1. Introduction
The central section in Q 38 (Sūrat Ṣād) tells the story of three Biblical prophets: David, Solomon, and Job, and concludes with an exhortation to remember the patriarchs and a few other Biblical prophets (for ease of reference, this final subsection will simply be referred to as the ‘patriarchs pericope’). There is a brief interlude of a few verses between the David and Solomon pericopes that reflect on the purpose of creation, the fate of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the status of the scripture. The central section of the sura in its entirety is given below, divided into thematic subsections:1
David pericope (vv. 17–26)
17 Bear patiently [singular] with what they say, and remember Our servant David, the man of might. He was a penitent.
18 We subdued the mountains to give glory with him at evening and sunrise;
19 And (We subdued) the birds gathered up, all turning to him.
20 We strengthened his dominion, and We gave him wisdom and decisive speech.
21 Have you heard of the tidings of the disputants when they scaled into the chamber,
22 When they went in to see David, and he took fright at them? They said, ‘Do not be afraid. [We are] two disputants, one of whom has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth, and do not transgress, and guide us to the level path.’
23 ‘This is my brother. He has ninety-nine ewes and I have one ewe, and he says, “Entrust it to me”, and he has overpowered me in speech.’
24 He said, ‘He has wronged you in asking you to add your ewe to his. Many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good works, and how few they are!’ David realized that We had tested him, and he sought forgiveness from his Lord, and he fell in prostration and repented.
25 So we forgave Him that. He had nearness to Us and a fair resort.
26 ‘O David, We have made you a vicegerent in the land. Judge between the people in truth. Do not follow caprice, lest it make you stray from the way of God. Those who stray from the way of God will have a severe punishment for having forgotten about the Day of Reckoning.’
Interlude (vv. 27–29)
27 We did not create in vain the heavens and the earth and what is between them. That is the conjecture of those who are ungrateful. Woe to the ungrateful because of the Fire!
28 Shall We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like those who do mischief in the land? Shall We make those who protect themselves like the profligates?
29 A scripture which We have sent down to you, blessed, for them to ponder its signs and for those of understanding to reflect.
Solomon pericope (vv. 30–40)
30 We gave Solomon to David. How excellent a servant! He was penitent.
31 (Recall) when he was shown the standing steeds in the evening,
32 And he said, ‘I have loved the love of good things on the basis of the remembrance of my Lord,’ until it/they disappeared behind the veil.
33 ‘Bring it/them back to me.’ And he began to stroke their legs and necks.
34 We tried Solomon and set on his throne a body. Then he repented.
35 He said, ‘My Lord, forgive me and give me a dominion that will not be appropriate for anyone after me. Surely, You are the giver!’
36 So We made the wind subject to him, running at his command, gently, wherever he decided,
37 Likewise the devils, every builder and diver,
38 And others linked together in fetters:
39 ‘This is Our gift. Bestow or withhold without reckoning.’
40 He had nearness to Us and a fair resort.
Job pericope (vv. 41–44)
41 Mention Our servant Job, when he called out to his Lord, saying, ‘Satan has touched me with fatigue and torment.’
42 ‘Stamp with your foot. This is a cool washing-place and a drink.’
43 We gave to him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us and as a reminder for those of understanding:
44 ‘Take in your hand a bundle of herbs, and strike with it, and do not break your oath.’ We found him patient. How excellent a servant! He was penitent.
Patriarchs pericope (vv. 45–48)
45 Mention Our servants Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, those of might and vision.
46 We distinguished them with a pure quality, remembrance of the Abode.
47 With Us they are of the chosen, the good.
48 Mention Ismāʿīl (=Samuel?) and Elisha and Dhū l-Kifl (=Elijah?). Each [of them] is one of the chosen.
There are several puzzling features in each pericope: What are the mistakes from which David and Solomon felt the need to repent, and for which they were forgiven (vv. 24–25, 34–35)? What is the significance of the strange manner by which the disputants enter upon David (v. 21–22)? What is it that ‘disappeared behind the veil’ (v. 32)? What did Solomon desire to be returned to him (v. 33)? (Note that for vv. 32–33 the referent of the feminine singular verb and pronoun could be a feminine singular noun, such as shams, ‘sun,’ or a non-human plural, such as ‘horses.’) What is the mysterious body cast upon Solomon’s throne? Why is Job asked to take a bundle of grass, and who is he striking with it (v. 44)? How do the three primary prophetic pericopes hang together, and how do they relate to the interlude and the concluding patriarchs pericope, and indeed the rest of the sura? In what follows, I will first consider the most prominent interpretations of key aspects of these passages, before suggesting a new reading.
2. Previous Readings of the Prophetic Stories in Q 38
David
For a systematic analysis of how the Q 38 David pericope was interpreted in tafsīr literature, see Khaleel Mohammed, David in the Muslim Tradition.2 On the whole, the exegetes attempted to solve some of the above-mentioned problems through recourse to the Biblical tradition with which they were familiar, the so-called isrāʾīliyyāt.3 Indeed, Ibn ʿAṭiyya (d. 541/1146) is explicit that the Qur’anic account of David here cannot be understood without making use of extra-Qur’anic stories that explicate it.4 Western scholars, from Abraham Geiger onwards, have similarly attempted to trace these pericopes to their Biblical and para-Biblical origins to fill in the gaps in the Qur’anic accounts.5 Gabriel Reynolds is forthright on the matter: ‘This passage is hardly comprehensible unless account is taken of its Biblical subtext, namely the parable told to David by the prophet Nathan after the king’s fornication with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah.’6
The relevant passage from 2 Sam. is as follows:
It happened, late one afternoon, when David rose from his couch and was walking about on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; the woman was very beautiful. David sent someone to inquire about the woman. It was reported, ‘This is Bathsheba daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.’ So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she was purifying herself after her period.) Then she returned to her house. The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, ‘I am pregnant.’ (2 Sam. 11:2–5)
After David learns of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, he hurriedly recalls her husband, Uriah the Hittite, from the war effort, and tries to persuade him to go home to Bathsheba. Uriah, however, refuses to allow himself such a luxury, while ‘the ark and Israel and Judah remain in booths; and my lord Joab [the general of David’s army] and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field,’ (v. 11). When no amount of inducement can sway Uriah, David eventually sends him back to the battlefield, instructing Joab to ‘set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die’ (v. 15). He subsequently takes Bathsheba as his wife. The story continues:
… and the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, ‘There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meagre fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveller to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.’ Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, ‘As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.’ Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man! …’ (2 Sam. 12:1–7)
David is moved to remorse and repentance and is forgiven by God (v. 13). There are obvious differences with the Qur’anic account, the most prominent being that the parable told by Nathan in the Biblical story is transformed to an actual dispute that takes place before David.7 Nonetheless, the Biblical narrative clearly provides relevant background to the Qur’anic passage (although see below). Speyer also cites Matt. 18:12 as a possible influence for the ninety-nine vs one sheep motif and Josh. 2:11–15 for the two men scaling into the king’s chamber. Neither passage is at all related to the Biblical David, so Speyer suggests that the Qur’anic story is an amalgamation of these disparate elements.8 Gobillot, accepting Speyer’s suggestion that the number of sheep is taken from Matt. 18:12 (with parallels in Luke 15:4 and Ezek. 34:1–4), which is about concern for every single sheep in one’s flock, attempts to fuse the message from that passage with the David story:
The lesson that thus emerges from Q 38 verses 23 and 24 is that the union of David and Bathsheba was among the events willed by God, insofar as the future mother of Solomon is identified with the one-hundredth sheep of the Gospel and is thereby considered as already belonging, despite appearances, to the shepherd David.9
This seems to be a stretch. Far more plausible is Neuwirth’s suggestion that the introduction of the number of sheep is simply a rhetorical means of inducing greater sympathy for the owner of the single sheep.10 Further, rather than scouring the Bible for parables involving the same number of sheep as in the Qur’anic pericope, the contrast between the two brothers might be a Qur’anic development of rabbinic reports of how David would adjudicate with justice and mercy between a rich man and a poor man, giving to each his due (b. Sanh. 6b).
Solomon
Filling in narrative gaps with details from Biblical and para-Biblical intertexts has proven to be more challenging for the Q 38 Solomon pericope, as the parallels between the former and the Qur’an are not as evident. Speyer suggests that the pericope is connected to Deut. 17:16, which prohibits the king from acquiring a great number of horses, and 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25, which explicitly ascribe to Solomon a large number of horse stables. He also cites 2 Kings 23:11, in which Josiah removes from the Temple the horses dedicated to the sun. As for the body that was set upon Solomon’s throne (v. 34), Speyer connects it with the Talmudic story of the demon Ashmedai, who for a while takes over Solomon’s throne.11
The exegetes offered various explanations for the enigmatic expressions in the passage. The phrase ‘until it/they disappeared (tawārat) behind the veil’ (v. 32) was generally understood by the mediaeval exegetes as referring to the sun setting before Solomon had performed his afternoon prayer.12 His command to ‘bring it/them back (ruddūhā)’ (v. 33) was accordingly taken by the exegetes to mean that he commanded the sun to reverse its course so that he could pray on time. Then, as the love of horses had distracted him from his worship, he ordered that they be slaughtered: ‘And he began to stroke their legs and necks’ (v. 33; see below for this interpretation of the verse). Despite the modern scholarly insistence on separating the Qur’an from its exegesis, the mediaeval gloss regarding the sun changing its course and turning back is still widely accepted as the correct reading for this verse.13
Job
The narrative outline of the Job pericope is clearly the same as that presented in the Biblical Book of Job: Job is a devout servant of God being tested by Satan (v. 41 – cf. Job 1–2), who after suffering terrible hardship is finally healed with his family restored to him (v. 43 – cf. Job 42). Despite the relatively clear Biblical parallel, the Job pericope also poses several interpretive difficulties, such as the manner in which Job is healed.14 It is to such difficulties in all of the stories that we will turn below.
These various attempts, whether mediaeval or modern, to understand the Q 38 prophetic stories in light of their Biblical antecedents leave several of the questions posed at the start of the present essay unaddressed. I propose that this is because here, as so frequently elsewhere in the Qur’an, the scripture is using themes and topoi associated with the prophetic figures in question in a highly innovative way, to further its own theological message. A close reading of the text on its own terms is thus a necessary condition for deciphering the meaning of these stories.
3. Sura Unity
The sura deploys several lexical repetitions that both span across the prophetic stories and occur outside of them, linking the stories to each other and to the rest of the sura, and strongly suggesting that the stories complement each other and are to be understood in light of the sura as a whole. Table 7.1 lists those lexical features of Q 38 that clearly serve to unify the whole sura.15 The items listed are those that do not occur at all outside Q 38, or else do so only rarely, and thus may legitimately be considered as sura-binding features in Q 38. Various other lexical and structural overlaps between the prophetic pericopes that are not unique to Q 38 will be presented as we progress.
Repeated lexical items in Q 38 that are unique or nearly unique to the sura
The multiple lexical overlaps presented in table 7.1, as well as those to be discussed below, suggest the broad literary coherence of the sura. As we proceed, due consideration must therefore be given to the relationship of each part to the whole.
4. David
We are told two things about David at the start of his pericope (v. 17): he is possessed of might (dhā l-ayd) and is penitent (awwāb). This duality is developed in the next few verses. He has been given a sublime form of worship, such that the mountains and the birds ‘give glory with him at evening and sunrise’ (vv. 18–19). Alongside this, he has also been given a great dominion, and the ability to rule as a wise king (v. 20). All of this points to David’s combination of earthly kingship and pietistic devotion at the head of God’s created order, which I shall frequently refer to respectively as worldly and religious ‘authority’. This is a picture of David familiar from his Biblical and late antique presentation. Alongside being a king, ‘David and all the house of Israel were dancing before the Lord with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals’ (2 Sam. 6:5). David is also, of course, both in the Qur’an and in Christian and Jewish tradition, the proclaimer of the Psalms, which are replete with the language of nature singing God’s praise (e.g., Ps. 148:7–10).16 This image of David was developed among both Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity, both of whom fused it with the image of Orpheus, the Greek poet of legend who could charm animals with his lyre. Late antique synagogal and funerary depictions of David likewise have him playing his harp to animals, including, in the early fourth century Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus in Rome, being surrounded by birds.17 This duality, David as king and David as harper, was noted explicitly by Clement of Alexandria.18
The significance to sura-specific concerns of David’s being doubly blessed in this manner is clear when we consider the sura’s opening section, before the prophetic pericopes, which introduces the themes of worldly and religious authority. In v. 2, we are told that ‘those who have rejected are in pride (ʿizza) and schism (shiqāq).’ The first of these two characteristics, ʿizza, indicates worldly conceit (cf. Q 2:206, 4:139, 11:91.92, 18:34, 27:34, and 63:8 for similar uses of the root ʿ-z-z); shiqāq on the other hand refers to religious deviation (see Q 2:137.176 and 41:52 for other clear uses of shiqāq with this sense).19
Over the next few verses, the themes of worldly and religious authority are alluded to several times:
6 The notables (al-malaʾ) among them go off, saying, ‘Go and be steadfast to your gods. That is a thing to be desired.
7 We have not heard of this in (our) present religion.20 This is something that has been invented.
8 Has the reminder been sent down to him from among us [all]?’ No! They are in doubt about My reminder. No! They have not yet tasted My punishment.
Verses 6 refers to the notables (malaʾ) among the pagan rejectors of Muhammad’s message,21 a term used throughout the Qur’an to refer to the social elite in a society.22 This malaʾ evidently also sees itself in a position of religious authority vis-à-vis their social inferiors, to whom they impart religious instructions (vv. 6–7). In v. 8, the notables take umbrage at the idea that they should have been overlooked as recipients of divine revelation.
We see this pairing of worldly power and religious authority in the opening section most clearly in vv. 9 and 10, which form a structural doublet:
9 Or (am) have they the treasuries of the mercy of your Lord, the mighty and the munificent?
10 Or (am) have they the dominion (mulk) of the heavens and the earth and what is between them? Let them ascend the means (to reach Him)!
The ‘treasuries of the mercy of your Lord’ in v. 9 refers to God’s choice to send down His revelation to whomever He wishes, as is clear from their question in the preceding verse: ‘Has the reminder (dhikr) been sent down to him from among us’ (v. 8). Verse 9 thus asks rhetorically whether they have any right to determine who the recipients of scripture ought to be – i.e., who may be given religious authority –, and v. 10 dismisses any pretensions of worldly power they think they have as insignificant in contrast to God’s complete dominion. As we will see, several key words here recur in the prophetic pericopes.
The common themes between the sura opening and the David pericope indicates that the latter in some way responds to the Meccan pagans’ dual claim of worldly and religious superiority. That this is the case is also evident from the way the David pericope opens: ‘Bear patiently [singular] with what they say, and remember Our servant David …’ (v. 17), which leads us to expect a response to the issues introduced in the sura opening.
We again see the pairing of religious and worldly authority in the patriarchs pericope, which concludes the prophetic pericopes: ‘Mention Our servants Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, men of might (ulī l-aydī) and vision (al-abṣār)’ (v. 45). The phrase ulī l-aydī echoes the near identical dhā l-ayd (man of might) in v. 17 in reference to David, ulū being the plural of dhū. Once again, this reference to the patriarchs’ worldly power is conjoined with their religious insight, or ‘vision.’ Note that the three prophets mentioned next, Ismāʿīl, al-Yasaʿ, and Dhū l-Kifl, have recently been argued to refer to Samuel (rather than Ishmael), Elisha, and Elijah respectively,23 all of whom were Biblical prophets who both commanded significant religious authority, and were also known for their relationship to Israelite rulers: Samuel with Saul and David, Elijah with Ahab, and Elisha with Jehu.
Returning to David, the connection between how he is introduced and the sura opening suggests that his double gift of religious and worldly authority is presented in contrast to the pagans, who certainly do not have the former, and are only deluded in thinking they have the latter. Several lexical links reinforce this distinction. Verse 10 had asked rhetorically whether the pagans, have dominion (mulk) over the heavens and the earth, while v. 20 affirms that God Himself strengthened David’s dominion (mulk). Verse 2 had presented the pagans as having pride (ʿizza) over their higher worldly status, which was causing them to reject the Qur’an, while, as we will see, David’s judgement in the matter of the two disputants corrects the overbearing behavior of the richer, who has ‘overpowered’ (aʿazza) the poorer one in speech. In both instances, the root ʿ-z-z implies an abuse and delusion of power that results in wrongful behavior, which, in the case of the richer brother, David – whose dominion God has strengthened – is able to correct.
After David is thus introduced, two disputants who need him to adjudicate in their case scale a wall to reach him in his miḥrāb (v. 21). Although this word is used consistently in the Qur’an for the Jerusalem Temple (Q 3:37.39, 19:11),24 it seems likely here that its primary signification is a palace, or perhaps royal chamber (but see below).25 David’s fright is taken by some readers as an indication of his engrossment in devotional acts.26 Neuwirth’s explanation is more convincing: this episode is strongly reminiscent of the angelic visitation to Abraham in Q 51:24–34. In both episodes, the visitors reassure the prophet, ‘Do not be afraid (lā takhaf)’ (Q 51:28 and 38:22), continuing the Biblical theme of a sense of awe and fear at the presence of angels (e.g., Dan. 10:10–12; Matt. 28:2–5; Luke 1:11–13, 2:9–10).
Having heard the case, David rules in favour of the poorer brother, recognising how common it is for business partners to wrong one another, except for a small minority who believe and do good works (v. 24). This ruling triggers a realization in David that he is being tested, and so he repents, and is duly forgiven (vv. 24–25). As mentioned above, the connection between this pericope and the Bathsheba episode was readily made by both the earlier mufassirūn and Western scholars, and it can hardly be disputed that that is indeed in the background here. Even the disputants’ entering the king’s chamber forcefully and uninvited may be an allusion to Bathsheba’s experience.27 Yet, the very allusiveness of the reference places the focus squarely on David’s repentance and God’s forgiveness. In this regard, the Qur’an’s telling of the incident stands in line with both Christian and rabbinic accounts that used the story as an illustration of the necessity of repentance and a demonstration of God’s forgiveness (though we should also note a second trend in the Bavli, which sought to downplay David’s sin, and even to suggest that he had not sinned at all).28 Consider for instance 1 Clem., who also introduces David’s story in an allusive way, omitting the details of the events in favour of focussing on repentance and mercy:
1 And what shall we say about David, who had such a good reputation? God said concerning him [Or: to him], ‘I have found a man after my own heart, David the son of Jesse. I have anointed him with a mercy that will last forever.’
2 But he himself said to God, ‘Have mercy on me, O God, according to your great mercy, and according to the abundance of your compassion wipe away my unlawful behavior.
3 Even more, wash my lawlessness away from me and cleanse me from my sin; for I know my lawlessness and my sin is always before my eyes.
4 Against you alone have I sinned and done what is evil before your eyes, so that you are shown to be right in your words and victorious when you are brought to court. (1 Clem. 18:1–4)29
As an aside, it may be noted that the allusiveness of the reference to the incident in the Qur’an leaves open the possibility that the audience to whom this sura was first proclaimed had an assumed understanding of the story that was partially informed by rabbinic readings of the Biblical text that are sympathetic to David, which, although acknowledging that David committed a mistake, insisted that he had not committed adultery. Alternatively, the Qur’an may be deliberately non-committal on this point, focusing instead not on the precise sin, but rather David’s piety in seeking forgiveness. As ar-Rāzī notes, interpreting the incident of the disputants as a reference to the Uriah and Bathsheba affair seems to be at odds with the sura’s introducing David as ‘Our servant,’ who would ‘give glory at evening and sunrise.’30 Nonetheless, it is precisely David’s humility in accepting that he had sinned that in Christian readings of the story made him so pleasing to God, and so suitable as a divinely appointed king.31
As we have seen, up until the introduction of the two disputants, the sura had consistently conjoined worldly and religious authority: the pagans, despite their pretensions to the contrary, have neither, while David has both, and is thus presented as a counter against whom the Meccans’ claims are unfavourably measured. Immediately after being forgiven, God reminds David that ‘We have made you a vicegerent (khalīfa) in the land. Judge between the people in truth’ (v. 26). This essentially recalls David’s worldly power and responsibility to which we were introduced at the start of the pericope (vv. 17–20). Key lexical items used to introduce David’s authority at the beginning of this passage, namely wisdom (ḥikma) and decisive speech (khiṭāb) (v. 20), are repeated in telling ways from when the disputants appear in the story to the end of the passage, as shown below:
20 We strengthened his dominion, and We gave him wisdom (ḥikma) and decisive speech (khiṭab).
23 ‘This is my brother … he has overpowered me in speech (khiṭāb).’
26 ‘O David, We have made you a vicegerent in the land. Judge (uḥkum) between the people in truth …’
Such repetition serves to highlight David’s role as a divinely guided king: his decisively just khiṭāb had to correct the rich brother’s domineering one, and as he had been endowed with wisdom (ḥikma), so now he must judge (uḥkum) between people in truth.
Consider also the plea of the weaker brother, that David ‘guide us (ihdinā) to the level path (ṣirāṭ)’ (v. 22). Although he is asking for a just ruling, his vocabulary is strongly reminiscent of the invocation in Sūrat al-Fātiḥa, repeated multiple times in every prayer cycle, ‘Guide us (ihdinā) on the straight path (ṣirāṭ)’ (Q 1:6). By couching the language of his appeal for justice in the language of prayer, we see a fusion of David’s role as worshipper and king; he is reminded that his duties towards his subjects are an extension of his duties to God. This message is foreshadowed earlier in the pericope, where David is described as awwāb, or ‘penitent,’ to God (v. 17), and creation is described using the same term awwāb, now meaning ‘turning,’ to David (v. 19), just as the disputants turned to him. The lexical overlaps with Sūrat al-Fātiḥa continue to the end of the David pericope, where he is warned to not to be unjust in his rule, lest that ‘make you astray (yuḍillaka, root ḍ-l-l) from the way of God’ (v. 26), recalling Q 1:7, where the supplicant prays to be shown the path of ‘those who have not gone astray (ḍāllīn, root ḍ-l-l).’
In summary, the David pericope presents him as possessing both religious and worldly authority, in contrast with the pagans in the opening section, who have neither. David is then reminded of a past personal transgression by the injustice that is brought to his attention in the case of the two brothers. He is thus taught that he cannot separate between piety towards God and his actions as a ruler – not judging ‘between the people in truth’ would make him ‘stray from the way of God’ (v. 26). He readily accepts the admonition and seeks God’s forgiveness.
5. Solomon
Like David, Solomon is described at the start of his pericope as ‘penitent’ (awwāb) (v. 30). Although the opening verse does not explicitly mention his worldly power, our attention is drawn to his being David’s royal successor by the phrase: ‘We gave Solomon to David.’ In a parallel verse, his inheritance is made explicit: ‘Solomon inherited David’ (Q 27:16). The use of ‘We gave’ (wahabnā) in Q 38 rather than ‘Solomon inherited’ allows for the inclusion of one of the sura’s key words (see table 7.1). The next verse proclaims Solomon’s kingly power even more explicitly: ‘(Recall) when he was shown the standing steeds in the evening.’ These are probably meant to be war horses, as is consistent with Solomon’s preparations for war elsewhere in the Qur’an (Q 27:17–44, which tells of the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba). As we will see, there are numerous points of overlap or contrast between the Solomon and David pericopes, which serve to underline the complementarity of two passages.32
There are two phrases in v. 32 that have proven difficult to interpret in the Solomon pericope. The first one is at the opening of the verse:
‘I have loved the love (ḥubb) of good things (al-khayr) rather than / on the basis of (ʿan) the remembrance of my Lord’ (v. 32)
The beginning of Solomon’s speech, ‘I have loved the love of good things,’ may be understood in several ways, and there are similarly multiple possible renderings for the immediately preceding preposition ʿan, as shown in the translation above. The mufassirūn suggest two possibilities for understanding the verse:33 (1) the verb ‘loved’ here means ‘preferred,’ which renders the verse: ‘I have preferred the love of good things in place of the remembrance of my Lord’ (the other possible translation for ʿan, ‘on the basis of,’ does not fit with this reading); (2) the noun ‘love’ is a cognate accusative verbal noun (mafʿūl muṭlaq), used merely to emphasize its antecedent verb, in a construct structure (iḍāfa) with the noun khayr, which latter is the true object. This renders the verse: ‘I have truly loved good things …’ The first possibility should be dismissed, as it expresses a recognition on Solomon’s part that he has allowed himself to become distracted from God’s remembrance too early in the pericope – as with the parallel David pericope, it will take a crisis to bring about this realisation.
This analysis also helps us determine the correct meaning of ʿan. We must agree with ar-Rāzī that it means ‘on the basis of,’ and not ‘rather than,’ as the latter, once again, places Solomon’s insight into his mistake, whatever it might have been, too early in the narrative. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why he continues to tend to his horses (vv. 32–33) rather than address his neglect of remembering God if he has become aware of it. We shall return to the significance of this ʿan phrase below, in particular why Solomon provides a reason for his love of horses here. Note that, as ar-Rāzī argues, there is no justification for interpreting v. 33, as some of the mufassirūn do, to mean meaning that Solomon began to slaughter his horses.34
Verse 32 closes with the phrase:
… until it/they disappeared behind the veil.
What was it that disappeared behind the veil? The general interpretation, as mentioned above, has been that this refers to the sun, which, although it has not been explicitly mentioned, was perhaps alluded to in v. 31 when the time of Solomon’s inspection was given as the evening.35 This reading seems implausible. Ar-Rāzī’s suggestion that the referent is not the sun, but the horses which have just been mentioned, seems far more likely to be correct.36 The horses Solomon was presented with in v. 31 were described as jiyād (translated above as ‘steeds’), which the lexicographers describe as a horse that is excellent in running.37 The phrase ‘until they disappeared behind the veil (ḥijāb)’ would appear to refer to the horses disappearing out of sight, having raced away beyond Solomon’s vision, as suggested by Solomon’s next statement, ‘Bring them back to me’ (v. 33). The seemingly unusual use of ḥijāb, as well as the sensuous, even sensual language that follows (‘And he began to stroke their legs and necks’) in fact creates another literary connection with the David pericope, if we bear in mind the Biblical – or more accurately, rabbinic – intertext that lies behind the latter, in which David sees Bathsheba only after the screen (ḥltʾ) behind which she was bathing is inadvertently removed (b. Sanh. 107a), following which he has her brought to his palace.38
Verse 34 then introduces a test (using the same root f-t-n as was used for David’s test in v. 24) that will bring about Solomon’s repentance (anāb, again the same word used in the David pericope in v. 24). Let us first consider why Solomon was tested, and what the relationship is between the test and his tending to horses. The rabbis frequently found fault in Solomon for breaking the three rules for future Israelite kings in Deuteronomy 17:39
16 Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You must never return that way again.’
17 And he must not acquire many wives for himself or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.
The three commandments here, viz. that the king not take many horses, wives, or gold and silver, were all contravened by Solomon. The Bavli explains why Solomon broke the commandments:
R. Isaac also said: Why were the reasons of [some] Biblical laws not revealed? – Because in two verses reasons were revealed, and they caused the greatest in the world [Solomon] to stumble. Thus it is written: And he must not acquire many wives for himself (Deut. 17:17), whereon Solomon said, ‘I will acquire wives yet not let my heart be perverted.’ Yet we read, When Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart (1 Kings 11:4). Again it is written: he must not acquire many horses for himself (Deut. 17:16); concerning which Solomon said, ‘I will acquire them, but will not cause [Israel] to return [to Egypt].’ Yet we read: And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six [hundred shekels of silver] (1 Kings 10:29), (b. Sanh. 21b).
According to the rabbis, Solomon felt justified in contravening the restrictions placed on kings as he knew the ratio legis for the commandments in the Torah: acquiring many wives will make the king’s heart turn away from God, and acquiring many horses will require a return to Egypt, even if just for the purchase of the steeds. Solomon believed that as long as his wives and horses did not cause him to turn away from God or establish trade with Egypt, he was not properly in violation of the law. Yet, in the end, his contravention of the letter of the law did in fact lead to his violating the spirit of the law.
As seen above, Solomon in the Qur’an also gives a reason for his acquiring horses. Why he should do so is somewhat inexplicable unless read against this rabbinic background. In the Qur’an, his insistence that his love for acquiring horses is grounded in his remembrance of God indicates an apologetic defence of his actions, and thus a recognition on his part that he may be perceived as going against the law in some respect. (Note also the word for ‘remembrance,’ dhikr, is elsewhere used in the Meccan Qur’an for the Torah – see Q 16:43; 21:7.105 –, and for revelation more broadly, including in v. 8 of the present sura.)40 This also explains the sequence of events in the narrative: Solomon attempts to cement his worldly authority by going outside the law (vv. 31–33), which only leads to his throne being taken away to teach him a lesson (v. 34, see below), and finally to a recognition that true power is from God (vv. 35–39).
What then was the body, or jasad, set upon Solomon’s throne in v. 34? Jasad is used elsewhere in the Qur’an to describe Israel’s Golden Calf, which was ‘a body (jasad) that lows’ (Q 7:148, 20:88), or else to deny that any prophet prior to Muhammad was a mere jasad who neither ate nor drank (Q 21:8), in response to pagan opposition to a human messenger. In other words, a jasad has the appearance of a body, but is either not alive, or not fully human. The text is once again allusive, but it seems the identification of the jasad with the demon Ashmedai mentioned above is the best candidate.41 In the Talmudic accounts, Ashmedai (ʾšmdʾy) takes Solomon’s kingdom by imitating his form (b. Git. 68a-b). The Talmudic account gives Solomon’s desire to build his Temple as the motivation for his subjugation of demons, including Ashmedai, following which Ashmedai is able to capture his throne. In the Qur’an however the incident of the jasad precedes Solomon’s repentance and subsequent power over the demons who are expert builders (bannāʾ) and divers (ghawwāṣ), presumable for pearls (vv. 34–38). In other words, the order of events is reversed. Thus, where the rabbis were unsure whether Solomon ever regained his kingdom following Ashmedai’s usurping it (b. Git. 68b), by reversing the order of events, the Qur’an creates a narrative that parallels the earlier David pericope much more closely, where each of the two Israelite kings’ repentance is followed by a confirmation, indeed (in the case of Solomon) an expansion of their worldly authority.
On this reading, we have several more parallels with David’s story: just as the angels forcefully entered his royal chamber, so now the demon forcefully takes Solomon’s throne.42 Like David, Solomon repents (v. 35), and we are left to understand that he is forgiven. The pericope concludes in v. 40 with: ‘He had nearness to Us and a fair resort,’ a verbatim repetition of the second clause in v. 25 for David. Thus, in both the David and Solomon story, we encounter a prophet who is devoted to God and divinely appointed as a king. In both stories, the authority of the king is called into question, and it is only through repentance that the crisis is resolved. Further, the Solomon and David stories provide us with a fascinating contrast. David used his wisdom to judge between the brothers in a morally praiseworthy way, whereas Solomon used his legal reasoning to illegitimately undermine a scriptural prohibition. Together, the two stories seem to insist on the indispensability of both moral reasoning and scriptural law. Read thus, the narratives seem to be a critique of the legitimacy of the Meccan pagan rejectors’ status as rulers of Mecca: they have no divine right to that role, and neither the scriptural law nor the moral wisdom by which to conduct their responsibilities.
But what are we to make of Solomon’s prayer for a ‘dominion (mulk – cf. v. 20 in the David pericope) that will not be appropriate for anyone after me,’ after which God subjugates (sakhkhara) the winds and demons to his command (vv. 36–38)? (Note that the same verb, sakhkhara, was used in the David pericope for God subjugating the mountains and birds to hymn His praises with David, once more connecting the two stories in a complementary way – God subjugates nature to David for the purpose of assisting his worship, and to Solomon for the purpose of assisting his rule.) Zishan Ghaffar in his recent monograph, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, reads the Q 38 David and Solomon stories as part of a wider Qur’anic strategy of repudiating the Davidic covenant and therefore the promise of a Messianic ruler, expectations for whom were particularly high at the turn of the seventh century.43 The basis of Jewish Messianic expectations was God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel:44
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. 15 But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.16 Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Sam. 7:12–16)
It is through Solomon, who builds the Jerusalem Temple, that this prophecy to David begins to be fulfilled. Note that the Qur’an seems once again to link the David and Solomon story in its use of miḥrāb for David’s royal chamber, a word reserved elsewhere in the Qur’an for the Jerusalem Temple (see above). The Bible similarly indirectly associates David with the Temple by having him prepare the way for the building of the latter by bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:1–5) and by dedicating to the Lord the gold, silver, and copper from the peoples whom he defeats (2 Sam. 8:7–11).
Following the destruction of the First and then Second Temple, and the abolishment of the Davidic line with the Babylonian exile, Jewish exegesis developed the idea of a Messianic figure through whom God’s promise to David of an eternal kingdom for his son Solomon would be fulfilled.45 In contrast, Christian readings of God’s covenant with David emphasized Jesus’s role (rather than Solomon’s) as the son of David through whom the prophecy was fulfilled, and will reach complete fulfillment with Jesus’s second coming. Indeed, Eusebius explicitly denied that Solomon was worthy of being the son of David referenced in the prophecy.46 Through the parallel presentation of Solomon and David, and then through Solomon’s prayer, the Qur’an rejects both the Jewish and Christian accounts: Solomon fulfilled David’s legacy – a point repeatedly driven home by the numerous parallels between the two passages –, but his power shall not be reacquired; Solomon inherits from David, but no-one shall inherit from Solomon.
Ghaffar’s reading is compelling. It is also comprehensible why a sura that provides a commentary on worldly and religious authority and responsibility would include a rejection of a messianism, there being a clear thematic connection between the two subject-matters. Going further, in the context of the sura’s polemics against the pagans in Mecca, the passage possibly means to deny that after Solomon there are any kings who had the divine right to rule,47 a rebuttal of the Meccan elites’ belief in their own status. For more on this, let us turn to the final story in the section.
6. Job
With the last of the three main prophetic pericopes in Q 38, we are presented with yet another contrast. Unlike the mighty Israelite kings David and Solomon, Job is completely powerless, crying out, ‘Satan has touched me with fatigue and torment’ (v. 41). God responds to his complaint by telling him what he needs to do in order to heal in vv. 42 and 44.48 The two verses are interjected by a description of how God restored to Job his health and his family twice over (v. 43). It seems plausible that Job is here a cipher for the persecuted believing community in Mecca, who are also facing torment (ʿadhāb) inspired by Satan (see below), in this case at the hands of the pagans.
We can now begin to see the connection between the three prophetic stories. The David pericope commenced with an imperative to be patient (iṣbir), a root form that reoccurs now in the concluding Job pericope: ‘We found him patient (ṣābir),’ suggesting that the same transformation from powerlessness to a situation of relief awaits the believing community if they too remain steadfast. We had learned in Solomon’s story that he wielded power over the devils (shayāṭīn, v. 37), who were ‘linked together in fetters’ (v. 38). Similarly, just as Job is able to overcome the ill effects of Satan, so too can the believers overcome him and the persecution he occasions. Later in the sura, this motif of Satan’s powerlessness against the righteous is repeated: Iblīs acknowledges that he has no power over God’s ‘devoted (mukhlaṣīn) servants’ (v. 83). The same kh-l-ṣ root is here used for ‘devoted’ as was used to describe the patriarchs is v. 46, ‘We distinguished (akhlaṣnā) them with a pure quality (khāliṣa).’
What is conspicuously missing from the Job pericope is any mention of worldly authority. Perhaps this provides an illustration of sorts of Solomon’s prayer: there is no divine right to rule after Solomon.49 There is, however, relief from hardship and from worldly torment for believers who remain steadfast. The three prophetic stories thus serve to simultaneously critique the pretensions to authority of the Meccan elite and provide comfort and hope to the believers.
7. The Interlude
While this is not a complete study of Q 38, one question that does not directly relate to the prophetic pericopes should nonetheless be addressed: What is the function of the interlude pericope between the David and Solomon stories? I will offer tentative observations here. We should note first of all that David, Solomon, and Job have a unifying characteristic: they are all prophets associated with the Biblical wisdom tradition.50 Within that tradition, the genre of ‘skeptical wisdom’ is particularly associated with Solomon in Ecclesiastes (of which he was assumed to be the author in the rabbinic and Christian traditions) and Job. The sceptical wisdom tradition questions the assumptions of more traditional Israelite wisdom literature, such as Proverbs and Sirach, that people get what they deserve. To quote Proverbs:
The perverse get what their ways deserve,
and the good, what their deeds deserve. (Prov. 14:14)
In all toil there is profit,
but mere talk leads only to poverty. (Prov. 14:23)
The sceptical tradition points out that this is empirically false, most famously in Eccles. 1:
2 Vanity of vanities (Hebrew: hăbēl hăbālîm; Syriac: hbl hblyn), says the Teacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What do people gain from all the toil
at which they toil under the sun?
Note that Eccles. 1:3, cited above, is also cited in b. Git. 68b as a quotation from Solomon after Ashmedai takes his throne.
Not even the pursuit of wisdom, so celebrated in wisdom literature, offers any hope. Thus in Eccles. 2:
13 ‘Then I saw that wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness. 14 The wise have eyes in their head, but fools walk in darkness. Yet I perceived that the same fate befalls all of them. 15 Then I said to myself, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also; why then have I been so very wise?” And I said to myself that this also is vanity. 16 For there is no enduring remembrance of the wise or of fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How can the wise die just like fools? 17 So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me; for all is vanity and a chasing after wind.’
Similarly, Job bemoans how God has treated him despite his righteousness (see especially Job 29–31). The interlude pericope in Q 37, placed before the Solomon and Job pericopes, seems to be a direct refutation of this sceptical wisdom associated with their names: ‘We did not create in vain (bāṭilan)51 the heavens and the earth and what is between them. … Shall We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like those who do mischief in the land? Shall We make those who protect themselves like the profligates?’ (vv. 27–28). The sura seems to be insisting that whatever the appearances to contrary may be, ultimate victory, in this life or the next, will be for the believers.
8. Conclusion
A discourse on worldly and religious authority and prestige, who has it and who deserves it, is central to Sūrat Ṣād. The motif is introduced at the start of the sura and illustrated through the prophetic stories. David and Solomon are both divinely appointed kings, whom the Qur’an praises for their piety. The numerous points of parallelism between the two stories serve to illustrate how Solomon fully inherited David’s authority. Further, through their recourse to legal reasoning, the Qur’an emphasizes the necessity of both human wisdom and scriptural law to divine kingship. Solomon’s prayer that none be given the dominion that he wishes to be granted perhaps indicates that this inheritance of a divine right to rule is to be discontinued. Thus, the Meccan pagans are not only unfit to rule on account of their impiety, but also because they lack scriptural and worldly wisdom, and their assumption of a divine right to rule is false. In contrast to this critique against the Meccans’ belief in their right to rule, Job’s story illustrates how the powerless can continue to hold out hope for rescue from Satanic persecution in this world.
Repeated lexical items in Q 38 that are unique or nearly unique to the sura (cont.)
Qur’an citations for this chapter are from the Jones, The Qur’ān, occasionally adapted to give a more literal rendering of the text where appropriate. Biblical citations are from the NRSV.
Mohammed, David in the Muslim Tradition, 41, 65f., 117. For mufassirūn who attempted a close reading of the pericope without recourse to the Biblical tradition, see ibid., 68 (al-Māturīdī), 75–78 (ar-Rāzī). For a treatment of this incident in the qiṣas al-anbiyāʾ (‘stories of the prophets’) genre, see Lindsay, “‘Alī Ibn ‘Asākir as a Preserver of “Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā”, 75–80. See also Poorthuis, “Jewish Influences upon Islamic Storytelling,” 135–150.
On this label and its problematics, see Pregill, “Isrāʾīliyyāt.”
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz fī tafsīr al-kitāb al-ʿazīz, 4:498.
Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 378f [actually published Breslau between 1937 and 1939], Tottoli, Biblical Prophets in the Qur’ān and Muslim Literature, 36f.; Mohammed, David in the Muslim Tradition, 3.
EI3, s.v. David. See also Riddell, “Islamic Variations on a Biblical Theme as Seen in the David and Bathsheba Saga,” who adds that despite filling in gaps from the Bathsheba incident, the Qur’anic story remains incomplete and incomprehensible without the aid of the exegetical tradition. See also Stetkevych, “Solomon and Mythic Kingship in the Arab-Islamic Tradition.”
This portrayal of Biblical parables as veridical episodes is attested elsewhere in the Qur’an too. See Reynolds, EI3, s.v. David; Reynolds, The Qur’an and the Bible, 691.
Various other points of overlap between the Q 38 David pericope and the rabbinic tradition are given by Tait, “Managing a Royal Sex Abuse Scandal.”
Gobillot, “David and Solomon,” 216–31.
Neuwirth, Der Koran. Band 2/1, 548f.
Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 398–401.
The motif of Solomon sleeping through his prescribed prayer time seems to have been adopted into tafsīr from rabbinic stories. See Lev. Rab. 12:5, in which Solomon sleeps through the time of the morning burnt offering.
Klar, “And We Cast upon His Throne a Mere Body”; Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 64; Neuwirth, Der Koran. Band 2/1, 530; Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 399.
I have elsewhere dealt with the various (generally unconvincing) Biblical antecedents offered for the Qur’an’s presentation of how Job was healed, as presented in vv. 42 and 44. See Hussain, “Jonah, Job, Elijah, and Ezra.”
See also Stetkevych, “Solomon and Mythic Kingship in the Arab-Islamic Tradition,” 21.
Reynolds, The Qur’an and the Bible, 515.
The connection between the Qur’anic David and Orpheus was proposed by Marc Philonenko and has found more recent support in Geneviève Gobillot. See Gobillot, “David and Solomon,” 220f. However, the connection they propose to Orpheus is via the Qumranic Psalm 151. This seems tenuous. Far more plausible as a background to the Qur’anic presentation is the evidence for the fusion of David and Orpheus in Late Antiquity. See Hezser, “The Contested Image of King David in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature and Art of Late Antiquity,” 278–82.
Hezser, “The Contested Image of King David in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature and Art of Late Antiquity,” 278–82.
Neuwirth also identifies pride and dissention as the two recurring features of the sura; Der Koran. Band 2/1, 538f.
For this translation of al-millah al-ākhirah, see Sinai, Key Terms of the Qur’an, s.v. millah.
For a justification of translating kāfirūn and alladhīna kafarū as pagans and/or rejectors, see Reynolds, Klar, Sidky and Sirry, The Yale Dictionary of the Qur’an, s.v. Unbelievers (by Saqib Hussain).
See Sinai, Key Terms of the Qur’an s.v. malaʾ.
Abdel Raziq, “Ismāʿīl, Dhū ’l-Kifl, and Idrīs.”
Neuwirth, Der Koran. Band 2/1, 547.
EI2, s.v. miḥrāb.
This point is also noted by Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm, 7:60; Tait, “Managing a Royal Sex Abuse Scandal,” 190.
I am grateful to Zishan Ghaffar for this insight.
Hezser, “The Contested Image of King David in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature and Art of Late Antiquity,” 282f; Karras, Thou Art the Man, 104–107, see also 115f. for how this image continued in the mediaeval reading of the David story; Shimoff, “David and Bathsheba,” 248ff.; Kalmin, “Portrayals of Kings in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” 329–40; Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 84–88.
Translation taken from Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 1.
Ar-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, 26:378.
Hezser, “The Contested Image of King David in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature and Art of Late Antiquity,” 286f.
Parallels between David and Solomon throughout the Qur’an have also been noted by Gobillot, “David and Solomon”.
See for example, al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 15:194.
Ar-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, 26:390–91; see also Neuwirth, Der Koran. Band 2/1, 555.
Az-Zamakhsharī, Al-Kashshāf ʿan ḥaqāʾiq ghawāmiḍ at-tanzīl, 925.
Ar-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, 26:390.
Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 2:482, s.v. j-w-d.
I am grateful to Ali Aghaei for alerting me to the sensual aspects of the language in v. 33.
For rabbinic narratives that find fault with Solomon in this regard, see Leiter, Perils of Wisdom, 206, 213, 217; Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 399; Weitzman, Solomon, 162ff.
See Sinai, Key Terms of the Qur’an s.v. dhakkara; Goudarzi, “The Second Coming of the Book,” 293ff.
Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 400.
For an overview of how the text was understood in the tafsīr and qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ genres, see Klar, “And We Cast upon His Throne a Mere Body,” 116f.
Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 68–74.
See Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 24.
See the collection of articles in Talmon, “The Concepts of Māšîaḥ and Messianism in Early Judaism.”
Hezser, “The Contested Image of King David in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature and Art of Late Antiquity,” 287–91, (see 290 for Eusebius).
This is not to deny that God in the Qur’an approves of and assists various rulers apart from David and Solomon, such as Dhu l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83–98), and even promises future worldly power to the believers if they remain committed to faith and righteous action (e.g., Q 24:55). David and Solomon are unique only insofar as there was a messianic expectation associated with them in Late Antiquity, based on a belief that God had undertaken to revive their kingdom. I thank Zishan Ghaffar for pointing out the relevance of Dhu l-Qarnayn in understanding what might be particular to David and Solomon.
For more on Job’s role in the Qur’an, see Hussain, “Jonah, Job, Elijah, and Ezra”.
One could argue that the Solomon pericope does not so much deny the existence of future divine kings, rather just that such divinely appointed kings would not wield the sort of authority that Solomon had. It is only in light of the pervasive messianic expectations that Ghaffar highlights that the reading suggested here becomes more plausible.
I am grateful to Angelika Neuwirth for alerting me to this point.
Note that the lexical roots used to express “vanity” here in the Qur’an (b-ṭ-l) and earlier in Eccles. 1 (h-b-l) are not cognates.