Tafsir of Sad 38:22

(إذ دخلوا على داود): This "idh" (when) is a substitute for the first "idh" in the sense of a complete substitution (badal kull min kull), by treating the time of the scaling [of the wall] and the time of entry as being practically one, due to their proximity. Or, it is a substitute of inclusion (badal ishtimal) by considering the extension of the event. It is also possible that it is an adverbial modifier for "they scaled," considering the extension of its time; otherwise, the scaling did not occur at the time of entry. It is permissible that "the entry" refers to their intent to enter, though there is affectation in this, for while it is a metaphor, the words of the Exalted, "(so he was frightened of them)," do not logically follow from the intent; thus, they would need to follow the actual scaling, which is also as you see. It is also permitted that it be connected to an implied "remember," and fear (faza’) is a contraction and repulsion that overcomes a person because of something terrifying.

It is narrated that Allah, the Exalted, sent two angels to him in the form of two humans—it is said they were Gabriel and Michael, peace be upon them. They requested to enter upon him, but found him on his day of devotion, so the guards prevented them. They scaled the sanctuary to reach him, and he was unaware until they were sitting before him. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he (David) divided his time into four parts: a day for devotion, a day for adjudication, a day for attending to his own needs, and a day for all the Children of Israel, whom he would admonish and move to tears.

The reason for his fear—it is said—was that they descended from above the wall on a day he had set for seclusion, with guards around him who would not allow anyone who wished to enter upon him to do so. Thus, he feared they might harm him, especially based on the account that this occurred at night. It is said: the fear was because he thought the people of his kingdom had held him in such contempt that some had abandoned seeking permission; thus, in reality, he was frightened by the corruption of conduct, not by the entrants themselves. Abu al-Ahwas said: He was frightened of them because they entered upon him while each was holding the head of the other. It is also said: He was frightened of them when he saw them scaling a place that was extremely high, which could not be climbed after months of [having] helpers and a large number of guards. The apparent meaning is that his fear was solely due to the anticipation of harm, given the departure from the norm. When he saw that he had become frightened, (they said, "Do not fear"). This is a new beginning (isti’naf) that serves as an answer to a question arising from the account of his fear—as if it were said: "What did they say when they witnessed his fear?" It is said: They said to him, to remove his fear, "Do not fear."

(Two disputants): This is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning "We are two disputants." The intent here is two groups, not two individuals in dispute. It has been mentioned previously that the term "disputant" (khasm) encompasses a large number, thus it conforms to the plural pronouns mentioned earlier. It is supported, as has been said, by His, the Almighty's, statement: (some of us have transgressed against others), for this kind of expression is more frequent when speaking for a group. The reading of some, "some of them have transgressed against others," is clearer in supporting this. This is not prevented by the fact that the arbitration occurred between two, as it is possible for each of them to be accompanied by those who support him, and by convention, "disputant" is applied to the adversary and his supporter even if he does not dispute in reality. It is also permitted that the intent is two individuals, and the collective pronouns are intended for the dual, so they correspond. This is supported by His, the Almighty's, statement: (Indeed, this is my brother). It is said: It is permitted to estimate "two disputants" as a subject whose predicate is omitted, meaning "Among us are two disputants," which is [a interpretation] as you see.

The apparent meaning is that the sentence (has transgressed...) is in the position of an adjective for "two disputants," and the sentence "we are..." is a new beginning in the position of explaining the prohibition; therefore, it is connected without [the need for] "Do not fear." It is also possible that they said, "Do not fear," and remained silent until they were asked, "What is your matter?" and then they said, "Two disputants, [one of whom] has transgressed..."—meaning some of us have treated others unjustly. This statement of theirs was considered problematic by those who say they were angels, as it would be reporting about themselves something that did not happen, which is a lie, and angels are above that. The response is that it would be a lie if they intended to report it as a reality; however, if it were a supposition for a matter they modeled for themselves while appearing in the form of humans—as a scholar does when posing a problem for someone—or if it were an allusion and an indirect reference to what had happened with David, peace be upon him, then it is not [a lie]. Abu Yazid al-Jarrar narrated from al-Kisa'i: (Khisman) with a kasra on the kha'.

(So judge between us with the truth and do not stray): Meaning, do not exceed it. Abu Raja', Ibn Abi 'Abla, Qatada, al-Hasan, and Abu Haywa read: (wa la tashtut) from the triliteral root shatta, meaning: do not depart from the truth. Qatada also read (tashtut) with assimilation from the quadriliteral ashtatta. Zirr read (tashatat) with a damma on the ta' and an alif, in the form of tafa'ul (reciprocity) articulated. It is also narrated from him: (tashtut) from shatat. The intent in all of them is: "Do not be unjust in the judgment." By this command and prohibition, they intended to manifest their eagerness for the truth to appear and their satisfaction with it, without any doubt that he, peace be upon him, would judge with the truth and not be unjust in his judgment. One of two disputants may say something similar to this to imply that he is the one in the right, or he may say it as an accusation against the judge, in which case it carries some rudeness. According to what we mentioned first, there is some rudeness in it, and David's, peace be upon him, bearing that from them is evidence that it is appropriate for a judge to bear such things from disputants, especially if he is one who is in the right. For the state of a person at the time of a dispute is not hidden. How strange it is that a judge, an arbitrator, or anyone to whom disputants refer—like a mufti—does not emulate this repentant prophet, peace be upon him, in this. Instead, he becomes extremely angry at the slightest word uttered—even if it is a slip of the tongue by one of the disputants—imagining that it diminishes his stature. If he were to reflect on himself, he would know that, compared to this repentant prophet, he does not weigh the wing of a gnat. O Allah, grant us the best of manners, protect us from errors, and guide us to the straight path—meaning the middle of the path of truth—by restraining the transgressor from the path of injustice he has trodden and guiding him to the way of justice.