Surah Sad 38:15-26 - Quran Translation Commentary

(38:22) When they entered upon Da’ud;³⁰ and so he was alarmed by them.³¹ They said, ‘Do not be alarmed. (We) two are disputants: one of whom has wronged the other. Therefore, judge between us with Truth. Stray not (away from truth), but lead us to the straight path.³²

(38:23) This is my brother.³³ He has ninety-nine ewes while I have just one ewe. Now, he says, “Entrust it to me,” and has prevailed over me in speech.’³⁴

(38:24) He said, ‘He has undoubtedly wronged in asking your ewe to (be added) to his ewes. And truly, most partners (are such that) some of them oppress others; except those who believe and do deeds of righteousness,³⁵ but how few are they?!’ And Da’ud understood that We had tested him and so he sought forgiveness of his Lord,³⁶ fell down deeply bowing, and turned repentant.³⁷

(38:25) So We forgave him that.³⁸ And indeed, he has closeness to Us, and a fair resort.³⁹

(38:26) (We said), ‘O Da’ud, We have indeed made you a vicegerent in the earth,⁴⁰ therefore, judge between the people with Truth,⁴¹ and follow not base desires lest they mislead you away from Allah’s path. Surely those who wander away from Allah’s path: for them is a severe chastisement, for having forgotten the Day of Reckoning.

Commentary

20. Also pronounced “fuwaq” by some, lit., it is the interval between one milking of an animal, and another, perhaps for relaxing the fingers, or to allow the young to suck.

Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and Suddi interpreted “fawaq” as meaning “return” (Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir). That is, once the Trumpet is blown into, there will be no return (to the situation and conditions of the world as known today: Au.). Some others have understood as meaning: the Trumpet-blowing will have no pause or ending thereto (Ibn Kathir and others).

21. The allusion is to the Quraysh’s demand that the punishment be hastened upon them. This is how Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Suddi and Sa`id b. Jubayr understood it. But it could as well be that they demanded sarcastically that their good share of the Hereafter may be granted here and now since they did not believe in the Hereafter anyway (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

22. While Ibn `Abbas said “dhu al-ayd” meant the man of strength, Mujahid, Qatadah, Suddi and other added, ‘in devotion.’ That is, he was a man of strength in devotional matters (Tabari). This is supported by a Prophetic statement which says, as in the Sahihayn:The best of Prayers in the sight of Allah was that of Da’ud and the best of fasts in the sight of Allah was that of Da’ud: he slept half of the night, stood up in Prayers one third and (then again) slept off one sixth. And he would fast a day, and break a day” (Ibn Kathir).

On the other hand, Ibn `Abbas’ opinion is strengthened by another verse which says (51: 47):“And the heaven, We built it with strength and We are expanding it” (Ibn Kathir).

Another example is (19: 12),“O Yahya, hold the Book with strength.” There are other examples of this usage (Razi).

23. Although, and as usual, the Bible does not treat David kindly, Western writers have treated him differently. It is falsely alleged by Jewish and Christian writers that Prophet Muhammad drew much material from Biblical sources. In this case, however, latter day Jewish and Christians seem to have drawn much from the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions. Majid comments and quotes from them: “That David was a deeply religious personality is admitted even by the unfriendly critics: ‘David himself was sincerely loyal to Jehovah, Israel’s God. His battles were fought and his victories won in the name of Jehovah. None of his public acts was marked by any disloyalty or unfaithfulness to Jehovah. Through David the popular conception of the power of Jehovah must have been greatly strengthened.’ (NSBD, p. 172) ‘He was a sincerely religious man, a devout worshipper of Yahweh’ (EBr. VII. P. 78).. ‘David’s piety was so great that his prayers were able to bring things heavenly down to earth.’ (JE, IV, p. 455).”

24. “`Ashiyy”: in common parlance “evening time” but in classical times the term referred to either (1) the time between sun’s decline until sunset or (2) the time between sun’s decline until next day’s morning (Lisan), while “Ishraq” is either (1) first hour of the day, or (2) the time between sunrise until it begins to decline. This is the reason why “Salatu al-Duha” (normally offered an hour before noon) is also referred to as “Salatu al-Ishraq,” which is normally offered some 20 mts. after sunrise (Au.).

25. Some scholars have suggested that the “tasbih” of the mountains could be of the same nature as that of the handful of pebbles that the Prophet (saws) once held against the ears of some of his Companions and they heard their “tasbih” (Alusi).

It is reported that Ibn `Abbas did not Pray “Salatu ad-Duha” because he did not feel comfortable about it until he entered upon Umm Hani (Abu Talib’s daughter) and asked her about the Prophet (as to what he did when he entered Makkah triumphant). She said, “He entered my house, ordered a tub to be filled, asked for a cloth to be stretched between me and him and bathed himself. Thereafter he sprinkled some water at one corner of the house and offered eight cycles of Prayer: in which all actions were of more or less equal duration. Ibn `Abbas came out saying, “I had read the Qur’an from cover to cover but did not know what Salah al-Duha is. I used to ask, ‘Where is Salah al-Ishraq?’ until I found it in this verse” (Ibn Jarir, Razi, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Umm Hani’s report is, according to Haythami, not very strong (S. Ibrahim), but various versions of reports concerning Salah al-Duha are to be found in the Sahihayn and other collections (Shawkani, Alusi).

26. That is, all of them responded to him with their own voices of glory when Da’ud recited the Zabur (Razi and others).

27. It is said that every statement that agrees with the truth is “hikmah” (Zamakhshari).

28. Fasl al-khitab: That is, skill at judgment: Ibn `Abbas and others. It was further explained by Qadi Shurayh as one which consists in demanding witnesses and (if not found) resorting to oaths. But it is better, writes Tabari, to leave it open and say that the words refer to skill in judgment.

“Sagacity of judgment” is another possibility (Asad).

Sha`bi said that the allusion is to saying “amma ba`d” before starting a speech (Ibn Jarir). This is what Abu Musa (al-Ash`ari) also said (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani), but Da’ud could not have been the first to say those words (Alusi).

Imam Razi disagrees with the above interpretations and says that there is no reason why the apparent meaning should be abandoned viz., Da’ud (asws) was given the power of speech and the ability to express every shade of meaning he had in mind.

One may note that Allah (swt) mentioned no less than ten reasons as to why Da’ud (asws) should be an example (Razi).

29. That is, they did not come by the door, but rather climbed the wall of his private chamber of worship.

The textual word “mihrab” is for an upper room, the best part of a house, where the head of the house sat, and latterly, a room reserved for devotional acts. Raghib has said that the mosque’s “mihrab” is so called because that is the place where a person fights (from “harb”: war) or struggles against Shaytan and his influences (although, “mihrab” of today’s mosques, in its specific shape, did not, as Suyuti has pointed out in an article on this topic, exist during the Prophet’s time). Some others have said that originally “mihrab” was used for a place of worship alone, from where it was taken to be used for the best part of a house (Alusi).

30. The addition of the words, “they entered upon Da’ud” inform us that after scaling the wall, the two did not stop there, but advanced further to enter upon Da’ud (right in his private room) - Razi.

31. For, (perhaps) they had come by night and had not used the door. Further, it is possible that the two had come that way with ill intentions, under the impression that Da’ud would not be guarded. But when they found him guarded, they dug up the story of ninety-nine and one ewes (Razi).

32. Thus they spoke offensively with Da’ud, almost accusing him. But he kept his cool, and thus passed the test except that when he pronounced his judgment, he addressed the plaintiff, instead of first inquiring the defendant about the truth of the matter, which was perhaps the error he made (that led him to seek Allah’s forgiveness) - Thanwi.

The second half of the above has been voiced by many commentators (Au.).

33. That is, a brother in faith.

34. This tells us by implication that personal or social pressure to force a Muslim into doing something or giving away something, is not allowed. For example, if someone uses his authoritative position to make a Muslim yield a gift, which he is not happy to yield, then it would amount to “ghasab” (impounding). Similarly, a group of men going up to a Muslim to pressurize him into making a charitable donation, say for a mosque or some other good cause, is not recommended. Those who collect funds for Madrasas, mosques, or other social causes may pay special attention to this. The Prophet (saws) has said,“A Muslim’s wealth is not lawful except by his cheerful assent” (Mufti Shafi`).

35. This is not only to say that practicing Muslims do not deceive each other, but also that their entry into partnership with anyone, for any apparent material reason, is – at bottom - of the kind where each seeks moral, spiritual and religious advantages of the other (Razi in different words).

36. In connection with the test and forgiveness, the following is in Hakim’s collection who treated it as trustworthy and which assessment Dhahabi seconded. It is also in Bayhaqi’s “Shu`ab”: Da’ud was struck by delight bordering to self-congratulation, to say, “O my Lord! There is not an hour during the day or the night when one of Da’ud’s family is not in prayer, recitation, remembrance, chanting glory, or engaged in similar devotional acts.” He was told by Allah (swt) that this was only because of His own attention and paving of the way making it easy for them all. He was also told that he would be tested. And the test consisted in he being freed (of Allah’s help). That is, he would be given charge of his self altogether. Da’ud asked that he be told of the day it would happen, which was done, and so Da’ud shut himself up in the Sanctuary (Shawkani), [yet he fell into the error that he did: Au.].

The above story however does not say how exactly Da’ud was tried and what was the error he fell into (Au.).

Imam Razi has another explanation. It is possible, he states, that although the two had entered with an ill purpose, Da’ud’s kindly treatment provoked them to repentance and to invoking him to seek their forgiveness which explains the words, “he sought forgiveness of his Lord.”

Following their habit of passing on whatever they heard, many early commentators, including Ibn Jarir, have narrated stories that seem to have come from Jewish sources. They state in sum and substance that the piety, wisdom and material power that Da’ud commanded, provoked him into a sort of temporary vain-glory. He even sought to be granted the same status as major Messengers such as Ibrahim (asws) and others were granted. Allah wished to teach him a lesson. One day, as he happened to be on his roof-top he saw a woman bathing. She pleased him, he sent her soldier husband to battle-front until he got killed. Thereafter he married the woman. According to some versions Da’ud, although he had ninety-nine wives, had asked her husband to divorce her so that he could marry her.

Qurtubi dismisses the story as what it is, viz., baseless, and Ibn Kathir points out that none of the versions has a good chain of narrators. (Both Abu Hayyan and Baydawi rejected the stories: f.n. Qurtubi). Imam Razi takes it up for a detailed refutation running over several pages. He points that the story is too fanciful, and unbefitting a Prophet to be accepted for narration. Far from a Prophet, whom Allah (swt) praised as possessing ten outstanding qualities, whose example He commanded Muhammad to follow, not even a man of low morals would plan and execute such an absurd thing without winning universal disapproval. The story alleges that Da’ud planned the murder of one of his followers. Could that be true when our Prophet said, “Whoever helped in shedding blood of a Muslim, even by a word, will appear on the Day of Judgment with the words written on his forehead, ‘Despaired of Allah’s mercy.’” Another hadith says, “A Muslim is one, from whose tongue and hands others are in peace.” When such are the qualities of an ordinary believer, could such things be attributed to a Prophet of the past?

Imam Razi would not even accept that the story is allegorical, that it were two angels that had come to test him because such assumption will imply a lie on the angels, one of whom said, “We two are disputants” while they were not. Qurtubi and Alusi however maintain that if we assume that the two had agreed between themselves that this is how they shall talk, then the implication of a lie is removed. Alusi adds that the opinion that the two were angels is almost unanimous, although the story concerning the woman is obviously not.

Zamakhshari also discounts the stories that have circulated both among the laities as well as the non-laities about Da’ud (asws) and reports Sa` id ibn Jubayr and Harith al-A`war as saying that `Ali had promised to flog with 160 lashes anyone he heard was narrating such stories; (but Zaynuddin Iraqi thought the report is weak: Alusi). When `Umar b. `Abdul `Aziz mentioned the story, a scholar sitting there protested saying, “If the story is not in the Qur’an, then its narration is a slander against a Prophet and if true – by any chance – then it is best not to publicize what Allah left concealed.” It seems Ibn `Abdul `Aziz was quite pleased with the remark.

Caution demands, conclude Zamakhshari, Razi, Ibn Kathir and some others, that we say no more than what the Qur’an has said, whether we understand the text or we do not.

Sayyid Qutb remarks that even modified and diluted versions of the story are not acceptable in view of the praises the Qur’an lavished on Da’ud.

Qadi Baydawi, Abu Hayyan, Ibn Jawzi, Abu Sa`ud, Qadi `Ayad, Khazin, Ibn Hazm, Khifaji, Abu Tammam, and others have all discounted the story refusing to accept any part of it as true (Shafi`).

All said, how catchy and alluring stories are, can be judged from the fact that a famous contemporary commentator, who, while criticizing the Bible, spins out a completely new version of the story that seems to be entirely from his own imagination (Au.).

Yusuf Ali points to inner contradictions in the Bible, which must be compared with the sublime notes on Ayyub in the Qur’an. He writes, “Those who think they see a resemblance to the Parable of the prophet Nathan (2 Samuel, xii. 1-12) have nothing to go upon but the mention of the “one ewe” here and the “one little ewe-lamb” in Nathan’s Parable. The whole story is here different, and the whole atmosphere is different. The Biblical title given to David, “a man after God’s own heart” is refuted by the Bible itself in the scandalous tale of heinous crimes attributed to David in chapters xi and xii. of 2 Samuel, viz., adultery, fraudulent dealing with one of his own servants, and the contriving of his murder. Further, in chapter xiii, we have the story of rapes, incest, and fratricide in David’s own household! The fact is that passages like those are mere chroniques scandaleuses, i.e., narratives of scandalous crimes of the grossest character.”

37. Some people are led to believe that D a’ud must truly have committed some kind of sin for Allah to have said, “he sought forgiveness of his Lord, fell down deeply bowing, and turned repentant.” Yusuf Ali paraphrases the sentiments of many commentators when he writes: “Some commentators say that David’s fault here was his hastiness in judging before hearing the case of the other party. When he realised his lapse, he fell down in repentance.” But, Imam Razi points out, had not Allah (swt) said to our Prophet (47: 19), “And seek forgiveness for your sins and for believing men and women.”

Sajdah al-Tilawah:

What Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir write can be summed up in the following manner: Scholars have differed over “sujud” at this point, whether it is a prostration of thanks or the obligatory type. Ibn `Abbas thought – as in a report of Bukhari, Abu Da’ud and others - that a “sajdah” at this point is not obligatory although “I have seen the Prophet prostrating himself.” In a Sahih report preserved by Nasa’i, Ibn `Abbas said, “The Prophet prostrated himself during (the recitation of Surah) Sad” and remarked, ‘Da’ud prostrated himself by way of repentance while we prostrate ourselves by way of thanks.’”

With regard to what may be preferably said during the “sajdah al-tilawah” at this point, (I have personally heard my Sheikh Mizzi narrate through his own chain reaching up to Ibn `Abbas: Ibn Kathir) that, A man came up (identified as Abu Sa`id al-Khudri in Tuhfah: Au.) to the Prophet (saws) and said, “I saw in my dream that I am Praying behind a tree. I recited a (verse carrying the) prostration-verse. So I prostrated myself and the tree also prostrated itself and I heard the tree say in its prostration,‘O Allah, write for me thereby a reward with You, remove from me thereby a sin, and preserve it with You as a reward for me and accept it from me as You accepted it from Your slave Da’ud.’

“When the Prophet recited an ayah containing a “sajdah,” continued Ibn `Abbas, he prostrated himself and I heard him say the same words.”

While on the topic of sajdah al-tilawah, we might add the following: A hadith in Tirmidhi, which he declared Hasan Sahih, has `A’isha saying that when the Prophet did his sajdah al-tilawah, he would say the following words during the prostration:“My face prostrates itself for Him who created it, and who fissured its hearing and sight by His strength and power.” Muslim and others have reported however, that the Prophet used to say the above words during all his prostrations, including the prostration of Salah. Perhaps it is in view of this that Mullah `Ali Qari has said, as in Tuhfah, that one might say during sajdah of tilawah falling within the Prayers what he normally says in his sujud viz.However, if it is out of Prayers one could say the words of his choice, such as the two Prayer-words noted above.

It may be noted that the following is in Tuhfatu al-Ahwadhi: “Tirmidhi declared the above hadith weak. Nevertheless, Ibn Hibban preserved it in his Sahih, as also Hakim in his Mustadrak declaring it Sahih, with the backing of Dhahahabi [as noted in Al-Mirqah]. It is also in Ibn Majah. However, `Uqayli declared the report weak. [Haythami did not discuss it]. And, except for a minority, most scholars believe one should not offer the prostration if he recited or heard the ayah of sajdah, unless he is in a state of ablution” (Au.).

Ibn Kathir continues: “A report in Ahmad has it that Abu Sa`id al-Khudri dreamt that he was writing down Surah Sad. When he reached this verse, he found that the pen, the ink-pot and everything around him prostrated itself. He spoke of it to the Prophet. Thereafter, he (i.e. the Prophet) always prostrated himself at this point.” Abu Da’ud has another narrative on this topic:“On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, once the Prophet recited this Surah on the mimber. When he reached this verse, he prostrated himself and so did his Companions. When he recited it another time and reached this verse, the people prepared themselves for the prostration (but the Prophet did not). He said, “That was a repentance of a Prophet. But as I see, you are quite predisposed to prostrating yourselves.” Then he came down (the mimber) and prostrated himself, and so did others.” (Quote from Ibn Kathir ends here).

Haythami declared it Sahih (Au.).

Mufti Shafi` adds: The following maybe remembered in connection with “sajdah al-tilawah”:

(1) In view of the ayah above, where Allah (swt) mentioned “raka`a” (instead of “sajada”), the Hanafiyyah allow one to go into “ruku`” at “ayah sajdah” (instead of making a “sajdah”).

(2) But the above is allowable in obligatory Prayers alone (since there can be a large crowd behind an Imam who will be thrown into confusion if he went into prostration, instead of “ruku`”, especially if his followers do not hear the recitation, or do not know Arabic: Au.).

(3) The above is not allowable if one is reciting the Qur’an and reaches this point. He cannot offer a deep bow instead of “sajdah”.

(4) Going into “ruku`” in an obligatory Prayer, instead of “sajdah” is only allowable, if one either goes into “ruku`” directly after the recitation of the “ayah sajdah” or, perhaps two or three verses after it, but not more. But of course, it is better to go into a “sajdah” rather than a “ruku`” even during an obligatory Prayer.

38. This forgiveness is in the same vein as was said to our Prophet (48: 2),“In order that Allah may forgive the sins of your past and future” (Razi).

39. This refers to Da’ud’s spiritual closeness to Allah. A trustworthy Prophetic tradition (in Muslim: H. Ibrahim) says, “Those who observe justice will be on mimbers of nur by the right hand side of the Rahman - and both His hands are right - those who administer justice in their judgments, treat justly their home-folk and those they have been given the charge of” (Ibn Kathir).

40. That is, one who implements Allah’s laws (Razi).

41. Men are social by nature, writes Razi. This being so, while living together and interacting with each other, they must enter into disputes. Therefore, there has to be someone to decide among the disputants. Da’ud is being told that you have to act as the judge, since you, after all, are also required to impose and implement Allah’s laws.