Tafsir of Sad 38:24

"He said, 'He has certainly wronged you by asking for your ewe in addition to his ewes.'" This is the response to an omitted oath, intended to emphasize the denunciation of the action of the one possessing many ewes and to reproach his greed. This was not a judgment issued by Dawud (peace be upon him) immediately after the claimant finished speaking, nor was it a fatwa based on the literal words of the claimant before the situation became clear to him. It is said: this was conditional, meaning "He has wronged you if what you say is true." It is also said that there is omitted speech, i.e., the defendant acknowledged it, so he said, "He has wronged you," etc. The Quran does not narrate the defendant's confession because it is known from all religious laws that a judge does not pass judgment until after the defendant has responded.

It is stated in a narration that when he (peace be upon him) heard the words of the complainant, he said to the other, "What do you say?" He confessed, so he said to him, "You shall return to the truth, or I will break that which is between your eyes!" And he said to the second, "He has wronged you," etc. They both smiled at that and departed, and he did not see them again. It is also said that they departed towards the sky within his sight. Al-Halimi said: He (peace be upon him) saw in the claimant signs of weakness and oppression, so he interpreted his matter as him being wronged, as he claimed, and this prompted him not to ask the defendant, so he hastened to say, "He has wronged you." It is not hidden that this is a weak opinion that cannot be relied upon, because signs of truthfulness often appear on the liar, and tricks are too numerous to count, both ancient and modern. In what occurred from the brothers of Yusuf (peace be upon him)—and they were not prophets according to the most correct view—is that which removes reliance on this matter. Some ignorant people inclined towards something similar and claimed that the sin of Dawud (peace be upon him) was only that he validated one of them against the other and wronged him before questioning him.

"Asking" (su'āl) is a verbal noun added to its object, and its transitive use with ila (to) is due to its inclusion of the meaning of addition, as if it were said, "He has wronged you by adding your ewe to his ewes in the manner of a request and demand," or "He has wronged you by asking for your ewe [to be] added to his ewes."

**"And indeed, many of the khulata'..."**—meaning the partners who mix their wealth. One of them is a khalit, and it is khulta (mixing). In the view of jurists, it has become predominantly used regarding livestock. Al-Zamakhshari mentioned some of the rulings regarding this.

"...wrong each other..."—meaning transgress against one another, without observing the right of partnership and companionship.

"...except for those who believe and do righteous deeds, and they are few." This means they are very few. It is said that "few" (qalil) is a fronted predicate and "they" (hum) is the subject, and "what" (ma) is an expletive particle (za'idah). The exaggeration of scarcity has come through the indefinite nature of the noun and the addition of the "indefinite ma." This implies astonishment, for when something is exaggerated, it becomes a subject of wonder, as if it were said, "How few they are!" The clause is an appended interjection.

It has been recited as li-yabghiyan (to transgress) with a fathah on the ya, on the assumption that the light nun has been omitted, its origin being li-yabghiyan, as Tarafa ibn al-'Abd said: "Strike away the worries when they approach with a strike of your sword as the helmet of a horse," meaning idriban. It would be based on the assumption of an omitted oath, and that oath and its answer serve as the predicate for inna. According to the reading of the majority, the lam is the one occurring in the predicate of inna, and the clause yabghi, etc., is the predicate. It has also been recited as li-yabghi with the omission of the ya for shortening, as in the Almighty's saying: "Wal-layli idha yasr" [89:4], and his saying: "Muhammad, ransom yourself [with] every soul when you fear a matter that destroys."

The apparent meaning is that the Almighty's saying, "And indeed, many of the khulata'," etc., is from the speech of Dawud (peace be upon him) and is a completion of what he mentioned earlier. In it, he considered the nature of the dispute, as is apparent from the expression khulata', for it is prevalent among partners who have mixed their wealth in livestock. The metaphor of the ewe was made an initial illustration, not considering the nature of the dispute, as if it were said, "And indeed, transgression is a matter that exists among those who are associated." He specified khulata' because of its frequency among them, so there is no wonder in what occurred between you two. From this follows the intention of good exhortation, the encouragement to prefer the habit of the khulata' who were judged to be few, and to make them dislike the injustice and aggression that the majority of them commit, along with sorrow for their state, and to console the oppressed concerning what happened to him from his partner, and that he has an example in most of the khulata'. Or, it is as if it were said, "This matter that occurred between you two, O you two partners, often happens among khulata'," in which case it looks specifically at their condition.

[Al-Kashf] states: This is the most apparent interpretation. On both interpretations, it is an appended statement from which the aforementioned follows. Then he said: Perhaps the most apparent is to carry the khulata' to mean those who know each other and their opposites, such as those between whom there is intense mixing and association, such as: "The partner departed, so they were stripped..." The prevalence in the meaning of partners who have mixed their wealth in the custom of the jurists does not contradict the mention of spouses, since the khulta (mixing) was not intended. You are aware that even if this does not contradict the mention of spouses, the priority of not intending spouses and keeping the "ewe" on its true meaning is something that should not be disputed.

"And Dawud guessed that We had tested him." The word "guess/thought" (zann) is metaphorically used for inferential knowledge because of the apparent similarity between them. In al-Bahr, it is said that because dominant conjecture approaches knowledge, it is metaphorically used for it. The meaning is: Dawud knew and became certain, due to what happened in the court, that Allah Almighty had tested him. It is also said that when he judged between them, one looked at the other and laughed, then they ascended to the sky in front of his face, so he knew by that that the Almighty had tested him.

It is permissible to keep zann on its literal meaning. Ibn 'Atiyyah denied the arrival of zann after certain knowledge and said: We do not find it in the speech of the Arabs; rather, it is a halting between two beliefs where one prevails over the other. The Arabs use it for knowledge that is not through the senses, for that is complete certainty, but people confuse this and say "he thought" (zanna) meaning "he knew for certain." He goes on to great lengths, from which it is understood that using zann for inferential knowledge is literal, while the popular opinion is that it is metaphorical. The obvious meaning of what follows is that it is here in the sense of knowledge.

"Anna" (with the fathah), according to what some great scholars have established, does not imply restriction as the "inna" (with the kasrah) does. Whoever claims it implies it, by analogy to the "inna" (like al-Zamakhshari), does not claim consistency. Therefore, the intention here is not to limit the trial to him (peace be upon him), because that would require the separation of the pronoun, nor to limit what was done to him to the action itself, because every action is resolved into a general and a specific. The meaning of "I struck him" is "I performed his striking," so the meaning is "We did nothing to him but the trial," as Abu al-Sa'ud said. This is because, as it is said, this is forced interpretation and obscure. Whoever claims consistency adheres to the second of the two denied restrictions and denies that what was mentioned is forced or obscure.

'Umar ibn al-Khattab, Abu Raja', and al-Hasan (with a difference regarding him) recited fattannahu with the strengthening of the ta and the nun for exaggeration. Al-Dahhak recited iftannahu as in the saying, as narrated by al-Jawhari from Abu 'Ubaydah: "If you have tested me, she tested Sa'id yesterday, so every Muslim became astray." Qatada and Abu 'Amr in one narration recited annama fatannahu with the dual pronoun, which refers to the two opponents.

"So he asked his Lord for forgiveness, and fell down bowing [in prostration], and turned [to Him]." This is after he knew that what proceeded from him was a sin. "Fell down bowing" (kharra raki'an), meaning prostrating, on the basis that bowing is a metaphor for prostration because, as it leads to it, it is made like the cause, or it is a metaphor for its similarity to it in bending and humility. The Arabs say "a bowing palm tree" and "a prostrating palm tree." A poet said: "He fell on his face bowing," and he turned to Allah from every sin. It is said it means he fell for prostration bowing, i.e., praying, on the basis that bowing is a metaphor for prayer because of the fame of the metaphor. The assumption of an object for "fell" is indicated by the prevalence of its context, because it is in the sense of falling to the earth, as in the Almighty's saying, "The roof fell upon them from above them" [16:26].

Al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl said: It means he fell from his bowing, meaning he prostrated after he had been bowing. Its appearance is to keep bowing on its literal meaning and make "fell" mean "prostrated." The majority are upon what we have presented. Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) and his companions cited this as evidence that bowing takes the place of prostration in the prostration of recitation. This is the opinion of al-Khattabi among the Shafi'is, and there is no difference in that between prayer and outside of it, as in al-Bazzaziyyah and others. In al-Kashf, they—the Hanafis—said: Analogy dictates that bowing should take the place of prostration because the Legislator made it a bowing, and used one of them metaphorically for the other because it stands in its place and serves its purpose.

They supported it by saying that prostration was not commanded for its own sake—which is why it was not legislated as an intended act of worship—but for humility, and this is achieved by bowing. "If you say": Dawud's prostration was a prostration of gratitude, and the discussion is on the prostration of recitation. I say: There is no harm in that, for I did not infer it from the act of Dawud (peace be upon him), but from the Legislator making it sufficient for prostration. It is for our companions (the Shafi'is) to deny that the relationship of the metaphor is what they mentioned; rather, it is the absolute inclination towards humility, which is common between them, or because it is its prelude, as al-Hasan said: "He is not a prostrator until he bows," or he fell praying, and what is considered is the ultimate humility, and it is not in bowing.

It is not hidden that what is known from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is prostration, and we have not come across a report that he (peace and blessings be upon him) bowed for recitation instead of it even once, and the same applies to his companions (may Allah be pleased with them). The mentioned analogy is not strong, so the most cautious thing is to do what is reported and nothing else. Some Shafi'is even said: The statement of the companions that bowing does not take the place of prostration is clear regarding the permissibility of bowing, but this is far-fetched, and analogy dictates its prohibition.

The author of al-Kashf meant by what he mentioned in the question—that Dawud's prostration was a prostration of gratitude—that it was likewise for our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Al-Nasa'i and Ibn Marduyah extracted with a good chain from Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prostrated in Sad and said: "Dawud prostrated it as repentance, and we prostrate it as gratitude," i.e., for the acceptance of Dawud's (peace be upon him) repentance from that which was contrary to what is better, due to his high status. He (peace be upon him) encountered from that the disturbing anxiety that no one else encountered, as you will know, if Allah Almighty wills. Adam (peace be upon him), even if he encountered a great matter, it was mixed with sadness over the separation from Paradise. Thus, he was compensated for that by this nation being commanded to know his worth and that he was favored with a blessing that necessitates constant gratitude until the Hour rises.

Regarding his story, according to some narrations, there is a resemblance to what happened to our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the story of Zaynab, which necessitated the rebuke of him by the Almighty's saying, "And you conceal in your heart" [33:37], etc. So its mention was a reminder to him (peace and blessings be upon him) of what occurred and what the matter led to, which is higher and more glorious, so this necessitated the continuity of gratitude by showing prostration for it. Perhaps that is the reason for specifying Dawud with that, despite the occurrence of similar things for other prophets (peace be upon them). Contemplate this. Do not neglect the fact that the surah is Meccan according to the most correct view, and the story of Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her) is Medinan, and the problem is resolved by committing to the prostration being after the story. It is, according to the Hanafis, one of the obligatory prostrations of recitation as mentioned in the jurisprudential books. Whoever interpreted "fell bowing" as "fell for prostration praying" held that what occurred from Dawud (peace be upon him) was a prayer containing prostration, and it was for seeking forgiveness. It has come in our law the legislation of praying two rak'ahs at the time of repentance, but we have not come across a report suggesting that what is here should be understood as the prayer of Dawud (peace be upon him) for that; rather, we only encountered that he prostrated.

"And he turned [to Him]"—meaning he returned to Allah Almighty through repentance.