As stated in the previous article, just as with Solomon who was first praised for his spiritual excellence and wisdom, and then strengthened with 2 examples to illustrate these God-given attributes, David is praised for 2 particular reasons in 38:17-26.
The first one is that He was a mighty man, a possessor of power but would nevertheless always piously return to God. This means that he was never self complacent as would someone else in his position normally become, and was of very humble, pious nature. A sign of his deep piety is that he would be joined by virtually all earthly creation, animate or inanimate, in his hymns to God.
The second reason for which David is praised is that his dominion was strengthened through wisdom and insightful judgements, not through evil and perverse means as is most often the case for powerful worldly leaders. These God-given qualities are then practically illustrated through a significant incident considering the evil depiction of David in the HB. In those corrupt scriptures David is one who unashamedly abuses of his status to forcefully rob the weak of his possession, namely Uriah who was murdered and his wife Bathsheba taken.
Read on its own, without any filter and preconceived notions, the incident as reported in the Quran clearly and concisely conveys its message, while restoring David's dignity to those who do read it with some falsehood in mind;
Two groups of people (the plural in the verse is for more than 2) succeeded in stealthily climbing the wall outside his private chambers. The word used implies a structure difficult to surmount, as in a fortress. Obviously David was shocked and scared when these unknown individuals suddenly appeared in his private quarters. Who other than criminals would sneak in this manner to find a king at an inappropriate time, circumventing the usual protocol, escaping his guards' vigilance and avoiding the normal entrance to his palace? Seeing his nervousness, the visitors tried pacifying him, identifying themselves and their motivations. They do not mean him any harm, but were however firm in their speech and their demands, almost confrontational in their wording. They have come to him as rival parties in a dispute, demanding for a just, unbiased and upright verdict as is expected from any ruler, let alone David who was in addition a prophet, and proceeded by stating their case.
David patiently listened, controlling his initial fear. Or else he would have tried escaping or calling for the guards. The case involved 2 brothers within these groups of people. One brother is mightier and wealthier than the other, possessing a numerous ewe herd and the other, relatively poor having a single ewe. The powerful one wants to forcefully join that single ewe to his large flock, and the poor man is being harshly pressed into doing so (he has not done it yet).
David swiftly condemned that conduct from the wealthy person, who did not protest the verdict. David also makes a general observation on human behavior in similar situations, where the powerful very often takes advantage of his status and abuses the rights of the weak. Exception is made of those who adhere to correct faith and do righteous deeds, with an emphasis on the fact that such people who are rich and powerful while at the same time combining wisdom, correct faith and uprightness are very few.
As these last words were uttered the visitors left as abruptly as they came.
This mysterious and frightening encounter now revealed itself clearly to David. Their inexplicable, almost impossible arrival, their firm demands and bold manners of speech unbecoming of a king's subjects, how they trespassed at the most inappropriate time and in the most private area of their king's palace, the bizarre silence of the "guilty" despite the accusations made against him, as well as during and after the verdict was issued, as if he knew his wrong since the beginning. But yet if he did know his wrong, being a rich and influential person, how was he convinced by the weak party to be involved in such an audacious, potentially life threatening endeavour of infiltrating the king's chambers, and all this just to be reprimanded by the king himself? Then, their rapid retreat as soon as the judgement and spiritual observations were made, not even interested in getting into the formalities and procedures of how the verdict is to be practically applied. All these factors and others known only to one physically present at the scene and as insightful as a prophet, pointed to these men coming with a purpose other than mere settling of a mutual dispute. It was a test from God in the shape of a fictitious case and with moral lessons to be derived from it, in other words a parable. There is a reason why many early commentators have argued that these visitors were in fact angels.
David passed that test with flying colors, in accordance with his God-given qualities mentioned in introduction, despite being put under the pressure of compromising emotions and a psychologically disturbing situation. David then, being one who is never arrogant and self complacent, one who always piously returns to God, acted accordingly. He sought Allah's istighfar which literally means seeking God's covering. The passage doesnt ascribe any willful rebellion or sin to David, much less of such a horrendous sin as he is accused of in the HB, considering the description that is made of him in introduction. David's prayer of istighfar is thus one of humility for possible shortcomings, as the Quran enjoins on all believers.
God is described with the word "ghafur", stemming from Gh-F-R meaning covering something. That covering can be for the purpose of hiding, or protecting, as well as both. The implication is that God provides a covering upon the person to hide the sins of the past in case there were any 5:65 all the while providing a protection from the potential sins of the future, by increasing the person's spirituality. It is up to the believer to maintain that covering of protection throughout his life, elsewhere referred to as the garment of God-consciousness 7:26. If he loses it, he is again exposed to moral and spiritual failure. His past sins will remain hidden/forgiven but the future ones will have to be rectified
14:10"He calls you to forgive for you OF your sins".
This, as a side note, strikes at the notion of guaranteed salvation and forgiveness from sins -past and future- which is propounded by certain belief systems and more particularly Christianity.
The believers and prophets have always asked God to provide them with ghafr, the covering that hides and/or protects. It comes with merit as often repeated in the HB Ps23:1,85:3 but its implications far surpass in value the level of merit needed to obtain it. God only requires in exchange sincerity and resolve in walking aright. The correct mindframe, as exemplified with the prophets who constantly sought the ghafr from Allah, is to feel that one's righteous actions are defective, that they could always be improved since nobody can claim perfection of action besides God 47:19. As reported in the NT
Mk10:18"“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone".
By seeking the ghafr from Allah, the believer shows his humility so that Allah might accept one's imperfect deeds done with sincerity and to please Him, and cover their inherent shortcomings.
David, in his humility and wisdom did not want even to be even indirectly responsible for a sin, and thus asked for Allah's protection. After successfully passing the test and in addition drawing the right lessons from it asks God to cover his inherent shortcomings that could indirectly lead to abuse of power and misjudgement. He then humbles himself in prostration, a grateful token that his wisdom in judgement is due to God, and finally piously turns to God as he has the habit of doing.
God answers his prayer in the next 2 verses, David has been given ghafr/covering/protection in authority and judgement. He is reminded of his eminent status in the world as well as the qualities expected from one who has been drawn near to God; wisdom in judgement between men, steadfastness in God's way and rejection of all falsehood, whether coming from inside or outside one's self.
The slanderous scribes of the Bible however still found a way to disparage him and his household despite his lofty character, blindly passing off his enemies' malicious talk as facts, probably even contributing to it. The death of Batsheba's husband and subsequent marriage to David was too much of a coincidence for their lowly mentality and thus accused David of adultery and murder. They constantly needed to shift the blame for their own sins and subsequent destructions, on their leaders' "misguidance". The true God does not let the names of his noble servants, the prophets and their households to be dishonored in this manner
24:23-5"Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet shall bear witness against them as to what they did. On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth".
Some insidious critics, based on a superficial reading of both the above incident and the Bible, have attempted drawing a parallel with a slightly similar story related in 2Sam12, the only similarity being that it involves a rich man with a large flock of lambs, and a poor man with only one. The case is brought forth to David by the prophet Nathan who recites the parable; the rich man receives a visitor and instead of offering one of his many lambs as a meal, stole the one of the poor and prepared it. The whole thing is presented as a metaphor of David's supposed sin of stealing another man's only wife while he himself had many. The critics continue that just as the Biblical story denounces David's lust, the Quran's version is equally a rebuke of Muhammad's supposed similar sins. Besides the fact that in the Quran, the poorman's sheep is not taken by the wealthy person, there only is mention and condemnation of attempted forceful persuasion, thus cancelling the attempted "parallel" with any of Muhammad's alleged sins, why would in addition Muhammad who according to them is the Quran's author, include in it a severe reprove of his real life misbehavior?
Also, anyone familiar with the Bible, which never is the case of those puerile critics despite their Judeo-Christian background, would understand that parables and metaphors involving flocks are common. Jesus himself makes use of it, in his parable of the rich herdsman determined in going after one lost sheep from his herd until he takes it back Lk15. At a very superficial glance this could just be as similar to the story in 2Sam12 as the Quranic parable supposedly is.
As a final note, one shouldnt be surprised at seeing sins like idolatry, adultery, murder and the like being attributed to the Biblical prophets. It is a common theme in the Bible that the many divine chastisements that befell the Israelites were due to sins which they were mislead into commiting by their own prophets, leaders, kings. This is besides the rampant tribal prejudice running all through their history, the puerile vilification of characters and the internal conflicts.
It is also worthwhile mentioning the tribal tension surrounding the Davidic line. After Solomon's death, his kingdom was divided, allegedly as a divine punishment for his sins, including the sin of idolatry which eventually dragged the entire nation. We see here how the divine justice plays out, punishing others for someone else's crime. Most certainly, far from that noble prophet being the instigator of this greatest sin and the cause of its re-introduction into the Israelites' lives, this yet again confirms the nation's constant and stubborn ingratitude. Moses had foreseen their turning away from the straight path into the sin of idolatry. Virtually all prophets that followed him kept on condemning them for that constant fall out into the ways of the pagan nations.
This lack of faith resulted in them majoritarly defecting from the house of David and the divine covenant itself. The nation split in 2; the kingdom of Israel to the north with Samaria for capital and the rebellious and polytheist Jeroboam as its king, and the tiny kingdom of Judah, comprised of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had remained faithful to David and Solomon's royal line, with Jerusalem as capital to the south and Solomon's son Rehoboam as king
Hos12:1"Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but Judah still rules with God, and with the Holy One he is faithful".Both kingdoms remained at war with one another throughout their respective leaders' reigns.
It certainly isnt difficult to imagine how this inter tribal hatred resulted in the kind of insidious accusations as David, Solomon and other prophets were victims of.
The Hebrew Bible is literally filled with such examples.
