Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:79

His saying, Exalted is He, "And We gave understanding of it to Solomon," is a conjunction to "they both judged," for it is in the position of the past tense, as previously explained. Ikrimah recited it as "fa-afhamnaha" (We caused him to understand it) with the hamza of causativity. The pronoun refers to the litigation or the legal ruling understood from the context. It is narrated that there was a devout woman from the Children of Israel who had withdrawn from the world. She had two beautiful maids, and one said to the other, "Our suffering has lasted long; as for this woman, she desires no men, and we are not in comfort while we are with her. If we were to scandalize her, she would be stoned, and we would be free to pursue men." They took the fluid of an ostrich egg, came to her while she was prostrating, uncovered her, and splashed it onto her posterior, then cried out that she had committed adultery. Among them, the penalty for adultery was stoning. She was brought to David (peace be upon him) with the ostrich fluid on her clothes. He intended to stone her, but Solomon said, "Bring fire; for if it were the fluid of a man, it would scatter, but if it were the fluid of an ostrich egg, it would coagulate." Fire was brought and placed upon it, and it coagulated; thus, he averted the stoning from her. David (peace be upon him) became fond of him and loved him dearly.

It happened that two men entered upon David (peace be upon him), and one of them said, "The sheep of this man entered my field at night and devastated it." He ruled in favor of the owner of the field by awarding him the sheep. As they left, they passed by Solomon, who was sitting at the door from which the disputants exited. He asked, "How did my father judge between you?" They informed him. He said, "Other than this is more gentle for both sides." David (peace be upon him) heard him, called him, and said, "By the right of prophethood and fatherhood, tell me what is more gentle." He replied, "I see that you should give the sheep to the owner of the land so he may benefit from their milk, offspring, and wool, and give the field to the owner of the sheep so he may tend to it until it returns to how it was; then they shall exchange them back." David said, "The judgment is what you have judged," and he implemented that ruling. His age at that time was eleven years.

Many have leaned toward the view that their judgment, peace be upon them, was by way of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and this is permissible for the prophets (peace be upon them), as is explicitly stated in the source text. I say likewise, for Solomon’s statement, "Other than this is more gentle," and his saying, "I see that you should give the sheep..." are explicit that it was not by way of revelation; otherwise, he would have stated it definitively. When David (peace be upon them) urged him to reveal what he had, he would have been obligated to disclose it through revelation, and it would have been forbidden for him to conceal it. Furthermore, it is apparent that he was not yet a prophet at that age. By necessity, the previous judgment must also have been the same, because it is impossible for the judgment of a text to be overturned by ijtihad.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that the claim that the words of the two judges were from ijtihad is invalid, because Solomon's judgment overturned David's judgment, and ijtihad is never overturned by ijtihad. This proves that both of them judged by revelation, and what was revealed to Solomon (peace be upon him) was a later abrogation of David’s judgment, or Solomon’s judgment alone was by revelation, and His saying, "And We gave understanding of it to Solomon," does not imply that it was ijtihad.

This is countered by saying: If he meant the overturning of ijtihad by ijtihad, and that it cannot be overturned by another's ijtihad such that one would be compelled to follow it, then that is not the case here. If he meant that it is not overturned by one's own ijtihad—which is the changing of one's ijtihad due to the appearance of new evidence—then that is not invalid. Evidence for this is that a jurist may have two conflicting opinions on a matter, like the qadim (old) and jadid (new) schools of Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him), and the major Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) returned to each other's opinions, even though they were all mujtahids.

It is said: It is permissible that it was revealed to David (peace be upon him) that he should return from his ijtihad and rule as Solomon ruled by his ijtihad. It is also said that the non-overturning of ijtihad by ijtihad is a characteristic of our sharia. Moreover, some reports state that David (peace be upon him) had not finalized the judgment until he heard from Solomon (peace be upon him) what he heard. Among those who chose the view that both judgments were by ijtihad is Shaykh al-Islam Abu al-Sa'ud (may Allah sanctify his secret). Then he said: Rather, I say—and Allah knows best—that Solomon’s opinion was a matter of istihsan (juristic preference), as indicated by his saying, "more gentle for both sides," while David’s opinion was a matter of qiyas (analogy)—just as when a slave commits a crime against a person, the master, according to Imam Abu Hanifa, hands him over to the victim, or pays his ransom, or sells him for that purpose, or ransoms him according to Imam al-Shafi'i. It has been reported that there was no disparity between the value of the field and the value of the sheep. As for Solomon (peace be upon him), he exercised istihsan by making the benefit of the sheep a compensation for the lost benefit of the field, without the owner losing ownership of the sheep, and he obligated the sheep owner to work the field until the damage he caused was removed—just as some Shafi'is said regarding one who usurps a slave and he escapes: he is liable for the value, so the victim benefits from it in exchange for the benefits the usurper caused him to lose; then, when the escapee appears, they exchange them back.

As for the legal ruling in our sharia: According to Imam Abu Hanifa, there is no liability if there is no driver or handler present, based on what the two Shaykhs narrated: "The injury caused by an animal is forgiven (not liable)," and there is no restriction in that regarding night or day. According to al-Shafi'i, liability is obligatory at night, not by day, due to what is in the Sunan: that the camel of al-Bara' entered a man's orchard and ruined it, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) ruled that owners of property must protect it by day, and owners of livestock must protect them at night. The response to this is that the hadith contains idtirab (inconsistency) and its narrators are criticized. Furthermore, it is possible that al-Bara' sent it [into the field], just as it is possible in this story that it was so; thus, it is not evidence.

"And to each (of them) We gave judgment and knowledge" in abundance, and from this is knowledge by way of ijtihad, not for Solomon (peace be upon him) alone. The sentence is to dispel this misconception. It contains evidence that the error of a mujtahid does not invalidate his status as a mujtahid. It is said that the verse is evidence that every mujtahid in a matter for which there is no definitive text is correct; thus, Allah’s ruling for him and his followers is whatever his ijtihad leads to, and there is no prior ruling from Him (the Almighty) before the ijtihad. This is the view of the majority of our theologians, such as al-Ash'ari and the Qadi, and from the Mu'tazila, such as Abu al-Hudhayl, al-Jubba'i, and their followers. It is narrated from the four Imams (may Allah be pleased with them) that they hold the view that every mujtahid is correct, and also the view that there is only one truth and others are mistaken. Al-Ash'ari is considered among those who say this regarding legal rulings. This is refuted by the fact that Allah (the Almighty) singled out Solomon with the understanding of the truth in that incident by His saying (the Almighty), "And We gave understanding of it to Solomon." This indicates that David (peace be upon him) did not understand it in that instance; otherwise, the specification would have been of no benefit.

Al-Amidi countered this by saying: One could say that the most that can be said about His saying, "And We gave understanding of it to Solomon," is that it specifies him with the understanding, but it provides no proof that David (peace be upon him) did not understand it except by way of implication, and that is not a conclusive proof. Even if we grant it is a proof, it has been narrated that they both judged by a text, as a single judgment, and then Allah (the Almighty) abrogated the judgment in such cases for the future, and Solomon knew the abrogating text while David (peace be upon them) did not. This, then, is the understanding attributed to him. What points to this is His saying, "And to each (of them) We gave judgment and knowledge." If one of them had been wrong, he would not have been given judgment and knowledge in that incident. Even if we grant their judgments were different, it is possible they both judged by ijtihad with permission, and both were correct in their ruling, except that revelation descended in accordance with what Solomon (peace be upon him) judged. Thus, what he judged became the confirmed, definitive truth by the descent of revelation confirming it, and the understanding was attributed to Solomon (peace be upon him) because of that. Even if we grant that David (peace be upon him) was mistaken in that incident, there was a text in it which Solomon discovered and David did not. We acknowledge error in such a scenario, but the dispute is only where they judge by ijtihad when there is no text in the matter.

Most reports support the view that the one who hit upon Allah's ruling in this incident was Solomon (peace be upon him), and what has been mentioned is not free from scrutiny, so reflect and contemplate.

"And We subjected the mountains with David, giving praise" is the beginning of the explanation of the specific honors Allah granted to each of them, following the mention of the general honor for both. "Exalting" (praising)—sanctifying Allah (the Almighty) with the tongue of speech, just as the pebbles praised in the palm of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and people heard it. According to the majority, they would say, "Glory be to Allah (the Almighty)." David (peace be upon him) alone would hear it, according to what Yahya bin Salam said. It is said: everyone would hear it. It is also said: it was a sound that appeared to him from their side, not from them, but this is contrary to the apparent meaning and does not show the same honor as the first; indeed, if this were just an echo, it would be nothing at all. Lesser than this is the claim that it was with the "tongue of state." It is said that "exalting" means "they traveled" from the word sibaha (swimming/movement). This is countered because it opposes the apparent meaning, and this meaning was not mentioned by linguists, nor did it come in any other verse or report of the mountains moving with him (peace be upon him). It is said that attributing the tasbih (praise) to them is metaphorical because they would move with him, leading whoever saw them to praise [God], so the act was attributed to them; this is as you see. Al-Jubba'i and Ali bin Isa interpreted the tasbih as meaning "traveling," as a metaphor because travel is a cause for it, so there is no need to say it comes from sibaha. Yet, the weakness in this is apparent. The phrase is in the place of a circumstantial qualifier for "the mountains," or it is a new beginning explaining the manner of subjection. "With" is attached to the subjection. Abu al-Baqa said: "They exalt" is like His saying, "O mountains, repeat praises with him." The fronting is for specification, and from this, one learns the flaw in taking tasbih to mean praise by the tongue of state or an echo. "And the birds" is a conjunction to "the mountains," or an object of accompaniment. In the reports, there is explicit mention that they would praise with him (peace be upon him) like the mountains. It is recited "and the birds" in the nominative case as an initial subject, with the predicate omitted—meaning, "and the birds were subjected." It is said it is a conjunction to the pronoun in "they exalt," and such is permissible among the Kufans. His saying, "And We were doers," is a concluding remark for what precedes it—meaning: it is our nature to do the likes of this, so it is not a novelty from Us, even if it is a wonder to you.