Did Chainmail Exist in David’s Time? The Qur’an and Armor Explained
Atheists claim that the Qur’an made a historical error when it stated that the Prophet David عليه السلام made armor. They claim that armor did not exist during the time of David, and that it only began around 600 years after his time. This suspicion is ridiculous because it depends on misreading the Qur’an, confusing commentary with revelation, and ignoring archaeological evidence for armor long before David.
Content of the Doubt
Atheists claim that the Qur’an made a historical error when it stated that the Prophet David was the first to make armor. They even claim that armor did not exist during the time of the Prophet David, but rather began 600 years after his time. They cite the following Qur’anic verse as evidence.
Make coats of mail and measure the links and work righteousness. Indeed, I, of what you do, am Seeing.
A Brief Response to This Ridiculous Suspicion
Second: The Holy Qur’an did not say that Prophet David عليه السلام made armor from iron.
Third: The manufacture of armor of various types existed hundreds of years before the Prophet David عليه السلام, and not after him, as atheists claim.
Fourth: The term sard is given to shields regardless of their composition. This name is not given only to scaly shields, as atheists think.
Fifth: It is wrong for atheists to challenge the Qur’an based on the words of Qatadah or one of the commentators. What is my fault if someone else misinterprets my words?
The Qur’an Does Not Say David Was the First to Make Armor
The Holy Qur’an does not state that the Prophet David عليه السلام was the first to make armor. Rather, it merely mentions God’s command to David عليه السلام to make armor. There is a difference between the two cases.
For example, if I order you to make me a wooden table, it does not mean that you are the first carpenter to make a wooden table in history.
Let me give another example. When God commanded the Muslims to prepare the horse tether, God Almighty said:
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war.
The previous verse does not mean that Muslims were the first to prepare horse tethers in history. It only means that God commanded Muslims to prepare horse tethers.
Likewise, when God Almighty said about His Prophet David عليه السلام:
And We taught him the making of coats of mail for you to protect you from your violence. So will you be grateful?
The previous verse did not say that the Prophet David عليه السلام was the first to learn how to make armor. Rather, the verse only mentioned that God taught him how to make armor. There is a difference between the two phrases.
For example, if I told you, “I taught so-and-so how to make soap,” it is not necessary that this person be the first person I taught how to make soap. Rather, he might be the second person I taught it to, or the third, or the fourth.
Qatadah’s Statement Is Not Proof Against the Qur’an
As for the atheists who quote Qatadah’s words, I respond to them and say: Qatadah ibn Di’amah was not a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ, but rather a person who lived during the era of the Successors. Many of his views and interpretations are not based on evidence from the Qur’an or the Prophet’s Sunnah, but are rather borrowed from Isra’iliyyat and other cultures. We have repeatedly emphasized this, and doctoral dissertations have been written on the subject.
Reports transmitted from Jewish and Christian narrative material that entered some works of tafsir and historical storytelling. Such reports are not automatically proof in Islam unless supported by the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah.
Likewise, some commentators, such as Qatadah, claimed that the Prophet David عليه السلام was the first to make shields. However, this claim has no connection to Islam as proof, because these views are not based on explicit evidence from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. They are merely the commentators’ own opinions.
The Qur’an Does Not Say David Made Armor from Iron
The Qur’anic verses do not state that Prophet David عليه السلام made armor out of iron. Rather, the verses only mention that God softened the iron for Prophet David عليه السلام. The verses also mention that God commanded Prophet David عليه السلام to make long armor, but the verses do not mention at all that God commanded Prophet David عليه السلام to make those armors out of softened iron.
As for some commentators who claimed that the verse means, “We made iron soft for him so that he might make coats of mail,” this interpretation is exaggerated. Therefore, Abu al-Su’ud responds to them in his book Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim by saying:
[!scholar] Abu al-Su’ud — Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim
“Work” means: “We ordered him to work on.” And “that” here is a verbal noun from which the preposition “ba” was deleted. Interpreting it as an explanatory noun is a clear effort.
The word “that” in the Qur’anic verse cannot possibly mean “in order to” in the forced way they require.
As for those who attributed to Ibn Abbas that he said the armor was made of iron, this statement was mentioned in a narration narrated by Ali bin Abi Talha on the authority of Ibn Abbas. But the narration is mursal, and therefore it is a weak narration in the first place.
As for the importance of the iron that God softened for His Prophet David عليه السلام, perhaps the Prophet David عليه السلام used it to make swords, knives, hammers, and other things.
As for those who say that David عليه السلام made armor from iron, they are just some commentators who based their opinion on their own interpretation. There is no clear evidence for their statement in the Holy Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.
The Meaning of Sard
The meaning of the Almighty’s saying, “and determine the chain of mounts,” is to make the armor with perfection, precision, and moderation.
In Arabic, the phrase sard al-duru’ means the manufacture of armor, regardless of its type, shape, or composition. Therefore, we find that the term sard may be used to refer to the manufacture of plate armor with rings and large parts, known as plate armor, and the term sard may be used to refer to the manufacture of scaly armor with small rings, known as scale armor.
The manufacture, arrangement, or joining of armor. It is not restricted only to one specific type of armor such as chainmail.
The following scan supports the linguistic point about sard and its connection to armor.
For your info: This Arabic scan is being used to prove that the word sard is broader than the narrow meaning forced by the atheist objection. The relevant point is that Arabic lexicons use sard in connection with the making or arrangement of armor, without limiting it to one specific material or one exact armor design. This matters because the objection assumes that the Qur’an must be referring to a later form of chainmail, while the Arabic wording itself does not force that conclusion.
The next scan continues the lexical evidence from Arabic dictionaries.
For your info: This scan gives dictionary support for the meaning of sard and related armor terminology. The highlighted point is that the word can refer to shields and their component rings or joined parts. It does not prove that the Qur’anic verse is restricted to the later medieval image of chainmail. For English readers, the scan supports the article’s core linguistic argument: the objection depends on mistranslating or narrowing an Arabic term beyond what the language requires.
Therefore, it was mentioned in Lisan al-Arab, Al-Qamus al-Muhit, Al-Mu’jam al-Wasit, and Mu’jam al-Lughah al-Arabiyyah al-Mu’asirah that:
The narrative is a collective name for the shields and all the rings.
The word “ring” refers to the parts of the shield. The parts worn around the arm are round and are called rings. The part worn around the neck is called a ring. The round part worn around the chest is called a ring. The rest of the semi-circular or circular parts are also called rings.
We have said that the shield is either made up of large rings, in which case it is known as a lamellar shield, or made up of small rings, in which case it is known as a squamous shield.
That is why it was mentioned in Al-Qamus al-Muhit, Al-Mu’jam al-Ra’id, and Al-Mu’jam al-Wasit that the ring is the shield, regardless of its shape or composition.
As for the commentators who claimed that what is meant by “and measure the length of the chain” is that he made the nail of equal size or that the ring of the shield was of equal size, these two statements are exaggerated and forced. There is no evidence for them in the Holy Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. They are not evidence against the Holy Qur’an at all. Neither the nail nor the ring is mentioned in the Qur’anic verse.
The False Restriction of Sard to Chainmail
Of course, there are atheists who have gone too far in their imagination and claimed that chainmail armor only means the scaly armor known as chainmail. Based on this false belief, atheists accused the Qur’an of error. They thought that the Qur’an attributes scaly armor to the time of the Prophet David عليه السلام, even though it was not made until many years after him.
I respond to these atheists and say: this claim is unsubstantiated and stems from ignorance of the Arabic language and a mistranslation from English to Arabic. We have previously stated that armor refers to its manufacture, regardless of the size of its rings, parts, and composition.
That is, the term armor may refer to plate armor, scaly armor, or other types. Therefore, the Prophet David عليه السلام may have made plate armor or other types.
As for the atheists’ belief that “the shield of the zard” only means scaly shields because this term was widespread among people in the Middle Ages, I respond to them and say: this does not mean that the term zard refers only to scaly armor. Scaly armor was widespread in the post-Christian era, and since the word sard refers to any armor, people used to call scaly armor zard. However, this does not mean that zard is limited to scaly armor with small rings.
Let me give an example to make the idea clear. Today, people call the moving metal machine people ride as a means of transportation a “car.” However, the word “car” originally refers to anything in Arabic that moves and is ridden, such as a camel in a caravan. The same applies to the word zard. Zard refers to any type of armor, not just scaly armor, as some people think.
Armor Existed Before the Time of David
The manufacture of armor existed hundreds of years before the time of the Prophet David عليه السلام. For example, inscriptions were discovered proving that infantry soldiers wore armor in ancient Sumerian civilization. It appears that these Sumerian shields were scaly and lamellar.
In ancient Greece, during the Mycenaean period, plate armor was manufactured that covered the chest, back, neck, shoulders, upper arms, and upper legs. These armors were made of bronze, and some sources mention that the origin of these armors was interlocking iron rings, which could be riveted or welded and closed. These armors became popular and widespread throughout Greece and the surrounding area.
The manufacture of these armors existed since around 1400 BC, about 400 years before the time of the Prophet David عليه السلام. The earliest Greek example of worn armor is the Dendra panoply.
The following image shows the Dendra armor evidence from Greece.
For your info: This image is being used as archaeological support that armor existed before Prophet David عليه السلام. It refers to the Dendra panoply, a Mycenaean armor dated around the Late Bronze Age. The point is that complex body armor was already manufactured centuries before David, so the atheist claim that armor only appeared after David is historically false.
The manufacture of scaly armor began in the Middle East. Among the oldest evidence of this is the tomb of Knemun, who lived in Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep II, around 1436–1411 BC.
In Korea, during the Samgukji period, scaly armor was made for military officers. It consisted of small rings and nails before 1000 BC. Indeed, these armors were effective against arrows.
With the beginning of the Iron Age, people began to use iron shields extensively, which is equivalent to the period in which the Prophet David عليه السلام lived. But this does not negate the use of iron before.
An Important Message to Every Atheist Who Challenges the Qur’an
I am astonished by some atheists who attribute Qatadah’s errors to the Qur’an, even though the Qur’an is innocent of them. Many of Qatadah’s views are not based on the Qur’an itself, but rather are borrowed from sources from other nations. The Qur’an is not to blame for Qatadah’s errors.
I would like to read to you some quotes from my master’s thesis entitled:
Imam Qatadah bin Di’amah al-Sadusi: His Sayings and Narrations in Interpretation from the Beginning of Surat Yasin to the End of the Qur’an
This is a master’s thesis by Professor Muhammad Khalid Abdul Hadi, under the supervision of Dr. Uwaid bin Ayyad al-Mutrafi. This study was published by Umm Al-Qura University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Qatadah was not the only one who delved into the Isra’iliyyat and was interested in the hidden aspects of the events and stories referred to in the Qur’an. Rather, this was one of the characteristics of interpretation in that era.
The same researcher says on pages 161–162:
We saw previously that Qatadah relied on Isra’iliyyat narrations in some places in his interpretation and he frequently delved into the particulars and details of stories that were mentioned in summary in the Noble Qur’an. There is no benefit in knowing their details, nor is there any evidence for them from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. Rather, he relied on the narrations of the People of the Book for that.
The researcher also says on page 130:
But what is even more astonishing and bitter is that he interprets the Wise Reminder based on these false narratives. This is something I never expected from an interpreter like Qatadah. May Allah forgive him and those like him who distorted the interpretation and tarnished it with such fabricated articles.
Anyone who examines Qatadah’s interpretation will notice that he is fond of detailing stories and particulars of the narratives referred to in the Qur’an, such as specifying places, times, people’s names, determining quantities, and other such matters that the Qur’an is silent on and vague about. Qatadah relies on the sayings of the People of the Book in these matters.
From the above, we find that Qatadah was quoting from the Isra’iliyyat and the books of the People of the Book when he wanted to interpret general verses of the Holy Qur’an. Therefore, Qatadah’s statement regarding David’s making of armor is not an argument for attacking the Holy Qur’an.
Ibn Taymiyyah was right when he said in Majmu’ al-Fatawa:
[!scholar] Ibn Taymiyyah — Majmu’ al-Fatawa, 13/329
The books compiled on interpretation are filled with the good and the bad, the clear falsehood and the evident truth. Knowledge is either a verified transmission from an infallible person or a statement for which there is known evidence. Anything other than this is either fabricated and rejected, or suspended, and it is not known whether it is ostentation or authentication.
Knowing that there is no imam or sheikh who issued a fatwa saying that everything in the books of interpretation is correct. Rather, scholars have said that the books of interpretation contain mixed opinions, some correct and some weak.
References
The manufacture of scaly armor occurred 2,000 years before the Prophet David عليه السلام.
For your info: This reference image is used to support the claim that scale armor existed long before Prophet David عليه السلام. The relevant point is that armor made from small overlapping or connected pieces was not a late invention after David. For English readers, this supports the article’s historical argument against the claim that the Qur’an placed armor in the wrong period.
The next reference gives additional evidence for early armor.
For your info: This scan continues the reference evidence for the early existence of armor. It is being used to show that armor technology existed in ancient civilizations before the time assigned to David عليه السلام. The point for English readers is that the atheist objection is historically careless because it ignores earlier examples of armor.
The armor industry was basically present 400 years before the Prophet David عليه السلام.
For your info: This scan supports the claim that armor manufacturing existed centuries before Prophet David عليه السلام. It is especially relevant to the argument about Mycenaean and ancient Greek armor. For English readers, the scan is being used to show that the premise “armor did not exist in David’s time” is false.
Scale armor in Greek civilization may have relied on iron before bronze.
For your info: This scan is used to support the discussion of scale armor in ancient Greek civilization. The relevant point is that some sources discuss early forms of armor involving interlocking or joined parts, and possible iron elements. For English readers, this weakens the objection that the Qur’anic reference must be historically impossible.
The next reference continues the discussion of ancient armor evidence.
For your info: This scan provides further supporting evidence about ancient armor types and military equipment. It is relevant because the article argues that armor technology was not invented after David عليه السلام. For English readers, the scan functions as supporting material for the broader archaeological timeline.
The next reference gives further evidence connected to early armor manufacturing.
For your info: This scan continues the evidence that armor manufacturing existed before the time of David عليه السلام. The important point is not one single artifact alone, but the cumulative pattern: ancient civilizations had armor technologies centuries before David. For English readers, this supports the article’s conclusion that the atheist timeline is wrong.
The final reference scan gives another supporting source for the historical timeline of armor.
For your info: This scan is part of the reference material supporting the existence of armor before David عليه السلام. It reinforces the article’s main historical point: the Qur’an is not historically wrong for mentioning David making armor, because armor was already known in earlier periods.
Related discussion: https://heudis.blogspot.com/2025/01/chain-mail.html
The suspicion fails on every level. The Qur’an does not say David عليه السلام was the first human being to make armor, nor does it explicitly say that the armor was iron chainmail in the later medieval sense. The Arabic term sard is broader than the atheist objection assumes, and historical evidence shows that armor existed centuries before David. Blaming the Qur’an for a commentator’s unsupported statement is not serious criticism; it is bad argumentation.