Hazrat Dawood (David)

SiteTitle

صفحه کاربران ویژه - خروج
ورود کاربران ورود کاربران

LoginToSite

SecurityWord:

Username:

Password:

LoginComment LoginComment2 LoginComment3 .
SortBy
 
MosesHazrat Sulaiman (Solomon)

There are many verses in the Qura’n that tell us that this great apostle of God had asked for forgiveness for his deeds and He forgave him. Verses 24 and 25 of Surah Saad say:

“And David realized that We had tested him and he asked for forgiveness from his Lord falling prostrate in repentance.”

Isn’t this action of David proof of his sin? Is it not against his claim to chastity?

It is necessary to turn to the Qura’n to find the answer and think which did require this prayer for forgiveness.

Verses 22 and 23 of Surah Saad tell us that David was perturbed when two antagonists trespassed into his place of worship. The Book says:

“David was terrified on seeing them. They said, “Do not fear. We are just two litigants one of whom has wronged the other, therefore, judged truthfully between us ; do not be unjust and guide us on the right path. 23. Verily my brother in religion has 99 ewes while I have one only and he said “Hand that too me also and he has won with his words.” David without enquiring anything said, “He has wronged you demanding your ewe to add to his ewes. Verily, many partners oppress one another, except those who believe and do the righteous deeds and they are few.”

This is a case that the Qura’n narrates without any editing.

There are many acceptable explanations about it for these verses and there are many concocted hadiths in various books and they give a wrong and doubtful interpretation.

The verses are rightly interpreted by those with positive inclinations and they are:

“What David committed was an oversight (Tarki aula) and he was hasty in his decision though this is not against the compulsions of the case. It is better for the judge to delve deeply into the facts but if he disregards most of the evidences and chooses from a few then it is an oversight and this is what David did. He decreed in favor of one brother against the other in haste because of the manner in which they had entered his house and perturbed him. This resulted in his having compassion for the poorer brother and he judged wrongly.

 It is true that David took the decision after hearing one side of the case but the silence of the other brother was the tacit acceptance on his part. But norms demand that the other party should be given a chance to speak which David overlooked. So the forgiveness David asked for was due to this oversight and God accepted it and forgave him.

This is the best prove that David id not commi8t any sin for the verse says, “So We forgave him that.” It then spells out his attributes as in the previous verse. He has a great position with God because his character has been set as an example for the Holy Messenger to follow. This is why there is no question of any blemish or sin in his character. The Qura’n in verse 26 of Surah Saad says that he was appointed as a successor on this earth and so could not sin. The idea that he followed his own desire was just a conjecture and is no proof of sin. There are many doubts created by the version of this case in the Torah for they have concocted stories about it. They have joined this incident with various others like him falling in love with a soldier’s wife and then planning to kill him and marrying the deceased widow.

The stories in the torah are mere fabrications with total disregard for chastity and infallibility. (1)

These frivolous incidents are fabricated and are valid proof that the Torah has been tampered and edited.

There is nothing surprising about this tampering of the Torah for they are adamant on what they have done for thousands of years but it is sad and strange to see the Muslim commentators quote from it. Amirul Muminin spoke about it and said: “Anyone who suggests that David did as accused to have Auriya’s wife as his own will be punished twice, one for insulting a prophet and the other for trying to defile Islam. (2)

 Some people think that David had no regrets about the slaying of Auriya as he did for others. His return was only to marry the man’s widow but this does not concern our discussion.

The late Sayyid Murtaza has spoken about it. These deeds are included with those in which a man’s lust is involved and are not a sin and this cannot be construed for the apostles or for the Imams. (3)

Some commentators believe that people did not marry widows in those days and David set a new precedent by marrying the widow of Auriya. Some people think that it is not acceptable because the verse clearly establishes the oversight and stopping that frivolous custom would have been mandatory and not oversight.

It is also said that this was due to religious and spiritual differences with Auriya (4) but the first interpretation seem most appropriate.

 


 

1. For further information see Samuel Bk. II from 11: 2-27 and then see the analysis of such hadiths in the interpretation of verse 21 to 35 of Surah Saad.
2.Tafsir Majmaul Bayan for the verse of Surah Saad but Razi has mentioned it in another manner.
3. Tanzihol Anbiya pages 91 and 92.
4. See Akhbaarur Reza vol.1 page 154 chapter 14,

 

MosesHazrat Sulaiman (Solomon)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Lotus
Mitra
Nazanin
Titr
Tahoma