وَهَلْ أَتَىٰكَ نَبَؤُا۟ ٱلْخَصْمِ إِذْ تَسَوَّرُوا۟ ٱلْمِحْرَابَ
<p>Commentary</p><p>In these verses, Allah Ta'ala has mentioned an event relating to Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) . The way in which this event has been described in the noble Qur'an, it tells only this much that Allah Ta’ ala had put him to some test by sending two disputing parties into his place of worship. Alerted thereby, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) sought forgiveness from Allah Ta’ ala, and fell in prostration, and He forgave him. Since the real purpose of the noble Qur'an at this place is to communicate that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) used to turn to Allah Ta'ala in every matter of concern he faced, and should he ever sense the least slip issuing forth from him, he would immediately seek forgiveness for it. Therefore, no details have been given as to what that test was, and what was that slip he committed against which he sought forgiveness, something that Allah Ta'ala forgave him for.</p><p>Therefore, some investigative and cautious commentators have said in their explanation of these verses that Allah Ta'ala has not given a detailed description of this slip and test relating to this great prophet of His due to some particular wise consideration. Hence, we too should not go about pursuing it, and whatever has been mentioned in the noble Qur'an should be precisely what we should believe in. Even a great research-oriented commentator of the class of Ibn Kathir has elected to follow this rule and has observed silence as far as details of this event are concerned. Then there is no doubt that this is the ideal course of caution, moderation and sound policy. Therefore, the learned from among the early forbears of Islam (salaf) used to say: ابھموا ما ابھمہ اللہ (What Allah has left ambiguous, you too let it remain ambiguous). In this, there is wisdom, and expedient consideration. Then, it is obvious that it means the ambiguity of matters that do not relate to what we do and what we take as halal and haram and, as for matters that concern the collective deeds of Muslims, any ambiguity existing there has already been removed by the Holy Prophet ﷺ through his word and deed.</p><p>But, there are other commentators who have tried to determine the exact nature of this test and trial in the light of pre-Islam narratives. In this connection, there is that vulgar yarn that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) happened to have cast a look at the wife of Uriah, who was one of his military officers, that put the desire of marrying her in his heart and he, in order to get Uriah killed, entrusted with him a dangerous mission in which he was really killed and later on, he married his wife. It was to admonish him on this act of his that these two angels were sent in human form and shape.</p><p>But, this narrative is doubtlessly from among the absurdities that had found currency among Muslims under the influence of Jews. This narrative has been taken from the Bible, the Book of Samuel II, chap. 11. The only difference is that, in the cited reference, an open charge has been leveled against Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) that he had (refuge with Allah) committed adultery with the wife of Uriah prior to marriage. As for these narratives accommodated in some exegetical works, the part relating to adultery has been deleted. It appears that someone looked at the Judaic narrative, took out the allegation of adultery, and did an edit-copy-paste job while explaining the above mentioned verses of the noble Qur'an - although, this book of Samuel itself is inherently baseless, while this narrative has the status of absolute lie and fabrication. For this reason, all authentic commentators have sternly rejected it.</p><p>In addition to Hafiz Ibn Kathir, ` Allamah Ibn Jauzi, Qadi Abu-s-Saud, Qadi al-Baidawi, Qadi ` Iyad, Imam Razi, ` Allamah Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, Khazin, Zamakhshari, Ibn Hazm, ` Allamah Khafaji, Ahmad Ibn Nasr, Abu Tammam, ` Allamah ` Alusi and many others have declared it to be a lie and fabrication. Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes:</p><p>"Some commentators have mentioned a tale at this point most of which has been taken from Judaic narrations. Nothing the following of which is obligatory is proved in this matter on the authority of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . Only Ibn Abi Hatim has reported a Hadith here, but its authority is unsound."</p><p>In short, in the light of many proofs - some detail of which is available in Tafsir Kabir of Imam Razi and Zad-ul-Masir of Ibn-ul-Jauzi - this Hadith report goes out of the pale of discussion totally as far as the Tafsir of this verse is concerned.</p><p>Maulana Ashraf Thanavi (رح) has explained this element of test by saying that these two adversaries climbed over the wall, barged in and started addressing him so insolently that they started off by asking Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) to be just and not to be unjust. This audacity would have been reason enough for an ordinary person who would have answered them only by punishing them. Allah Ta’ ala tested Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) by seeing whether he too is enraged and punishes him or listens to them demonstrating the high moral traits of pardon and forbearance.</p><p>Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) came out successful in this test, except a little slip that remained - when he was giving his verdict, rather than address the perpetrator of injustice, he addressed the one oppressed which betrayed a certain element of partisanship - but, he immediately got alerted, fell down in prostration and Allah Ta’ ala forgave him. (Bayan-ul-Qur’ an)</p><p>According to the explanation of this 'slip' given by some commentators, when Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) found the defendant silent, it was without listening to what he had to say, and rather having listened to the plaintiff only, he said things as part of his advice that virtually appeared to be supportive of the plaintiff - although, he should have first asked the defendant as to what his stand was. This statement of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was, though, simply advisory in nature, and time has not yet arrived for the final judgment in the case, however, for a great prophet of his caliber, it was not befitting. To this very thing he was later alerted and fell into prostration. (Ruh-ul- Ma’ ani)</p><p>Some others have said that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had managed his time in a manner that every twenty four hours of a day and night one or the other member of his household would be found engaged in some act of devotion to Allah like ` ibadah, dhikr and tasbih. On a certain day, he submitted before Allah Ta’ ala, 'My Lord, there is not a single moment of day and night during which one or the other member of the household of Dawud is not busy with ` ibadah, Salah, tasbih and dhikr before Thee!' Allah Ta’ ala said, '0 Dawud, all this comes from My taufiq. If I do not help you do it, you cannot do it on your own - and one of these days I am going to leave you on your own.' Thereafter, came a day when something different took place. That was a time when Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was supposed to be engaged in worship. When this unforeseen thing happened, his timetable was shattered, and he got busy with resolving a dispute. No other member of the household of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was engaged in remembering Allah at that time. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was alerted immediately. He recalled the self-congratulatory statement that had slipped out of his tongue. He realized he had made a mistake. Therefore, he sought the forgiveness of Allah and fell in prostration. This explanation is supported by a saying of Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ which has been reported in the Mustadrak of Hakim with sound chains of authority. (Ahkam-ul- Qur'an)</p><p>It has been unanimously agreed upon in these explanations that this litigation was not hypothetical. In fact, it was real and the form of the litigation had nothing to do with the test or slip of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) . Contrary to this, many commentators have explained it in a manner that postulates that parties to this dispute were not human beings. Rather, they were angels, and Allah Ta’ ala had sent them to present such a simulated form of litigation as would alert Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) to his slip.</p><p>Accordingly, these commentators say that as far as this story of the killing of Uriah and marrying his wife is concerned, it is incorrect. But, conditions that actually prevailed among the people of Bani Isra'il were such that asking someone - 'divorce you wife and give her in marriage to me' - was not considered offensive. This kind of request had also become customary at that time, and was not taken to be impolite as well. It was in this prevailing climate and on this basis that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had made his request to Uriah whereupon Allah Ta’ ala alerted him by sending these two angels. Some others have said that this was a simple matter. Uriah had already sent a proposal to a woman. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) happened to send his proposal to the same woman. This hurt Uriah. Thereupon, as admonition, Allah Ta’ ala sent these two angels and alerted him to his slip in a subtle manner. Qadi Abu Ya` la has based his argument on the words of the Qur'an: وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ (And he overpowered me in speech - 23). He says that this sentence supports the view that this matter came to pass only in connection with: خِطبَہ۔ (khitbah: proposal of marriage), for Dawud (علیہ السلام) has not yet married her. (Zad-ul- Masir by Ibn-ul Jauzi, p. 116, v. 7)</p><p>Most commentators have preferred the last two explanations, and they find support in some reports from the Sahabah (please see Ruh-ul-Ma’ ani, Tafsir Abi-s- Saud, Zad-ul-Masir, Tafsir Kabir etc.) But, the truth of the matter is that any detail of this test or slip is neither proved from the Qur'an, nor from some Sahih Hadith. Therefore, at least this much stands settled that this widely known story of having Uriah killed is incorrect. But, about the actual event, all probabilities mentioned above exist, and no one of these can be called absolute and certain. Therefore, the safest way out is what Hafiz Ibn Kathir has taken: 'That which Allah Ta’ ala has left ambiguous should be left as is. We should not force out its details through our guesses and conjectures - particularly when no deed of ours hinges on it. Certainly there is some wisdom in this ambiguity as well. Therefore, one should believe in as much as has been mentioned in the Qur'an. As for the details, let these be resigned to Allah. Nevertheless, since there are many benefits that issue forth from this event, more attention should be paid to these. Therefore, let us now turn to an explanation of the verses where, insha'Allah, these beneficial notes will keep appearing as we go along.</p><p>In the first verse (21), it was said: إِذْ تَسَوَّرُ‌وا الْمِحْرَ‌ابَ (when they entered the sanctuary by climbing over the wall?). The word: مِحْرَ‌اب (mihrab) is essentially applied to an elevated chamber, or the front elevation of a house. Later, the front portion of a mosque or any other House of Worship came to be called by that name in particular. In the Qur'an, this word has been used in the sense of a place of worship. ` Allamah Suyuti has written that contemporary arched mihrabs of mosques in vogue now were not present during the time of the Holy Prophet ﷺ (Ruh-al-Ma’ ani).</p>
CommentaryIn these verses, Allah Ta'ala has mentioned an event relating to Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) . The way in which this event has been described in the noble Qur'an, it tells only this much that Allah Ta’ ala had put him to some test by sending two disputing parties into his place of worship. Alerted thereby, Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) sought forgiveness from Allah Ta’ ala, and fell in prostration, and He forgave him. Since the real purpose of the noble Qur'an at this place is to communicate that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) used to turn to Allah Ta'ala in every matter of concern he faced, and should he ever sense the least slip issuing forth from him, he would immediately seek forgiveness for it. Therefore, no details have been given as to what that test was, and what was that slip he committed against which he sought forgiveness, something that Allah Ta'ala forgave him for.Therefore, some investigative and cautious commentators have said in their explanation of these verses that Allah Ta'ala has not given a detailed description of this slip and test relating to this great prophet of His due to some particular wise consideration. Hence, we too should not go about pursuing it, and whatever has been mentioned in the noble Qur'an should be precisely what we should believe in. Even a great research-oriented commentator of the class of Ibn Kathir has elected to follow this rule and has observed silence as far as details of this event are concerned. Then there is no doubt that this is the ideal course of caution, moderation and sound policy. Therefore, the learned from among the early forbears of Islam (salaf) used to say: ابھموا ما ابھمہ اللہ (What Allah has left ambiguous, you too let it remain ambiguous). In this, there is wisdom, and expedient consideration. Then, it is obvious that it means the ambiguity of matters that do not relate to what we do and what we take as halal and haram and, as for matters that concern the collective deeds of Muslims, any ambiguity existing there has already been removed by the Holy Prophet ﷺ through his word and deed.But, there are other commentators who have tried to determine the exact nature of this test and trial in the light of pre-Islam narratives. In this connection, there is that vulgar yarn that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) happened to have cast a look at the wife of Uriah, who was one of his military officers, that put the desire of marrying her in his heart and he, in order to get Uriah killed, entrusted with him a dangerous mission in which he was really killed and later on, he married his wife. It was to admonish him on this act of his that these two angels were sent in human form and shape.But, this narrative is doubtlessly from among the absurdities that had found currency among Muslims under the influence of Jews. This narrative has been taken from the Bible, the Book of Samuel II, chap. 11. The only difference is that, in the cited reference, an open charge has been leveled against Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) that he had (refuge with Allah) committed adultery with the wife of Uriah prior to marriage. As for these narratives accommodated in some exegetical works, the part relating to adultery has been deleted. It appears that someone looked at the Judaic narrative, took out the allegation of adultery, and did an edit-copy-paste job while explaining the above mentioned verses of the noble Qur'an - although, this book of Samuel itself is inherently baseless, while this narrative has the status of absolute lie and fabrication. For this reason, all authentic commentators have sternly rejected it.In addition to Hafiz Ibn Kathir, ` Allamah Ibn Jauzi, Qadi Abu-s-Saud, Qadi al-Baidawi, Qadi ` Iyad, Imam Razi, ` Allamah Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, Khazin, Zamakhshari, Ibn Hazm, ` Allamah Khafaji, Ahmad Ibn Nasr, Abu Tammam, ` Allamah ` Alusi and many others have declared it to be a lie and fabrication. Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes:"Some commentators have mentioned a tale at this point most of which has been taken from Judaic narrations. Nothing the following of which is obligatory is proved in this matter on the authority of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . Only Ibn Abi Hatim has reported a Hadith here, but its authority is unsound."In short, in the light of many proofs - some detail of which is available in Tafsir Kabir of Imam Razi and Zad-ul-Masir of Ibn-ul-Jauzi - this Hadith report goes out of the pale of discussion totally as far as the Tafsir of this verse is concerned.Maulana Ashraf Thanavi (رح) has explained this element of test by saying that these two adversaries climbed over the wall, barged in and started addressing him so insolently that they started off by asking Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) to be just and not to be unjust. This audacity would have been reason enough for an ordinary person who would have answered them only by punishing them. Allah Ta’ ala tested Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) by seeing whether he too is enraged and punishes him or listens to them demonstrating the high moral traits of pardon and forbearance.Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) came out successful in this test, except a little slip that remained - when he was giving his verdict, rather than address the perpetrator of injustice, he addressed the one oppressed which betrayed a certain element of partisanship - but, he immediately got alerted, fell down in prostration and Allah Ta’ ala forgave him. (Bayan-ul-Qur’ an)According to the explanation of this 'slip' given by some commentators, when Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) found the defendant silent, it was without listening to what he had to say, and rather having listened to the plaintiff only, he said things as part of his advice that virtually appeared to be supportive of the plaintiff - although, he should have first asked the defendant as to what his stand was. This statement of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was, though, simply advisory in nature, and time has not yet arrived for the final judgment in the case, however, for a great prophet of his caliber, it was not befitting. To this very thing he was later alerted and fell into prostration. (Ruh-ul- Ma’ ani)Some others have said that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had managed his time in a manner that every twenty four hours of a day and night one or the other member of his household would be found engaged in some act of devotion to Allah like ` ibadah, dhikr and tasbih. On a certain day, he submitted before Allah Ta’ ala, 'My Lord, there is not a single moment of day and night during which one or the other member of the household of Dawud is not busy with ` ibadah, Salah, tasbih and dhikr before Thee!' Allah Ta’ ala said, '0 Dawud, all this comes from My taufiq. If I do not help you do it, you cannot do it on your own - and one of these days I am going to leave you on your own.' Thereafter, came a day when something different took place. That was a time when Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was supposed to be engaged in worship. When this unforeseen thing happened, his timetable was shattered, and he got busy with resolving a dispute. No other member of the household of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was engaged in remembering Allah at that time. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) was alerted immediately. He recalled the self-congratulatory statement that had slipped out of his tongue. He realized he had made a mistake. Therefore, he sought the forgiveness of Allah and fell in prostration. This explanation is supported by a saying of Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ which has been reported in the Mustadrak of Hakim with sound chains of authority. (Ahkam-ul- Qur'an)It has been unanimously agreed upon in these explanations that this litigation was not hypothetical. In fact, it was real and the form of the litigation had nothing to do with the test or slip of Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) . Contrary to this, many commentators have explained it in a manner that postulates that parties to this dispute were not human beings. Rather, they were angels, and Allah Ta’ ala had sent them to present such a simulated form of litigation as would alert Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) to his slip.Accordingly, these commentators say that as far as this story of the killing of Uriah and marrying his wife is concerned, it is incorrect. But, conditions that actually prevailed among the people of Bani Isra'il were such that asking someone - 'divorce you wife and give her in marriage to me' - was not considered offensive. This kind of request had also become customary at that time, and was not taken to be impolite as well. It was in this prevailing climate and on this basis that Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) had made his request to Uriah whereupon Allah Ta’ ala alerted him by sending these two angels. Some others have said that this was a simple matter. Uriah had already sent a proposal to a woman. Sayyidna Dawud (علیہ السلام) happened to send his proposal to the same woman. This hurt Uriah. Thereupon, as admonition, Allah Ta’ ala sent these two angels and alerted him to his slip in a subtle manner. Qadi Abu Ya` la has based his argument on the words of the Qur'an: وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ (And he overpowered me in speech - 23). He says that this sentence supports the view that this matter came to pass only in connection with: خِطبَہ۔ (khitbah: proposal of marriage), for Dawud (علیہ السلام) has not yet married her. (Zad-ul- Masir by Ibn-ul Jauzi, p. 116, v. 7)Most commentators have preferred the last two explanations, and they find support in some reports from the Sahabah (please see Ruh-ul-Ma’ ani, Tafsir Abi-s- Saud, Zad-ul-Masir, Tafsir Kabir etc.) But, the truth of the matter is that any detail of this test or slip is neither proved from the Qur'an, nor from some Sahih Hadith. Therefore, at least this much stands settled that this widely known story of having Uriah killed is incorrect. But, about the actual event, all probabilities mentioned above exist, and no one of these can be called absolute and certain. Therefore, the safest way out is what Hafiz Ibn Kathir has taken: 'That which Allah Ta’ ala has left ambiguous should be left as is. We should not force out its details through our guesses and conjectures - particularly when no deed of ours hinges on it. Certainly there is some wisdom in this ambiguity as well. Therefore, one should believe in as much as has been mentioned in the Qur'an. As for the details, let these be resigned to Allah. Nevertheless, since there are many benefits that issue forth from this event, more attention should be paid to these. Therefore, let us now turn to an explanation of the verses where, insha'Allah, these beneficial notes will keep appearing as we go along.In the first verse (21), it was said: إِذْ تَسَوَّرُ‌وا الْمِحْرَ‌ابَ (when they entered the sanctuary by climbing over the wall?). The word: مِحْرَ‌اب (mihrab) is essentially applied to an elevated chamber, or the front elevation of a house. Later, the front portion of a mosque or any other House of Worship came to be called by that name in particular. In the Qur'an, this word has been used in the sense of a place of worship. ` Allamah Suyuti has written that contemporary arched mihrabs of mosques in vogue now were not present during the time of the Holy Prophet ﷺ (Ruh-al-Ma’ ani).