustadrak of Hakim with sound chains of authority. (Ahkam-ul- Qur'an)

It has been unanimously agreed upon in these explanations that this litigation was not hypothetical. In fact, it was real and the form of the litigation had nothing to do with the test or slip of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) . Contrary to this, many commentators have explained it in a manner that postulates that parties to this dispute were not human beings. Rather, they were angels, and Allah Ta’ ala had sent them to present such a simulated form of litigation as would alert Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) to his slip.

Accordingly, these commentators say that as far as this story of the killing of Uriah and marrying his wife is concerned, it is incorrect. But, conditions that actually prevailed among the people of Bani Isra'il were such that asking someone - 'divorce you wife and give her in marriage to me' - was not considered offensive. This kind of request had also become customary at that time, and was not taken to be impolite as well. It was in this prevailing climate and on this basis that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had made his request to Uriah whereupon Allah Ta’ ala alerted him by sending these two angels. Some others have said that this was a simple matter. Uriah had already sent a proposal to a woman. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) happened to send his proposal to the same woman. This hurt Uriah. Thereupon, as admonition, Allah Ta’ ala sent these two angels and alerted him to his slip in a subtle manner. Qadi Abu Ya` la has based his argument on the words of the Qur'an: وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ (And he overpowered me in speech - 23). He says that this sentence supports the view that this matter came to pass only in connection with: خِطبَہ۔ (khitbah: proposal of marriage), for Dawud (علیہ السلام) has not yet married her. (Zad-ul- Masir by Ibn-ul Jauzi, p. 116, v. 7)

Most commentators have preferred the last two explanations, and they find support in some reports from the Sahabah (please see Ruh-ul-Ma’ ani, Tafsir Abi-s- Saud, Zad-ul-Masir, Tafsir Kabir etc.) But, the truth of the matter is that any detail of this test or slip is neither proved from the Qur'an, nor from some Sahih Hadith. Therefore, at least this much stands settled that this widely known story of having Uriah killed is incorrect. But, about the actual event, all probabilities mentioned above exist, and no one of these can be called absolute and certain. Therefore, the safest way out is what Hafiz Ibn Kathir has taken: 'That which Allah Ta’ ala has left ambiguous should be left as is. We should not force out its details through our guesses and conjectures - particularly when no deed of ours hinges on it. Certainly there is some wisdom in this ambiguity as well. Therefore, one should believe in as much as has been mentioned in the Qur'an. As for the details, let these be resigned to Allah. Nevertheless, since there are many benefits that issue forth from this event, more attention should be paid to these. Therefore, let us now turn to an explanation of the verses where, insha'Allah, these beneficial notes will keep appearing as we go along.

In the first verse (21), it was said: إِذْ تَسَوَّرُ‌وا الْمِحْرَ‌ابَ (when they entered the sanctuary by climbing over the wall?). The word: مِحْرَ‌اب (mihrab) is essentially applied to an elevated chamber, or the front elevation of a house. Later, the front portion of a mosque or any other House of Worship came to be called by that name in particular. In the Qur'an, this word has been used in the sense of a place of worship. ` Allamah Suyuti has written that contemporary arched mihrabs of mosques in vogue now were not present during the time of the Holy Prophet ﷺ (Ruh-al-Ma’ ani).

About Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) ، it was said in verse 22: فَفَزِعَ مِنْهُمْ (and he was scared of them). The reason of being scared was quite obvious. Two men barging into one's privacy in that manner at an odd hour beating the security cordon can only be because of some bad intention in most cases.

Natural fear is not contrary to the station of a prophet or man of Allah

This tells us that being naturally affected at the sight of something fearful is not contrary to the station of a prophet or man of Allah. Yes, allowing this fear to overtake one's heart and mind and abandoning duties enjoined is certainly bad. Hence, a doubt may arise here. Is it not that the Qur'an portrays the elegant status of the noble prophets by saying: لَا يَخْشَوْنَ أَحَدًا إِلَّا اللَّهَ. (They do not fear anyone but Allah - AI-Ahzab, 33:39)? Why then, was Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) in fear on this occasion? For an answer, it could be said that there are two kinds of fear. There is the fear that comes from being hurt by what causes pain. In Arabic, this is called: خَوفُ (khauf: fear). Then there is the other kind of fear. This emerges because of someone great, majestic, awesome. This is called: خَشِیَّۃ (khashyah: awe) (al-Mufradat, Raghib al-Isfahani). There should be no khashiyah for anyone other than Allah - and noble prophets, may peace be on them all, are exactly like that. They are not awed by anyone. Yes, as said earlier, one can have a feeling of fear from naturally hurtful things.

Observe patience against contravention of established rules of etiquette until attending circumstances unfold

The statement in verse 22: قَالُوا لَا تَخَفْ (They said: "Be not scared" ) was made by the sudden entrants who said this and then started telling Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) what they wanted to while he kept listening to them silently. This tells us that, should someone commit something irregular all of a sudden, one should not start rebuking and chastising him for that on the spur of the moment, instead, one should first listen to what he has to say, so that one can find out whether or not this person had any justification for his irregular behavior. Had it been someone else, he would have unleashed his anger against such unauthorized entrants on the spot. But, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) waited till the reality was unfolded, may be these people had some genuine excuse.

The entrant also said: وَلَا تُشْطِطْ (and do not cross the limits - 38:22). This manner of address was obviously very audacious as coming from a stranger. First of all, they came at a late hour, and that too by climbing over the wall. Then, once they were in, they started teaching a prophet as august as Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) lessons in morality by asking him to be just and not to be unjust. All this was heedless simplicity. But, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) observed patience over whatever they did and said, and just avoided telling anything bad to them in response.

A man of stature should observe patience to the best of his ability over errors made by those in need

This tells us that a person whom Allah has blessed with some high rank - and the needs of people are tied to him should do his best to remain patient over their irregular behavior and errors of expression, for this is the demand of his rank or office. Particularly so, a Hakim (official of the government), a Qadi (judge of the judiciary) and a Mufti (authentic consultant responsible for giving fatwa in the light of Islam's sources of jurisprudence) should pay full attention to this need. (Ruh-ul-Ma’ ani)

Verse 24 opens with the words: قَالَ لَقَدْ ظَلَمَكَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعْجَتِكَ إِلَىٰ نِعَاجِهِ (He said, 'He has certainly wronged you by demanding your ewe to be added to his ewe.' ). Two things are worth pondering here. First of all, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) made this statement simply after having listened to the plaintiff. He did not hear the statement of the respondent. About it, some elders have said that this was the slip for which he sought forgiveness from Allah. But, other commentators have said that, in reality, full details of the litigation are not being described here. Taken up here is only what was necessary. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) must have surely heard the stand of the defendant. But, it was not described here for the reason that this is the recognized method when judgments are delivered. Everyone can understand that the part relating to asking the defendant at this place is elided (understood).

In addition to that, it is also possible that, though the visitors had asked Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) for a court judgment, but that was no time for a court session, nor was it a judicial sitting, nor Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had the necessary resources available at hand in order to implement his judgment, therefore, he did not give his judgment in the status of a qadi (judge), instead, what he gave was a fatwa (ruling) in his status as a mufti (juri-consult) - and it is not the job of a mufti to go about investigating into the nature of an event, rather, the thing depends on the question asked, and it is in accordance with it that he has to give his answer.

Soliciting contribution, or even gift, under pressure of any kind is usurpation

Something else worth pondering here is that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) equated the act of a person demanding simply an ewe with injustice or oppression - although, casually asking someone for something is not a crime. The reason is that the form in which it was being asked did have the outward anatomy of a request. But, in the presence of the amount of verbal and practical pressure being put behind this asking, this thing had assumed the proportions of usurpation, something being taken forcibly, compulsively, illegally or by extortion.

From here we learn that, should a person ask for something from someone in a manner that the addressee, whether willing or unwilling, is left with no way out other than giving it, then, (soliciting aside) even demanding a gift in that manner is also included under ghasb or usurpation. Therefore, if the person asking is a man of office or power, or someone respectable and elegant-looking - and the addressee cannot afford to say no because of the pressure of this man's personality - then, even if the form of the situation is that of soliciting a gift, but in reality, it translates as nothing but ghasb or usurpation, and, the use of the thing acquired in this manner is never permissible for the person asking for it. This point needs the particular attention of those who solicit and receive contributions for مَدَارس madaris and makatib (religious schools), masajid (mosques) or societies and associations in the religious field. For them, only that donation is halal and good that has been given to them by the donor voluntarily and cheerfully. If those seeking such contributions use the pressure of their personality or eight or ten of them simultaneously descend on someone, render him helpless, and succeed in gouging that contribution out of him, then, this would be a flagrantly impermissible act on their part. The Hadith carries a very clear statement of the Holy Prophet ﷺ in this matter:

لَا یحِلّ مال امریءِ مسلم اِلَّا بطیب بفس منہ

The property of a Muslim is not halal unless it is with his sweet will.

Partnership in transactions needs great caution

In verse 24, it was said: وَإِنَّ كَثِيرً‌ا مِّنَ الْخُلَطَاءِ لَيَبْغِي بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ (And many partners oppress one another). By saying this, we have been alerted that it is not unusual when mutual rights are compromised between two persons having a partnership deal. There are occasions when one of them would take something as ordinary, and goes ahead and does it. But, in reality, it becomes the cause of sin. Therefore, great caution is needed in this matter.

Later, in the same verse, it was said: وَظَنَّ دَاوُودُ أَنَّمَا فَتَنَّاهُ (And Dawud realized that We had put him to a test,- 38:24). If the form of the litigation is taken to be a similitude of the slip of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) ، then, the occurring of such a thought is fairly obvious. And if the form of the litigation has nothing to do with it, even then, the overall condition of the parties involved was enough to show that the two of them have been sent by way of a test. On the one hand, these disputants were in such hurry to get their litigation resolved that they were audacious enough to jump the wall and barge in. On the other hand, when the case was presented, the defendant sat silent and accepted, verbally or practically, the plea of the plaintiff without any ifs and buts.

If the defendant agreed with the event as described by the plaintiff, he hardly had the need to come to Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) seek a verdict in the dispute. Even a person of average intelligence could have gathered that, in this situation, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) will invariably decide in favor of the plaintiff. This mysterious conduct of the two disputants was betraying that it was an event of some extraordinary nature. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had no difficulty in seeing through it, that they had come as sent from Allah and their objective was to test him. In some narrations, it also appears that, after having heard the verdict, they exchanged furtive smiles, and in no time disappeared into the skies. Allah knows best.

In the last sentence of verse 24, it was said: فَاسْتَغْفَرَ‌ رَ‌بَّهُ وَخَرَّ‌ رَ‌اكِعًا وَأَنَابَ (so he prayed to his Lord for forgiveness, and bowing down, he fell in prostration, and turned [ to Allah ].). It should be noted that the word used here is that of: رُکُوع (ruku`) which literally means 'to bow down' while, with most commentators, it denotes سَجدَہ (sajdah: prostration). According to the Hanafiyyah, by reciting this verse, sajdah becomes obligatory.

By doing ruku` the sajdah of tilawah (recitation) stands performed

And Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) has proved from this verse that, in case a verse requiring sajdah has been recited within the Salah, then, forming the intention of sajdah in the ruku' makes the obligation of sajdah stand performed. The reason is that here Allah Ta’ ala has used the word: رُکُوع (ruku) for: سَجدَہ (sajdah) which proves that ruku` too can become the replacement of sajdah. But, in this connection, a few necessary points should be borne in mind.

The sajdah of tilawah (recitation): Some rulings.

1. Sajdah when being performed through an obligatory ruku` in Salah can only be performed validly on condition that the verse of sajdah has been recited within the Salah. When reciting the Qur'an outside the Salah, the sajdah of tilawah cannot be performed validly through a ruku`. The reason is that ruku` is an act of ` ibadah only in Salah - outside Salah, it is not recognized as an act of worship. (Bada’ i).

2. A ruku` can stand for sajdah of tilawah only when ruku` has been done soon after having recited the verse of sajdah or having recited at the most two or three additional verses. And if, after the verse of sajdah, one has made a long recitation in the standing position, the ruku` would not stand for sajdah.

3. If one is thinking of performing the sajdah of tilawah in the position of ruku`, then, he should better make the intention of the sajdah of tilawah while bowing down for the ruku`, otherwise, the obligation of sajdah will not stand discharged by this ruku`. Yes, once the person starts going for sajdah, the sajdah will stand performed even without the intention.

4. The preferred practice, however, in any case is that the sajdah of tilawah is performed as a regular sajdah before ruku`, and then, one rises from the state of sajdah, recites one or two verses and then goes for ruku `, rather than it is performed in the obligatory ruku` of the Salah. (Bada'I ' ).