| S: (21) And has there come to you the news...

Know that when Allah, the Exalted, praised and commended the Prophet David (عليه السلام) through the ten aspects previously mentioned, He followed it by recounting this story to clarify that none of the events occurring in this story negate his deservingness of great praise and commendation.

As for His saying, the Exalted: {And has there come to you the news of the litigants?} (وهل أتاك نبؤا الخصم), this is similar to His saying, the Exalted: {Has there come to you the story of Moses?} (Taha: 9). The purpose of this interrogative form is to draw attention to the gravity of the story being inquired about, serving as an invitation to listen attentively and derive lessons from it.

Regarding this story, people hold three views:

1. The story is narrated in a way that indicates the occurrence of a major sin (كبيرة) by him (عليه السلام).
2. The story indicates the occurrence of a minor sin (صغيرة).
3. The story does not indicate either a major or a minor sin.

As for the first view (major sin): The essence of their argument is that David loved the wife of Uriah (أوريا), so he devised many schemes until Uriah was killed, and then David married her. Allah then sent two angels to him in the guise of litigants concerning an incident similar to his own. They presented that incident to him. David ruled a judgment that necessitated his confession of being a sinner. He then realized this, became aware, and engaged in repentance.

I maintain that this account is false, and several points support this:

1. Incongruity with his status: If this tale were attributed to the most wicked and dissolute of people, they would be ashamed of it. Even a malicious, base person asserting this story would vehemently defend his own innocence if such an act were attributed to him, perhaps even cursing anyone who attributed it to him. Given this, how fitting is it to attribute such an act to an infallible Prophet (عليه السلام)?

2. The gravity of the alleged acts: The core of the story involves two matters: seeking the unlawful killing of a Muslim man and coveting his wife.
   • The first is an abominable matter. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "Whoever seeks the blood of a Muslim, even with half a word, will come on the Day of Resurrection with the words 'Despairing of Allah's Mercy' written between his eyes."
   • The second is a tremendous evil. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "A Muslim is one from whom other Muslims are safe, both by their tongue and their hand." Uriah was not safe from David, neither in his life nor his marital honor.

3. Contradiction with his attributes: Allah described David (عليه السلام) before this story with the ten attributes mentioned, and He also described him with many attributes after mentioning this story. All these attributes contradict his being described with this reprehensible act and ugly deed. We shall reiterate these attributes for emphasis:

• First set of attributes (before the story): Allah commanded Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to emulate David in patience amidst hardship. If we assume David did not restrain himself from disobeying his soul but rather sought the shedding of a Muslim's blood for the sake of his desire, how fitting is it for the Wisest of Judges to command Muhammad, the best of Messengers, to emulate David in patience in obeying Allah?

• Second attribute (His servant): He is described as His servant (عبدا له). We have explained that this description signifies perfection in the station of servitude and completeness in fulfilling obligations and avoiding prohibitions. If David (عليه السلام) engaged in those vain actions, he would not have been perfect in his servitude to Allah, but rather perfect in obeying his desires and lusts.

• Third attribute (ذا الايد - Possessor of Strength): (S: 17) Meaning, possessing strength. Undoubtedly, this refers to strength in religion, as strength in other areas existed among the kings of the disbelievers. Strength in religion means complete power to perform duties and abstain from prohibitions. What strength does one possess who cannot control himself from killing and desiring a Muslim's wife?

• Fourth attribute (Returning to Allah): His being أوابا (frequently returning to Allah). How does this suit one whose heart is preoccupied with murder and immorality?

• Fifth attribute (إنا سخرنا الجبال معه - We made the mountains subservient to him): (S: 18) Did the mountains become subservient to him so he could use them as a means for murder and immorality?

• Sixth attribute (والطير محشورة - And the birds gathered): (S: 19) It is narrated that hunting any bird was forbidden to him. How can it be conceived that birds were safe from him, yet a Muslim man was not safe from him regarding his life and his wife?

• Seventh attribute (وشددنا ملكه - And We strengthened his dominion): It is impossible that this means Allah strengthened his worldly dominion through worldly means. Rather, it means Allah strengthened his dominion through what strengthens religion and the means of success in the Hereafter. It implies strengthening his dominion in religion and the world. How does this suit one who cannot control himself from murder and immorality?

• Eighth attribute (وشددنا ملكه وءاتيناه الحكمة - And We strengthened his dominion and gave him Wisdom): (S: 20) Wisdom (الحكمة) is a comprehensive term for everything that is proper in knowledge and action. How can Allah say, {We gave him Wisdom and the power of decisive speech} (وفصل الخطاب) while he persisted in what the wicked Satan himself shuns—usurping the most sincere of his companions in life and marriage? These attributes mentioned before the explanation of the story indicate his innocence from those falsehoods.

As for the attributes mentioned after the story:

1. فغفرنا له ذالك وإن له عندنا لزلفى (So We forgave him that, and indeed, for him is closeness to Us): Mentioning this is only appropriate if the preceding story indicated his strength in obedience to Allah. If the story indicated his pursuit of murder and immorality, then saying {and indeed, for him is closeness to Us} would not be fitting.

2. مئاب ياداوود إنا جعلناك خليفة فى الارض (Repentant, O David! Indeed, We have made you a vicegerent on earth): This indicates the falsehood of that story in several ways: * A great king, when recounting that some of his servants intended harm to people's lives, wealth, and wives, would find it improper to immediately follow the detailed account of these ugly deeds by saying, "O servant, I have entrusted you with My vicegerency and representation." Mentioning such ugliness is suitable for reprimand and restraint, not for appointing him as a deputy. * It is established in the principles of jurisprudence that mentioning a ruling immediately following a description implies that the ruling is conditioned upon that description. When Allah recounted that ugly incident and then said, {Indeed, We have made you a vicegerent on earth}, it suggests that the reason for entrusting him with this vicegerency was his commission of those reprehensible acts, which is clearly corrupt. If the story indicated his innocence from sins and his intense patience in obeying Allah, then following it with {Indeed, We have made you a vicegerent on earth} (S: 26) would be appropriate. Thus, our chosen interpretation is superior.

3. Contextual Consistency: Since the beginning of the verse praises and glorifies David (عليه السلام), and the end also praises him, if the middle part indicated ugliness and faults, it would be like saying: "So-and-so is of great rank and high station in obedience to Allah; he kills, commits adultery, and steals, yet Allah made him a vicegerent on earth and approved his judgments." Just as such speech is unfitting for an intelligent person, so is it here, as mentioning lust and seeking murder are among the greatest forms of defect.

4. Contradiction within the alleged story: Those who hold this view mention that David (عليه السلام) wished to attain the high stations achieved by previous Prophets through trials—like Abraham being thrown into the fire, Ishmael being prepared for sacrifice, and Jacob enduring hardships that increase reward. Allah revealed to him that they attained those ranks because they were patient when tested. David then asked for a trial, and Allah revealed that he would be tested on a specific day. He took extreme precautions, yet the incident occurred. We say: The beginning of their account implies that Allah tests him with trials that increase his merit and perfect his sincerity. How fitting is seeking the unlawful killing of a soul and excessive lust in this state? This proves that the story they narrate contradicts itself from beginning to end.

5. David's own testimony: David (عليه السلام) said: {And indeed, many of the partners oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds} (S: 24). He exempted the believers from oppression (البغي). If we assume he was characterized by oppression, it would imply he judged against himself after believing, which is false.

6. A personal anecdote: I was once in a gathering where a great king was present, intending to defend and affirm this corrupt view and wicked story for some reason. I told him: Undoubtedly, David (عليه السلام) was one of the greatest Prophets and Messengers. Allah says: {Allah knows best where to place His message} (Al-An'am: 124). One whom Allah praises with such great praise should not be subjected to excessive slander. Furthermore, even if he were not a Prophet, he was certainly a Muslim. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "Do not mention your deceased except with good." Even if we disregard all these proofs, we say that it is self-evident that if the story you mentioned were true and factual, narrating and mentioning it yields no reward, because spreading indecency, if it does not incur punishment, at least does not earn reward. If the story is false and corrupt, its narrator deserves the greatest punishment, and the nature of the incident demands silence. Thus, the truth is what we hold, and explaining that story is forbidden. When the king heard this, he fell silent and mentioned nothing further.

7. Spreading Scandal: Mentioning this story, like mentioning the story of Joseph (عليه السلام), necessitates spreading scandal (إشاعة), which must be forbidden due to Allah's saying: {Indeed, those who love that immorality should spread among the believers} (An-Nur: 19).

8. Legal Consequences: If David sought the killing of that man, he would fall under the saying: "Whoever seeks the blood of a Muslim, even with half a word, will come on the Day of Resurrection with 'Despairing of Allah's Mercy' written between his eyes." Also, if he did that, he would be an oppressor, falling under the saying: {Indeed, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers} (Al-A'raf: 44).

9. Legal Precedent: It is narrated from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab that Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) said: "Whoever narrates the story of David as the storytellers narrate it, I will have him flogged 160 times," which is the punishment for slander against Prophets. This is strengthened by the case where when it was alleged that Al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah committed adultery, and three just Companions testified to it, 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab disbelieved those three and flogged each eighty times for slander. If this is the case for an ordinary Companion, what about David (عليه السلام), one of the greatest Prophets?

10. Respecting Divine Concealment: It is narrated that some mentioned this story as it appears in the Book of Allah, saying: "Nothing should be added to it, even if the event occurred as mentioned." Then, Allah did not mention it except to conceal that event from David (عليه السلام). Therefore, it is not permissible for an intelligent person to seek to expose that concealment after a thousand years or more. 'Umar said: "Hearing this statement is more beloved to me than what the sun rises upon."

These ten points establish that the story they mention is false and baseless.

If someone argues: "Many great Hadith scholars and exegetes mentioned this story, so what about that?" The true answer is: When there is a conflict between decisive proofs and a solitary report (خبر واحد), recourse to the decisive proofs is preferable. Also, the principle favors acquittal (الذمة). Furthermore, when a proof for prohibition conflicts with a proof for permissibility, the side of prohibition is preferable. Also, the method of caution necessitates preferring our view. Moreover, we know self-evidently that if this event had occurred, Allah would not ask us on the Day of Resurrection why we did not strive to publicize this event. But if it is false, we face the greatest punishment for mentioning it. Also, the Prophet's saying we mentioned establishes that testimony based on it is not permissible. Furthermore, not all exegetes agree on this view; rather, the majority of the righteous and critical scholars reject it and rule it false and corrupt. Finally, when the opinions of exegetes and scholars conflict on this matter, they cancel each other out, leaving the necessity of returning to the decisive proofs we mentioned. This concludes the discussion on this story.

As for the second possibility (minor sin): If we interpret the story such that it implies a minor sin but not a major one, there are several ways to interpret the incident:

1. Interference in a proposal: Uriah had proposed marriage to this woman, and her family accepted. Then David proposed, and her family accepted him instead. His sin would be proposing to the fiancée of his believing brother while he already had many wives.

2. Involuntary Inclination: His eye fell upon her, and his heart inclined towards her. This inclination itself is not a sin, as looking without intention is not a sin, and the subsequent inclination is not within his control, so he is not accountable for it. However, when her husband was killed, he did not feel great distress over the killing because he desired to marry that woman. This led to the slip-up: he was not sufficiently pained by the killing of that man because of his desire to marry the woman.

3. Custom of the Time: The people of David's era were accustomed to asking one another to divorce a wife so that the asker could marry her. This practice was familiar, similar to how the Ansar treated the Muhajirun in this regard. David's eye fell upon this woman, and he loved her. He asked her husband to release her, and out of modesty, he could not refuse, so he did. This woman was the mother of Solomon. It is said that even if this act was permissible under the apparent Law (الشريعة), it was not fitting for him, as "the good deeds of the righteous are the sins of the near ones (المقربون)."

These three interpretations, if applied to the story, would only necessitate David (عليه السلام) leaving the preferable course of action.

As for the third possibility (no sin, but the highest praise): This interpretation suggests that the story implies the greatest forms of obedience and praise for David (عليه السلام).

It is narrated that a group of enemies plotted to kill the Prophet of Allah, David (عليه السلام). He had a day when he secluded himself for worship. They seized the opportunity, scaled the sanctuary (المحراب), and when they entered, they found people with him preventing them. They became afraid and fabricated a lie, saying: "Two litigants, one of us has oppressed the other," and so on.

I find only four words in the Qur'an that might suggest a sin was committed by David (عليه السلام):

1. {And David thought that We had only tested him} (وظن داوود أنما فتناه).
2. {So he asked forgiveness of his Lord} (فاستغفر ربه).
3. {And he turned to Us in repentance} (وأناب).
4. {So We forgave him that} (فغفرنا له ذالك).

We argue that none of these words necessitate what they claim:

1. The meaning of the trial: When they entered to kill him in that manner, and David (عليه السلام) realized this, anger moved him to seek vengeance against them. However, he chose forbearance and overlooking them to seek Allah's pleasure. This incident was the trial (الفتنة), being like a test and examination. He then sought forgiveness for the intention of vengeance and repented from that intention, so Allah forgave him that measure of thought and turning back.

2. Regret over suspicion: Even if he suspected they entered to kill him, he regretted that suspicion, saying: "Since there was no clear sign or indication that this was the case, how badly I judged them by suspecting them with this bad thought!" This is what is meant by {And David thought that We had only tested him, so he asked forgiveness of his Lord, bowed down, and turned to Us in repentance}. Allah forgave him that.

3. Seeking forgiveness for the aggressor: The entry of those men was a trial for David (عليه السلام). However, he asked forgiveness for that intruder intending to kill him, similar to what is said about the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم): {And ask forgiveness for your sin and for the believing men and believing women} (Muhammad: 19). David (عليه السلام) asked forgiveness for them and turned to Allah seeking forgiveness for that would-be killer. {So We forgave him that} means We forgave him that due to the reverence for David and his exaltation, similar to what some exegetes say regarding {That Allah may forgive you what has passed of your sin} (Al-Fath: 2), meaning Allah forgives for your sake the sins of your Ummah that preceded.

4. Alternative reason for repentance: Suppose David (عليه السلام) repented for a slip-up. We do not concede that the slip-up was due to the woman. Could it not be that the slip-up occurred because he judged for one litigant before hearing the other? When the first said, {He has wronged you by demanding your ewe in addition to his ewe}, he judged him an oppressor based only on the claimant's assertion, without evidence, because this judgment was contrary to correctness. At that point, he engaged in seeking forgiveness and repentance. However, this is in the realm of leaving the preferable course of action (ترك الأفضل).

Thus, if we interpret the verses this way, no sins are attributed to David (عليه السلام); rather, it necessitates attributing the greatest acts of obedience to him.

Furthermore, interpreting the verse this way is more appropriate for several reasons:

1. Principle of the Muslim: The default state of a Muslim is to be far from prohibitions, especially for a great Prophet and Messenger.

2. Caution: This interpretation is more cautious.

3. Context with Prophet Muhammad: At the beginning of the verse, Allah says to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم): {So be patient over what they say, and remember Our servant David} (S: 17). When Muhammad's people showed foolishness by saying, {This is but a sorcerer, a liar} (S: 4) and mocked him by saying, {Our Lord, hasten to us our portion before the Day of Reckoning} (S: 16), Allah commanded him to be patient with their foolishness, to endure, be forbearing, and not show anger. This remembrance of David is only appropriate if David (عليه السلام) had been patient with their harm, endured their foolishness, was forbearing, and did not show rashness or anger. This meaning is only achieved if we interpret the verse as we have described. If we adopt their interpretation, the discourse becomes contradictory and corrupt.

4. The Nature of the Alleged Litigants: That narration only holds if we assume the two litigants were angels. Since they were angels, there was no dispute between them, and neither oppressed the other, their statement "Two litigants, one of us has oppressed the other" would be a lie. This narration requires two things: attributing falsehood to angels, and using the attribution of falsehood to angels to attribute the most heinous acts to a great Prophet. If we adopt our interpretation, we avoid attributing falsehood to angels and attributing evil to Prophets, making our view superior.

This is what we have concerning this chapter. Allah knows best the secrets of His word. We now return to the exegesis of the verses.

As for His saying: {And has there come to you the news of the litigants} (وهل أتاك نبؤا الخصم): Al-Wahidi said: Khasm (الخصم) is a masdar (verbal noun); one says khasamtuhu akhsumuhu khasma. It is then used to name two people or a group, and it is neither dualized nor pluralized. One says huma khasmun and hum khasmun, just as one says huma 'adlun and hum 'adlun. Here, al-khasm refers to the two individuals who entered upon David (عليه السلام).

His saying, the Exalted: {when they climbed over the sanctuary} (إذ تسوروا المحراب): One says tasawwarta as-sura tasawwuran if he climbed over the wall. The meaning of {they climbed over the sanctuary} is that they came to it via its wall, meaning its upper part. One says tasawwara fulan ad-dar if he came to the house via its wall.

As for the Mihrab (المحراب), it refers to the chamber where David used to enter and occupy himself with the worship of his Lord. That chamber is called the Mihrab because it contains the Mihrab (a place of prominence/sanctuary), just as a thing is named after its noblest part.

Here lies an issue from the principles of jurisprudence: some scholars hold that the minimum number for a plural form is two. They base this on this verse, as Allah used plural forms in four places:

1. {when they climbed over the sanctuary} (S: 21).
2. {when they entered} (إذ دخلوا).
3. {of them} (منهم).
4. {they said, "Fear not"} (قالوا لا تخف). These four terms use plural forms, yet they were two, evidenced by their saying {two litigants} (خصمان). They argue that this verse proves that the minimum for a plural noun is two, as it is neither dualized nor pluralized.

Then Allah said: {when they entered upon David} (إذ دخلوا على داوود). The benefit here is that perhaps they climbed over the sanctuary but did not enter upon him. When He said {when they entered upon him}, it indicated that after climbing over, they entered upon him. Al-Farra' said that idh (when) can be used twice with a meaning similar to one instance, like saying, "I struck you when you entered upon me, when you became audacious," even though the time of entry and the time of audacity are the same.

Then Allah said: {and he became fearful of them} (ففزع منهم). The reason is that when David (عليه السلام) saw them enter upon him not through the usual way, he knew they entered with evil intent, so he naturally became fearful of them.

Then Allah said: {They said, "Fear not. [We are] two litigants, one of us has oppressed the other"} (قالوا لا تخف خصمان بغى بعضنا على بعض). There are several issues here:

First Issue: {Two litigants} (خصمان) is the predicate of an omitted subject; i.e., "We are two litigants."

Second Issue: There are two views here:

1. They were angels sent down from heaven to alert David (عليه السلام) to the ugliness of the act he was about to commit.
2. They were human beings who entered to commit evil and murder. They thought they would find him alone, but when they saw servants with him, they fabricated that lie to avert harm.

Those who deny they were angels argue that if they were angels, they would be liars in saying {two litigants} (as there is no litigation among angels), liars in saying {one of us has oppressed the other}, and liars in saying {Indeed, this is my brother; he has ninety-nine ewes}. Since lying is impermissible for angels (due to Allah's saying: {They do not precede Him in speech} (Al-Anbiya: 27) and {They do what they are commanded} (An-Nahl: 50)), this proves they cannot be angels.

The proponents of the first view (angels) respond by saying that the angels mentioned this speech metaphorically, as an example, not as a statement of literal fact, so lying is not incurred.

It is replied to this response that what you mention requires deviating from the literal meaning, which is contrary to the default principle. If we hold that the two litigants were two men who entered with evil intent and fabricated this false story, then attributing falsehood to two wicked individuals is preferable to the first view. Allah knows best.

As for those who hold they were angels, they present arguments:

1. The agreement of most exegetes.
2. David's status is too high for common people to scale his sanctuary while he is worshipping; it must have been angels.
3. His saying {Fear not} suggests they are angels, as one of his subjects would hardly say this to him given his high status.
4. Their saying {and do not be unjust} (ولا تشطط) suggests they are angels, as none of his subjects would dare tell him not to be unjust or deviate from the truth.

Know that the weakness of these proofs is apparent, and there is no need to refute them. Allah knows best.

Third Issue: {one of us has oppressed the other} (بغى بعضنا على بعض). Baghya means transgression and exceeding limits. One says bagha al-jarh if the pain of a wound becomes excessive and reaches its limit. One says a woman baghat if she commits adultery, as adultery is a major, reprehensible sin. Allah says: {And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution} (An-Nur: 33).

Then He said: {so judge between us with truth} (فاحكم بيننا بالحق). The meaning of judgment (الحكم) is to establish the matter concerning the execution of Allah's command upon them regarding the incident. Hence, the bridle (حكمة) of a beast, as it prevents it from bolting, and a strong, well-built structure (بناء محكم). {with truth} means with the true judgment that Allah has decreed.

{and do not be unjust/deviate} (ولا تشطط). One says shatta ar-rajul if he went far. Hence, shattat ad-dar if the dwelling is far. Allah says: {We would have spoken a far-fetched thing} (Al-Kahf: 14), meaning a statement far from the truth. So, {and do not be unjust} means do not deviate in this judgment from the truth.

Then He said: {and guide us to the middle path} (واهدنا إلى سواء الصراط). The middle path (سواء الصراط) is its center. Allah says: {and he saw it in the midst of the Hellfire} (As-Saffat: 55). The middle of a thing is its best and most just part. Allah says: {And thus We have made you a just nation} (Al-Baqarah: 143).

I say that they expressed one intended meaning using three phrases:

1. Their saying: {so judge between us with truth}.
2. Their saying: {and do not be unjust}, which is a prohibition of falsehood.
3. Their saying: {and guide us to the middle path}, meaning your effort must be in establishing this truth and avoiding this falsehood by guiding us from the false path to the true path. This is a complete emphasis on establishing the required matter.

Know that after informing about the dispute in a general manner, they followed it by explaining the cause of the dispute in detail, saying: {Indeed, this is my brother; he has ninety-nine ewes} (إن هذا أخى له تسع وتسعون نعجة). There are several issues here:

First Issue: The author of Al-Kashshaf said: {my brother} (أخى) is either a predicate for the implied subject or the predicate for {Indeed} (إنّ). The meaning is brotherhood in religion, friendship, companionship, or partnership. Because Allah says: {Indeed, many of the partners oppress one another}, each of these forms of brotherhood necessitates refraining from injustice and aggression.

Second Issue: The author of Al-Kashshaf mentioned that {ninety-nine} (تسع وتسعون) was read with a fath on the ta' (تِسْع), and na'jah (نعجة) with a kasr on the nun (نِعْجَة). This is due to linguistic variation, like nuta'un and nita'un. Na'jah is the feminine of the eagle (عقاب).

Third Issue: Al-Layth said: Na'jah means the female sheep, the wild cow, or the mountain goat. The plural is ni'aj (نعجات). The Arabs customarily use na'jah and dhabyah (gazelle) as metaphors for women.

Fourth Issue: Abdullah read: {ninety-nine ewes, female} (تسع وتسعون نعجة أنثى). This is for emphasis, like Allah's saying: {And Allah has not taken for Himself any sons. There is no god except Him} (An-Nahl: 51).

Then he said: {Entrust her to me and prevail against me in speech} (أكفلنيها وعزنى فى الخطاب). The author of Al-Kashshaf said: {Entrust her to me} (أكفلنيها) literally means "Make me her guardian," just as I guard what is under my care. {And prevail against me} (وعزنى) means "overpowered me." One says azzahu ya'izzuhu. The meaning is: he came to me arguing so forcefully that I could not counter him as he countered me. It was also read as wa 'azanni from al-mu'azzah, which means overpowering.

Know that those who claim the two litigants were angels assert that the mention of the ewes is a metaphor (تمثيل). Since David had ninety-nine wives and Uriah had only one, the angels mentioned that incident as a hint and metaphor.

Then Allah said: {He said, "He has wronged you by demanding your ewe in addition to his ewes"} (قال لقد ظلمك بسؤال نعجتك إلى نعاجه). Meaning, demanding the addition of your ewe to his ewes. It is narrated that he said: "If you desire that, we will strike you here and here," pointing to the nose and forehead. Then he said: "O David, you are more deserving of having this and this struck upon you, and you did such and such." Then David looked and saw no one, realizing the situation.

If it is asked: How was it permissible for David to judge one litigant based only on the claim of the other? We reply with the views mentioned:

1. Conditional Judgment: Muhammad ibn Ishaq said: When the first litigant finished speaking, David looked at the silent litigant and said, "If he is truthful, then he has wronged you." The ruling was conditional upon the claimant being truthful in his claim.

2. Implied Confession: Ibn Al-Anbari said: When one litigant made the claim, the second confessed. David (عليه السلام) judged based on that, and Allah did not mention the confession because the surface meaning of the speech implies it, just as you say, "I commanded you to trade, and you earned," meaning you traded and earned. Allah says: {Strike the sea with your staff, and it parted} (Ash-Shu'ara: 63), meaning he struck, and it parted.

3. Judgment based on the nature of the claimant: The meaning could be: "A litigant of this description must have wronged you."

Then Allah said: {And indeed, many of the partners oppress one another} (وإن كثيرا من الخلطاء ليبغى بعضهم على بعض). Al-Layth said: A man's khaleet is one with whom he mixes. Al-Zajjaj said: Al-khulata' are partners. If it is asked: Why did David (عليه السلام) single out partners (الخلطاء) for oppression, when non-partners also do that? The answer is that mixing necessitates frequent dispute and contention because when two people mix, each becomes aware of the other's circumstances. Whenever one becomes aware of the precious things the other possesses, his desire for them increases, leading to increased contention. For this reason, David (عليه السلام) specified partners for increased oppression and aggression.

Then he made an exception: {except for those who believe and do righteous deeds} (إلا الذين ءامنوا وعملوا الصالحات). The mixing of these people is only for the sake of religion and seeking true spiritual felicity, so their association does not cause dispute. As for those whose association is for the love of the world, their mixing must lead to increased oppression and aggression.

Know that this exception indicates that those who believe and do righteous deeds do not oppress one another. If David (عليه السلام) had oppressed and transgressed against that man, it would necessitate, based on David's own ruling, that he was not among those who believe and do righteous deeds, which is clearly false. Thus, the view that the ewe incident refers to David's story is proven false.

Then Allah said: {And it was said, "How few they are"} (وقيل ما هم). Know that judging the scarcity of the good people is frequent in the Qur'an. Allah says: {And few of My servants are grateful} (Saba: 13). David (عليه السلام) said here: {And few they are}. Allah recounts that Iblis said: {And you will not find most of them grateful} (Al-A'raf: 17). The reason for their scarcity is that the callers towards the world are many—the ten inner and outer senses, the spirit of wrath, and the seven natural faculties, totaling nineteen, all focused on the body's gate to Hell. All these call towards creation, the world, and sensory pleasure. As for the caller towards Allah and religion, it is only the intellect, and the dominance of the sensory and natural faculties over creation is greater than the intellectual faculty among them. Hence, scarcity occurs on the side of the good people, and abundance on the side of the evil people.

The author of Al-Kashshaf said that the ma (ما) in {And it was said, "How few they are"} (وقيل ما هم) is for ambiguity and expresses astonishment at their scarcity. He said: If you wish to confirm its benefit and position, remove it from the saying of Imru' al-Qays: "And the story of what is upon his castle," and see if any meaning remains.

Then Allah said: {And David thought that We had only tested him} (وظن داوود أنما فتناه). They said the meaning is: "And David knew that We had only tested him." They said the reason for interpreting the word dhann (thought/suspicion) as knowledge here is that when David judged between them, one of them looked at the other and laughed, then ascended to heaven, facing his face. David then knew that Allah had tested him with that. Thus, it is established that David knew that. It is permissible to interpret dhann as knowledge because inferential knowledge closely resembles suspicion, and similarity allows for metaphor.

I say this explanation is only necessary if we hold that the two litigants were angels. If we do not hold that, we are not obliged to interpret dhann as knowledge; rather, one can say that when the possibility of a trial from Allah became dominant in his mind, he engaged in seeking forgiveness and turning back to Him.

As for His saying: {So he asked forgiveness of his Lord} (فاستغفر ربه), meaning he asked for forgiveness from his Lord. There are two perspectives here: If we hold that a slip-up occurred, we interpret this seeking of forgiveness as being for that. If we do not hold that, we offer other interpretations:

1. Since the people entered intending to kill him, and he was a powerful sovereign of great might, despite his intense ability to retaliate and the fear in his heart, he pardoned them and said nothing to them. This act was close to inspiring arrogance in his heart. So, he sought forgiveness from his Lord for that state and turned to Allah, confessing that his undertaking of that good deed was only through Allah's success. Allah forgave him and pardoned him because of the passing of that thought.

2. Perhaps he intended to harm the people, but then he said there was no conclusive proof that they intended evil, so he pardoned them and sought forgiveness for that intention.

3. Perhaps the people repented to Allah and asked Him to seek forgiveness for them so that their repentance would be accepted. So he sought forgiveness and supplicated to Allah, and Allah forgave their sins due to his intercession and prayer.

All these interpretations are plausible and apparent, and the Qur'an is full of such possibilities. Since the wording allows for what we have mentioned, and no conclusive or presumptive evidence exists to mandate the immoralities they mention, what compels us to mandate and affirm them? What confirms that what we mentioned is closer and stronger is to say that Allah concluded this story with: {And indeed, for him is closeness to Us and a good place of return} (وإن له عندنا لزلفى وحسن مئاب). Such a conclusion is only fitting for one who has performed many acts of service and obedience, and endured types of hardship in compliance and submission. If what preceded was the commission of a crime and sin, such a conclusion would not be appropriate for him. Malik ibn Dinar said: "When the Day of Resurrection comes, a high pulpit will be brought and placed in Paradise, and it will be said: 'O David, glorify Me with that beautiful, excellent voice with which you glorified Me in the world.'" Allah knows best.

There are some side issues here:

1. It was read as {We tested him} (فتناه) with an alif indicating the two angels.
2. The famous view is that the seeking of forgiveness was due to the story of the ewe(s). It is also said it was because he judged for one litigant before hearing the other, which is not permissible.
3. His saying {bowed down, and turned to Us in repentance} (خر راكعا وأناب) indicates the occurrence of bowing (ركوع). As for prostration (سجود), it is established by reports, as is intense weeping for forty days.
4. The view of Imam Ash-Shafi'i (رضي الله عنه) is that this passage does not contain a prostration of recitation (سجدة التلاوة), because it is the repentance of a Prophet, which does not necessitate a prostration of recitation.
5. Imam Abu Hanifa (رضي الله عنه) used this verse as evidence for the prostration of recitation, arguing that bowing substitutes for prostration.

{O David, indeed We have made you a vicegerent on earth, so judge between the people with truth and do not follow desire, lest it misguide you from the way of Allah. Indeed, those who deviate from the way of Allah will have a severe punishment for having forgotten the Day of Reckoning. And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in vain. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire. Or will We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like the corrupters in the earth? Or will We treat the righteous as the wicked? [This is] a Book which We have revealed to you, blessed, that they may reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding may be reminded.} (S: 26-29)

As for His saying: {O David, indeed We have made you a vicegerent on earth} (ياداوود إنا جعلناك خليفة فى الا رض):

The ruling on the scarcity of the good people is common in the Qur'an. Allah says: {And few of My servants are grateful} (Saba: 13). David (عليه السلام) said here: {And few they are} (وقليل ما هم). Allah recounts that Iblis said: {And you will not find most of them grateful} (Al-A'raf: 17). The reason for the scarcity is that the callers towards the world are many—the ten inner and outer senses, the spirit of wrath, and the seven natural faculties, totaling nineteen, all focused on the body's gate to Hell. All these call towards creation, the world, and sensory pleasure. As for the caller towards Allah and religion, it is only the intellect, and the dominance of the sensory and natural faculties over creation is greater than the intellectual faculty among them. Hence, scarcity occurs on the side of the good people, and abundance on the side of the evil people.

The author of Al-Kashshaf said that the ma (ما) in {And it was said, "How few they are"} (وقيل ما هم) is for ambiguity and expresses astonishment at their scarcity. He said: If you wish to confirm its benefit and position, remove it from the saying of Imru' al-Qays: "And the story of what is upon his castle," and see if any meaning remains.

Then Allah said: {And David thought that We had only tested him} (وظن داوود أنما فتناه). They said the meaning is: "And David knew that We had only tested him." They said the reason for interpreting the word dhann (thought/suspicion) as knowledge here is that when David judged between them, one of them looked at the other and laughed, then ascended to heaven, facing his face. David then knew that Allah had tested him with that. Thus, it is established that David knew that. It is permissible to interpret dhann as knowledge because inferential knowledge closely resembles suspicion, and similarity allows for metaphor.

I say this explanation is only necessary if we hold that the two litigants were angels. If we do not hold that, we are not obliged to interpret dhann as knowledge; rather, one can say that when the possibility of a trial from Allah became dominant in his mind, he engaged in seeking forgiveness and turning back to Him.

As for His saying: {So he asked forgiveness of his Lord} (فاستغفر ربه), meaning he asked for forgiveness from his Lord. There are two perspectives here: If we hold that a slip-up occurred, we interpret this seeking of forgiveness as being for that. If we do not hold that, we offer other interpretations:

1. Since the people entered intending to kill him, and he was a powerful sovereign of great might, despite his intense ability to retaliate and the fear in his heart, he pardoned them and said nothing to them. This act was close to inspiring arrogance in his heart. So, he sought forgiveness from his Lord for that state and turned to Allah, confessing that his undertaking of that good deed was only through Allah's success. Allah forgave him and pardoned him because of the passing of that thought.

2. Perhaps he intended to harm the people, but then he said there was no conclusive proof that they intended evil, so he pardoned them and sought forgiveness for that intention.

3. Perhaps the people repented to Allah and asked Him to seek forgiveness for them so that their repentance would be accepted. So he sought forgiveness and supplicated to Allah, and Allah forgave their sins due to his intercession and prayer.

All these interpretations are plausible and apparent, and the Qur'an is full of such possibilities. Since the wording allows for what we have mentioned, and no conclusive or presumptive evidence exists to mandate the immoralities they mention, what compels us to mandate and affirm them? What confirms that what we mentioned is closer and stronger is to say that Allah concluded this story with: {And indeed, for him is closeness to Us and a good place of return} (وإن له عندنا لزلفى وحسن مئاب). Such a conclusion is only fitting for one who has performed many acts of service and obedience, and endured types of hardship in compliance and submission. If what preceded was the commission of a crime and sin, such a conclusion would not be appropriate for him. Malik ibn Dinar said: "When the Day of Resurrection comes, a high pulpit will be brought and placed in Paradise, and it will be said: 'O David, glorify Me with that beautiful, excellent voice with which you glorified Me in the world.'" Allah knows best.

There are some side issues here:

1. It was read as {We tested him} (فتناه) with an alif indicating the two angels.
2. The famous view is that the seeking of forgiveness was due to the story of the ewe(s). It is also said it was because he judged for one litigant before hearing the other, which is not permissible.
3. His saying {bowed down, and turned to Us in repentance} (خر راكعا وأناب) indicates the occurrence of bowing (ركوع). As for prostration (سجود), it is established by reports, as is intense weeping for forty days.
4. The view of Imam Ash-Shafi'i (رضي الله عنه) is that this passage does not contain a prostration of recitation (سجدة التلاوة), because it is the repentance of a Prophet, which does not necessitate a prostration of recitation.
5. Imam Abu Hanifa (رضي الله عنه) used this verse as evidence for the prostration of recitation, arguing that bowing substitutes for prostration.

{O David, indeed We have made you a vicegerent on earth, so judge between the people with truth and do not follow desire, lest it misguide you from the way of Allah. Indeed, those who deviate from the way of Allah will have a severe punishment for having forgotten the Day of Reckoning. And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in vain. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire. Or will We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like the corrupters in the earth? Or will We treat the righteous as the wicked? [This is] a Book which We have revealed to you, blessed, that they may reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding may be reminded.} (S: 26-29)