Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:78-82

Surah Al-Anbiya (The Prophets): Verses 78–82

[78] And David and Solomon, when they judged concerning the field when the sheep of a people had strayed into it and damaged it; and We were witnesses to their judgment.

[79] So We made Solomon to understand it, and to both of them We gave judgment and knowledge. And We subjected the mountains to exalt [Our praise] with David, and the birds, and We were the doers [of all that].

[80] And We taught him the making of coats of mail for you, to protect you from your might. So will you then be grateful?

[81] And to Solomon [We subjected] the fierce wind, running by his command to the land which We had blessed. And We were ever, of all things, Knowing.

[82] And of the devils were those who dived for him and performed other work besides that. And We were ever, over them, the Guardians.

Context and Structure: The mention of David and Solomon follows the preceding verses concerning Abraham, Lot, and others, all being listed as recipients of God's grace and guidance. The purpose here is to detail God's favors upon David and Solomon, first mentioning a shared blessing, then those specific to each.

The Shared Blessing (The Judgment): The shared blessing is the story of their judgment, highlighting that God adorned both of them with knowledge and understanding, as stated: {And to both of them We gave judgment and knowledge}.

Significance of Knowledge: This verse serves as an indication that knowledge is the highest and greatest of perfections, as God mentioned it before other magnificent favors such as subjugating the mountains, birds, wind, and jinn. If knowledge precedes such things, consider its status above others.

Related Issues (Masā’il):

1. Meaning of "Sheep Straying at Night" (النفش):
   • Ibn al-Sikkit defined al-nafsh as sheep grazing at night without a shepherd. This is the view of the majority of commentators.
   • Al-Hasan permitted this both by night and day.

2. Meaning of "Cultivated Land" (الحرث):
   • The majority hold that al-harth means crops/sowing.
   • Some said it means a vineyard (al-karm). The former interpretation is closer to common usage.

3. The Number in "Their Judgment" (لحكمهم):
   • Those who argue that the minimum number for a plural is two use the phrase {And We were witnesses to their judgment} (referring only to David and Solomon).
   • Rebuttal: Just as judgment can be attributed to the judge, it can be attributed to the one for whom the judgment is made. If the judgment is attributed to those presenting the case (the two litigants), the total number is more than two. (Note: A variant reading, li-ḥukmihimā shāhidīn, referring only to the two prophets, is also mentioned.)

4. The Manner of the Story (The Judgment):
   • View 1 (Majority): Two men came to David (PBUH). One owned a field, the other sheep. The field owner complained that the sheep destroyed his crops. David ruled: "Go, the sheep are yours [to the crop owner]." They left and met Solomon. When they told him David's ruling, Solomon said: "If I were the judge, I would have ruled differently." When David heard this, he summoned Solomon and asked how he would judge. Solomon replied: "Hand the sheep over to the field owner so he benefits from their offspring and wool until the field recovers its previous state next year. Then, return the sheep to their owner." David accepted this and ruled accordingly.
   • View 2 (Ibn Mas'ud, Shurayh, Muqatil): A shepherd camped near a vineyard. His sheep entered and destroyed the vines while he was unaware. The vineyard owner went to David, who ruled that the sheep should go to the vineyard owner because the value of the sheep did not significantly exceed the damage to the vineyard. Solomon advised differently, saying: "It is more considerate for both parties if the sheep are given to the vineyard owner to benefit from their yield while the shepherd works to restore the vineyard to its former state, after which the sheep are returned to their owner." David agreed, saying, "Judgment is what you have ruled." Ibn Abbas (RA) stated Solomon was eleven years old.

Further Inquiries Regarding the Story:

1. Did they Disagree on the Ruling?
   • Abu Bakr al-Aṣamm argued they did not disagree; God merely revealed the correct ruling through Solomon.
   • Answer: They disagreed. Evidence includes the consensus of the Companions and Successors, and the structure of the verse: {And We were witnesses to their judgment} followed by {So We made Solomon to understand it} (using fa- for immediate sequence). This implies a prior judgment (which must have involved disagreement for the subsequent understanding to be meaningful).

2. Was the Ruling Based on Text (Naṣṣ) or Ijtihad (Independent Reasoning)?
   • Both are possible according to us. Al-Jubba’i argued both rulings stemmed from a naṣṣ.
   • Arguments against Ijtihad for Prophets (Al-Jubba’i's Points):
     1. Verses like {Say, "I follow not except what is revealed to me"} (Jonah: 15) and {Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination} (Al-Najm: 3).
     2. Ijtihad relies on conjecture (ẓann), while the Prophet has access to certainty.
     3. Opposing a Prophet's ruling leads to disbelief, whereas opposing a conjecture does not.
     4. If Ijtihad were permissible, it would be permissible for Gabriel (AS) too, leading to uncertainty about the source of the law.
   • Rebuttals to Al-Jubba’i:
     1. The verses cited relate to altering the divine message, not legal reasoning. The verse on inclination relates to conveying God's message, not reasoned rulings.
     2. If God informs the Prophet that a ruling is based on a known underlying cause ('illah), and that cause is present in a new situation, the ruling is certain, even if the path to it involved ẓann.
     3. Opposing a consensus of mujtahids is forbidden, and the Prophet's position is stronger.
     4. The Prophet might have been restricted from Ijtihad in certain cases, or the correct reasoning might not have been apparent to him in that instance.
     5. The naṣṣ might have been temporarily withheld from the Prophet in that specific case, thus permitting Ijtihad.
     6. The consensus of the Ummah refutes the uncertainty regarding Gabriel.
   • Evidence Supporting Ijtihad for Prophets:
     1. Logical necessity: If a Prophet deduces a ruling based on an underlying cause known from a previous ruling, he must assume God’s ruling in the new case aligns with the original, leading to the certainty that opposing it warrants punishment. This necessitates choosing the stronger path (analogy/Qiyās), which applies to Prophets.
     2. The command {So take lesson} (Al-Hashr: 2) includes the Prophet as the foremost example.
     3. Istinbāṭ (derivation) is the highest rank of scholars; the Prophet must have a role in it, otherwise, individual scholars would surpass him in this domain. (Counter-argument: Revelation is higher than Ijtihad, but revelation might not be present in every situation.)
     4. The Prophet said: "The scholars are the heirs of the Prophets," implying they inherit the faculty of Ijtihad.
     5. The verse: {May God pardon you! Why did you give them leave?} (At-Tawbah: 43) implies the permission was either from God (contradicting the verse), from personal desire (forbidden), or from Ijtihad (the desired conclusion).

3. If Ijtihad is Permitted, Why Was Solomon's Ruling Preferred in This Case?
   • Al-Jubba’i's Arguments Against Solomon's Ijtihad in This Case:
     1. The value of the sheep's yield (milk/offspring) versus the value of the destroyed crops is unknown, making substitution difficult in Ijtihad.
     2. If David’s ruling was correct, it should not be overturned by another Ijtihad. If it was wrong, God should have mentioned David’s repentance (as He did for others), but He praised both.
     3. If it was Ijtihad, the result is conjecture (ẓann), but the verse states both were given ‘ilm (knowledge).
     4. How can it be Ijtihad when the verse says {So We made Solomon to understand it}?
   • Rebuttals:
     1. Uncertainty in quantity does not preclude Ijtihad (e.g., in ji'ālah contracts).
     2. David’s ruling might have been a minor error (ṣaghīrah).
     3. Ẓann is in the path of establishing the ruling, but the ruling itself, based on sound analogy, is considered certain.
     4. If Solomon reasoned through Ijtihad to his conclusion, God "made him understand" by revealing the correct path of reasoning.

• Possibility of Rulings Based on Naṣṣ: David was commanded by a naṣṣ to rule as he did, and God then abrogated it via revelation specifically to Solomon, who was then commanded to inform David. This makes both rulings correct under their respective timings.
  • Rebuttal to Naṣṣ Theory: 1) If the first ruling was by naṣṣ, the abrogation should have been revealed to David directly. 2) Praising both for understanding suggests intellectual effort (istunbāṭ), not just receiving a text.

5. Which View is Stronger (Text vs. Ijtihad)?
   • Ijtihad is stronger. Narrations indicate David had not finalized his judgment until Solomon presented an alternative, and David urged him to present his reasoning—actions inconsistent with a ruling based on a clear divine text that should not be concealed.

6. How Did Solomon Apply Ijtihad?
   • David’s Ijtihad (similar to Abu Hanifa’s view): He equated the damage (crops) with the principal asset (sheep), thus transferring ownership of the sheep.
   • Solomon’s Ijtihad: He insisted on matching principal with principal and yield with yield. Transferring the principal (sheep) for the yield (crops) is unjust. He ruled that the sheep should be used to generate income (milk/wool) equivalent to the crop's value, and then returned to the owner. (Similar to Al-Shafi'i's view on a stolen slave who escapes: the ghasib must guarantee the value lost to the owner.)

7. If Both Used Ijtihad, Was Only One Correct, or Both?
   • One Correct View: Argued based on {So We made Solomon to understand it}, implying only Solomon reached the correct understanding.
   • Both Correct View: Argued based on {And to both of them We gave judgment and knowledge}. If the other was wrong, this praise would be inappropriate.
   • Critique: Both arguments are weak. The first does not state God taught Solomon the correct ruling, only the abrogating one (which David had not yet received). The second does not state they were given knowledge for the ruling they made, but rather knowledge of the methods of reasoning (wujūh al-ijtihād). Furthermore, the correctness of Ijtihad in their law does not necessitate the same in our law.

8. What is the Ruling in Our Shari'ah?
   • Al-Hasan al-Basri said the verse is binding for judges until the Day of Judgment.
   • Many scholars argue it is abrogated by consensus.
   • Al-Shafi'i: If damage occurred during the day, no liability, as the crop owner should guard during the day. If at night, liability falls on the livestock owner, as guarding at night is their duty.
   • Abu Hanifa: No liability, day or night, if the owner was not negligent in sending them out, based on the Hadith: "The injury caused by an animal is nullified (without compensation)."
   • Al-Shafi'i supported his view with a narration from Al-Bara' ibn 'Azib stating the Prophet ruled that guarding fields is the owner's duty during the day, guarding livestock at night is the owner's duty, and livestock owners are responsible for damage caused by their animals at night.

God then mentioned favors specific to David (PBUH):

{And We subjected the mountains to exalt [Our praise] with David, and the birds, and We were the doers [of all that].}

Related Issues (Masā’il):

1. Meaning of the Mountains' Glorification (Tasbīḥ):
   • View 1 (Literal): The mountains and birds glorified God along with David.
     • Muqatil: When David glorified God, the mountains and birds glorified Him too.
     • Al-Kalbī: When David glorified, the mountains responded.
     • Sulaymān ibn Hayyān: When David felt weary, God commanded the mountains to glorify Him, increasing David's vigor.
   • View 2 (Figurative/Meaning-based): The glorification is metaphorical, similar to {And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] with praise} (Al-Isrā’: 44). David was singled out because he inherently understood this reality, increasing his certainty and reverence. (View 1 is preferred as it avoids unnecessary deviation from the literal meaning.)
   • Mu'tazilite View: If speech came from the mountain, it must be by its action or God's action. It cannot be its action because mountains lack life, knowledge, and power. If it is God's action, then God is the speaker, not the mountain. Therefore, they interpret {And We subjected the mountains... to exalt} as: "We made them move with you, and they glorified [God] through their movement." The word yusabbiḥūn (plural verb) implies extensive movement, like {And indeed, for you in the daytime is a long occupation} (Al-Muzzammil: 7). Their movement demonstrated God's power.
   • Rebuttal to Mu'tazilites: Their argument rests on the premise that mountains cannot possess life, which is unproven, and that speech must originate from God, which is also disputed.

2. The Birds:
   • Speech from birds is possible, but the Ummah agrees that only jinn, humans, and angels are accountable (mukallaf). Birds cannot reach the level of intellect required for accountability. Their comprehension was a miracle, making them understand commands as if they were mature beings, demonstrating God's power.

3. Grammar of Yusabbiḥūn:
   • Al-Kashshāf suggests yusabbiḥūn is a ḥāl (circumstantial adverb) meaning "while glorifying," or a new sentence explaining how they were subjugated. Birds are either coordinated with mountains or used as an object of accompaniment.
   • Why Mountains Before Birds? Subjugating inanimate mountains and having them glorify God is more astonishing and indicative of power than subjugating birds, which are living creatures capable of vocalization.

{And We were the doers [of all that]}: Meaning, We are capable of doing this, even if it seems wondrous to you, or, We do this for the Prophets.

{And We taught him the making of coats of mail for you, to protect you from your might. So will you then be grateful?}

Related Issues (Masā’il):

1. Meaning of Lubūs: Clothing/Garment. (As in, "He wears a garment for every situation.")
2. Readings of Li-tuḥaṣṣinakum: It has readings with nūn (We protect you), yā’ (He protects you), and tā’ (The craft protects you), with variations in the ṣād (soft or doubled).
3. First Maker of Mail: Qatadah said David (PBUH) was the first to make chainmail (sard), linking plates into rings; before him, they were just sheets. Al-Hasan narrated that Luqman the Wise witnessed David working on the mail, remained silent until David finished and wore it, then said: "Silence is wisdom, and few practice it." It is said God softened iron for him so he could work it like clay without fire.
4. Meaning of Ba’s (Might): Here it means warfare, protecting you from the might of the enemy (wounds, swords, spears).
5. Gratitude: Since David was the first to invent armor, the blessing became general for all warriors until the end of time, necessitating gratitude to God for facilitating this craft.

God then mentioned favors specific to Solomon (PBUH), who inherited the kingdom and prophethood from David, plus two additions: subjugating the wind and the devils.

{And to Solomon [We subjected] the fierce wind, running by his command to the land which We had blessed.}

Related Issues (Masā’il):

1. The Wind (Rīḥ): It was made obedient, fierce when he willed it, and gentle when he willed it.
   • *Reconciling "Fierce Wind" (ʿāṣifah) and "Gentle" (rakhā’):*
     1. The wind itself was inherently gentle (like a breeze), but it moved his conveyance swiftly (as indicated by the description of its travel time: "a month's journey in the morning and a month's journey in the evening"). It was gentle in nature but fierce in effect due to its speed.
     2. It was fierce at times and gentle at other times, according to Solomon's command.

2. Readings of Al-Rīḥ: Read with nominative (as a new subject) or accusative (as coordinated with the mountains).
   • Difference between David and Solomon's Subjugation: David had the mountains with him (maʿa Dāwūd), while Solomon had the wind for him (wa li-Sulaymān). This might be because the mountains gained honor by participating in glorification (hence the lām of possession), whereas the wind only performed service, hence the lām of ownership/service.

{to the land which We had blessed}: Meaning, traveling to Jerusalem (Al-Bayt al-Maqdis). Al-Kalbī said it carried him from his palace to Syria.

{And We were ever, of all things, Knowing}: Meaning, because of Our knowledge, We could manage this arrangement for Our messengers and create these overwhelming miracles.

{And of the devils were those who dived for him and performed other work besides that. And We were ever, over them, the Guardians.}

Related Issues (Masā’il):

1. Their Work: They dived into the seas to extract jewels and performed other tasks: building structures, palaces, and inventing strange crafts (e.g., baths, lime kilns, mills, glass, soap).
2. Grammar of Wa min al-shayāṭīn: It is coordinated in the accusative case with al-rīḥ (the wind), meaning "And We subjected to Solomon devils who dived..." It can also be nominative as a new subject, meaning "And among the devils were those who dived for him."
3. Scope of Work: It is possible the divers performed all the other tasks, or that they were a separate group, though the former is more likely.
4. Who was Subjugated? While the text implies all devils, it is narrated that only the unbelieving devils were subjugated, which is more likely for two reasons: the general term shayāṭīn, and the subsequent statement that God guarded them. A believing servant does not require guarding lest he corrupt his work, but a disbeliever does.
5. Meaning of {And We were ever, over them, the Guardians}:
   • God appointed angels or believing jinn to watch them.
   • God made obedience beloved to them and fear of disobedience instilled in them.
   • Ibn Abbas: God's authority (sulṭān) was established over them, allowing them to do as He willed.
   • What were they guarded against?
     1. Preventing them from fleeing or abandoning Solomon.
     2. Al-Kalbī: Preventing them from harming anyone during Solomon's lifetime.
     3. Preventing them from spoiling their work, as they used to build during the day and destroy at night.

6. The Nature of the Devils' Bodies: Al-Jubba’i asked how their subtle bodies could perform heavy labor, suggesting God temporarily thickened their bodies and increased their strength as a miracle for Solomon. After Solomon's death, God returned them to their original subtle state to prevent confusion for future claimants to prophethood.
   • Critique of Al-Jubba’i:
     1. It assumes jinn are physical bodies (ajsām), which is debatable. Even if they are bodies, it is not proven that subtle bodies cannot perform heavy labor; his evidence is weak induction.
     2. If their bodies were thickened, why must they revert after Solomon's death? If a later prophet claimed prophethood using this power, the response could be: "Perhaps the power of their bodies was a miracle for a prophet before you." This possibility undermines the proof.
   • Conclusion on Bodies: The physical world consists of dense things (stone, iron—miracles for David, proving resurrection) and subtle things (air, fire—miracles for Solomon). Air was subjugated (the wind). Fire is the origin of devils; subjugating them meant commanding them into water (which extinguishes fire) without harm, demonstrating God's power to manifest opposites from opposites.

[83] And Job, when he called to his Lord, "Indeed, adversity has touched me, and You are the Most Merciful of the merciful."

[84] So We responded to him and removed what afflicted him, and We gave him his family and the like of them with them as a mercy from Us and a reminder for the worshippers.