One of the earliest segments of the Qur'an to be cited elsewhere is sura 38:26. An Uthman bin Wahran inscribed it on a rock in Mecca, which Islamic Awareness duly cited. That site couldn't be bothered to transliterate, much less translate, the fuzzy sentence beyond "Wahran"; but the last word of that corresponds with the last word of this, which means "eighty". Apparently the inscription is a product of 80 AH. That would put it in Abd al-Malik's reign, soon after he built the Dome of the Rock and reconquered Mecca for Damascus.
According to ibn Abd-Rabbah al-Malik al-Andalusi's Al-'Uqd-ul-Farid (Vol. 1, p. 60; choice between Dar Maktabat al-Hilal 1st ed. 1986, or ed. M. Y. Zayid. Beirut: Khayyat, 1967), during the reign of amir muminim al-Walid (ruled 705-715 CE / 86-96 AH), Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Shehab al-Zuhri al-Qurashi "Abu Bakr" also cited this comment as the word of God:
Al-Zuhri once visited Al-Walid Ibn Abdul-Malik, so the latter said, "What about this hadith which the people of Syria narrate?".
"Which hadith, O Commander of Believers?" Al-Zuhri said.
"They narrate that if God gives a servant kingship over his people, He documents for him the good deeds and not the bad deeds!" Al-Walid said.
"False, O Commander of Believers! Is a Prophet-Caliph, or a Caliph-not-a-Prophet, more honourable in the sight of God?" Al-Zuhri said.
"A Prophet-Caliph", Al-Walid said.
"Well, God (glory be to Him) said to His Prophet David, 'O David! We did indeed make thee a Caliph on earth: so judge thou between men in truth: nor follow thou the lusts, for they will mislead thee from the Path of God: for those who wander astray from the Path of God, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account.' (Holy Qur’an 38:26). This is a threat - O Commander of Believers - to a Prophet-Caliph; what about a Caliph-not-a-Prophet?" Al-Zuhri said.
"People do misguide us away from Faith", Al-Walid said.
The word of God notwithstanding, there is good reason to doubt that this was the word of the Qur'an in al-Walid's day. This project will investigate the passage and locate a more likely origin.
The passage is in two parts, both in language shared over much of the Qur'an. The first advises a ruler named DAWD that he is a regent (khalifa), and that among his responsibilities is jurisprudence (tahkuma, al-haq), not to deviate "from the Path of Allah" ('an sabîli allâhi; 47:38 &c), and not to "follow" (tattabi'; 6:119 // 28:50 // 30:29) "the desire" (al-hawa; 79:40, also 6:119 // 28:50 // 30:29 // 45:23 - and Jude 16!). The second comments on the yaum al-hisâb (38:16,53; 40:27), and warns not to go "astray" (adallu; 6:119 // 28:50 // 30:29 // 45:23, in the latter two of which it is Allah who causes one to stray).
As well as the obvious external evidence for their connexion, each share the phrase 'an sabîli allâhi and its usage. It is likely that the author devised the second sentence to play on the first. The passage must stand as a unity.
There was of course no king or caliph literally named David ruling Mecca in 80 AH. Therefore the original saying was most likely directed at a king who did bear that name. Its first citers employed it as a proof text.
Ahadith are dubious by their nature, and ibn al-Rabbah is furthermore considered a Shi'ite and biased. Accordingly his traditions will likely be skeptical of Umayyad rule. It is unlikely that al-Walid and al-Zuhri literally held the conversation ibn al-Rabbah relates.
But ibn al-Rabbah's anti-Umayyad bias is exactly what allowed him to relate an anti-Umayyad tradition. His take of sura 38:26 is respectful of al-Walid, but still records al-Zuhri using the quote to warn the king against tyranny (and his Syrian support base against heresy!). For ibn al-Rabbah and (we can assume) his Shi'ite antecedents, sura 38:26 stood in a context of controversy, by itself.
That passage also stood by itself for Uthman b. Wahran. This man was also responsible for a variant 56:28-40, concerning the rewards to the "Companions of the Right Hand". Whatever his political allegiance, we can assume that anyone posting a scripture on a wall had a reason for it.
The earlier inscription dates to 80 AH Mecca, an interesting time for that region. The Amir of the Faithful Mu'awiya, a descendant of Umayya, had declared his own son Yezid his successor, an unprecedented move that was not accepted outside his capital, Damascus. Following the Amir's death, in 63 AH (682 CE), ibn al-Zubayr of Mecca declared Yezid deposed, and ibn al-Zubayr's supporters declared him "caliph" (the first use of this term). But in 73 AH (692 CE) Abd al-Malik killed ibn al-Zubayr and forcibly re-inducted Mecca into the Damascus kingdom. (Here and here are some accounts, mostly based on al-Tabari's history.) It is likely there were still partisans in the Hijaz skeptical of Umayyad authority.
As the verse taken by itself expresses skepticism about the original David, its earliest citations express the same warning to the Davids of the contemporary era, in the Umayyad dynasty.
Islam has it that no-one is perfect but Allah alone, and that even Muhammad in his life was capable of error. Most Muslims nevertheless believe that Muhammad and the other Apostles of Allah - of which one was King David - never committed a sin.
Muslims hold David as a receiver of a book, namely the Zabur (4:163). Accordingly he was a rasul. 72:27-28 states that Allah paid special attention to His mursulun, forcing such as David into the straight path.
Al-Zuhri saw 38:26 as a threat from Allah. But if David had truly been sinless, he should not have required a sermon of this tone. Clearly 38:26 has a context that goes beyond that passage alone.
38:26 is the coda to 38:17-25, a panegyric to David's justice. 38:17-25 is itself part of a larger collection that includes Solomon (29-40), Job (41-44), and others.
38:17-25 runs as follows:
17b And remember Our slave David, endowed with power. Verily he was ever oft-returning in all matters and in repentance. 18 Verily We made the mountains to glorify Our praises with him in the Ashi and Ishraq. 19 And the birds assembled: all obedient to him. 20 We made his kingdom strong and gave him al-hikmah and sound judgement in speech and decision. 21 And has the news of the litigants reached you? When they climbed over the wall into al-Mihrab; 22 When they entered in upon David, he was terrified of them. They said, "Fear not two litigants, one of whom has wronged the other! Therefore judge between us with truth, and treat us not with injustice, and guide us to the Right Way. 23 Verily this my brother has ninety-nine ewes, while I have one ewe, and he says, "Hand it over to me, and he overpowered me in speech." 24 He said, "He has wronged you in demanding your ewe in addition to his ewes." And verily many partners oppress one another, except those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and they are few. And David guessed that We have tried him and he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down prostrate and turned in repentance. 25 So We forgave him that, and verily, for him is a near access to Us, and a good place of return.
There is no sin, much less hawa, to be found here - just the "mistake" of suspecting foul play of two trespassing strangers. Some commentators to this day hold that David "perceived a sin of his own". But the sura also relates multiple references to repentance - 17, 24, and 25 - implying that the sura saw David as someone in need of it. Verse 25 in particular by saying "that" implies that the proof text is close at hand.
Muslim apologists have employed an array of answers to this; these have depended on whether the apologist accepts the traditions of Islamic sages, or if he is a Wahhabi.
The traditionalists at Qu'ran.org turned
to Nural-Thaqalayn, vol. 4. P. 445:
"'Ali bin Jahm asked, then, what was the sin of David upon which he sought God's pardon as the Qur'an refers to it? The Imam replied: At that time, when the women were losing their husbands, they never marry again for it was unusual to do so. David was the first who was allowed to marry to such women (so that to break such wrong tradition). Thus, when Uriah was killed, he married to his wife. This act of David was not plausible for the people.
"
But it is important to note that this question only got an answer
after 'Ali "narrated the story according the Torah
[that is, Hebrew Scriptures]".
But the Islamic Miracles site had no time for pious speculation, and instead chose to redefine the Arabic
language:
"Razl says: "Most of the learned, and those who have searched for the truth among them, declare this charge false and condemn it as a lie and a mischievous story. The words istaghfora and ghafarna occurring in the text of verse 24, chap. 38 of the Holy Qur'an by no means indicate that David had committed a sin, for istighfar really signifies the seeking of protection; and David sought Divine protection when he saw that his enemies had grown so bold against him; and by ghafarna is meant the rectification of his affairs; for David, who was a great ruler, could not succeed in keeping his enemies under complete control.
"
Against that, the earliest Hagarene rock inscriptions used the gh-f-r
root extensively, and in each case it meant "forgiveness" (c.f. Nevo;
also here).
What the apologists haven't explained, is why this story was written in the first place. The introduction, with the litigants breaking into the palace, is exciting enough. But David's answer is so obvious in its justice as to be an anticlimax. It cannot compare with, say, the Biblical tale of Solomon.
In addition, if 38:26 was originally written by the author of 38:17-25, either its wording or its placement is wrong. Assuming it is in the right place, why is it addressing David alone, and not rulers as a class? 38:24b is sufficient to show that the segment's author was not above parenthetical homilies. Assuming it is directed at the right person, why is it here, and not placed in the mouth of a prophet prior to David's judgement?
Also, sabîli allâhi is an important term for 38:26, and for much of the rest of the Qur'an. It is absent from the rest of 38. Compare with the yawm al-hisâb, rare in the Qur'an except here. This sura accepted the sabîli allâhi here but not elsewhere.
King David had been a Biblical figure long before the Near East discovered he was a Muslim prophet. 2 Samuel 12:1-23 relates a startlingly similar anecdote (NIV translation):
1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. 4 "Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him." 5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity." 7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.' 11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' " 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD ." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.
Obviously, both have verses in which God says to David, "I appointed you ruler over a people" and warns him against crimes due to lust, but there are more parallels than that. In both, a man puts a question of justice to the king, the content of which is identical in both: a rich man with much livestock has stolen the ewe of a poor man. King David casts a clear and fair judgement; and then he asks for forgiveness, which is granted.
In the Bible, the need for forgiveness is explained, and in the Qur'an it is not; and 2 Samuel 12:1-13 is attested before the Common Era (Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama), and sura 38:17-26 is not. Therefore every reader of the two passages who is not Muslim agrees that sura 38:17-26 depends on 2 Samuel 12:1-13.
Arguing in favour of 38:26's place in sura 38, is that the point of the tale was an argument "between men". David's sin in 2 Samuel had nothing to do with judgement between two supplicants; he had made the right judgement (upon himself!).
In 2 Samuel 12's context, sura 38:26 is rather a prophetic summary of 2 Samuel 12:1-12. In 2 Samuel 12:1-4 Nathan asks David to make a true judgement, and in 12:7-12 the Lord (through Nathan) says that he anointed David, and that David is to be punished for following his lust.
38:26 was probably more subversive than ibn al-Rabbah was willing to allow. By ordering the caliph to "judge between men truly", the author was calling upon the caliph to judge himself.
Alphonse Mingana, operating on the assumption that the Prophet had written the
tale, concluded he acted out of ignorance:
"In these cases, too, Midrash is mixed up with Biblical matter, and the attempt to reproduce the story of the scene between David and Nathan (xxxviii. 20-23) suggests that he had known the story at one time, but had afterwards forgotten its context and many important details.
"
But the earliest witnesses to 38:26 did not read it in the context of
Mingana's Qur'an, instead relating it to a ruler who was a sinner.
Accordingly one must find another reason for its current state.
Another question is, where did the author of that sura get the impression he could get away with altering both history and Scripture? The answer to that one is probably, in early Abbasid Baghdad. Before the age of al-Walid, the Caliphate's centre of gravity was the Mediterranean and the Near East; where Jews, Christians, Ismailites, and even Mandaeans and Manichaeans all read and accepted 2 Samuel, as either a prophecy or a history. But after al-Walid, the borders extended beyond the Oxus and the Indus to the east, to lands where copies of the Old Testament were hard to come by. When the Abbasids came to power, it was no longer necessary to rely on the Hebrew / Christian scriptures to explain the prophecy that helped legitimise the new dynasty.
It was no longer desirable, either. The author of sura 38 had to answer: if David were such a sinner that he had become a target of prophecy, why he could be worthy of authoring prophecies himself (in the Psalms). This was not a new problem; the Book of Chronicles had long before censored out 2 Samuel 12 for its new history of that age. Besides that, there was the ongoing annoyance of how to justify Arab rule from Jewish holy texts.
Our author decided to make an Arabic holy text out of it, in effect harmonising 2 Samuel 12 with the Book of Chronicles. He took 38:26 and 2 Samuel 12 (or an apocryphal derivative) and made David worthy of the title of rasulullah. The result was close enough to the original, and pious enough, for the non-educated to accept it, for the half-educated to confuse it, and for the educated to prefer it.
Sura 38:26 is a quote from a book or oral-tradition of prophecy. But not Muhammad's. This was in Nathan's context and was most likely attributed to Nathan and Allah both.
As it happens, Nathan had been considered a canonical prophet, worthy of a holy book,
long before the Islamic and even Christian eras.
1 Chronicles 29:29 runs,
"As for the events of King David's reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer
".
Sura 38:26, perhaps with a reworking of 2 Samuel 12 midway toward sura 38:21-25, could have provided an apocryphal Book of Nathan, in the way mediaeval Jews and Englishmen forged Books of Jasher. Admittedly this is speculation. No such book has yet been found.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^)
zimriel@sbcglobal.netThe first version of this project was written 12-16 March 2003 from a 9 March idea. 26 March: Uthman was busier than I'd thought. 5 April: the al-Ma'idah project forced clarity upon this one. 6 April: Deleted references to 5:77, added al-hisab references.