The False Attribution of the Story of David and Uriah''s Wife to the Qur''an

The False Attribution of the Story of David and Uriah’s Wife to the Qur’an

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.

Christians on the Internet say that the story of David’s adultery with Uriah’s wife, Hittite, whose name is “Bathsheba,” is found in the Qur’an. So why do you Muslims protest and criticize? I mean, when we criticize the story, it’s as if we are criticizing the Qur’an, which confirmed the story, isn’t that right?

Okay, this is a research with 20 pieces of evidence that invalidate the attribution of this story to the Qur’an, and it has nothing to do with the interpretation of the verse in which Allah the Almighty said:

“And has there come to you the news of the litigants when they climbed over the wall of the private chamber? (21) When they entered upon David, and he was terrified of them. They said, “Do not fear. We are two litigants. One of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth and do not be unjust, and guide us to the straight path.” (22) Indeed, this is my brother. He has ninety-nine ewes, and I have one ewe. One. So he said, “Entrust her to me,” and he oppressed me in the matter of speech. (23) He said, “He has certainly wronged you by asking for your ewe in addition to his ewes. And indeed, many associates oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds - and few are they.” And David assumed that We had only tried him, so he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing and repented. (24) So We forgave him that, and indeed, he will have a place in Paradise. With Us is nearness and a good place of return.”

This verse does not say that the ewe that David took was Uriah’s wife. This is an interpretation taken by some who rejoice in the Israelite stories of the people only.

All that is in the story is that God tested David, so He sent him two angels to test him in a matter. One of the angels said to him, “My brother has 99 sheep and I have one ewe.” He said to me, “Give it to me and I will guarantee it for you.” He beat me in arguments, meaning he came up with convincing arguments.

So Solomon immediately issued a ruling and said, “He wronged you in his request for your ewe to add it to his ewes.” He did not listen to the other man’s argument. If he had listened to him, perhaps if he heard the other man’s words, he might change his mind.

They had previously asked him to judge between them fairly and not to be excessive, meaning, “Do not be unfair in your judgment.” But this is not justice, as the other has the right to defend himself.

When the two angels left, David thought. The word “thought” here means “be certain.” David thought that God had tested him, so he asked God for forgiveness and repented.

What is the need to decorate the interpretation with fabricated texts and stories that have no connection to revelation? Is everything that is said to be written down, memorized and used as evidence?

Given what I found in the mouths and mouthpieces of those who cling to the trash can of history and stories, I must refute those texts while presenting the statements of the scholars of interpretation regarding this story.

1. Statement of Al-Baydawi

Al-Baydawi, may God have mercy on him, said 5/27:

“And what was narrated that his sight fell on a woman and he fell in love with her and he strove until he married her and she bore him Solomon, if it is true, then perhaps he proposed to his fiancée or he asked her to give him up from his wife, and that was customary among them and the Ansar consoled the Muhajireen with this meaning. And what was said that he sent Uriah to jihad repeatedly and ordered him to advance until he was killed and he married her is mockery and slander, and for that reason Ali, may God be pleased with him, said: Whoever narrates the hadith of David, peace be upon him, according to what the storytellers narrate, I will lash him one hundred and sixty times.”

2. Statement of Al-Tha’labi

Al-Tha’labi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his interpretation (Tafsir) 8/185:

“Al-Suddi, Al-Kalbi and Muqatil narrated: On the authority of their sheikhs, some of their hadiths were mixed with others. They said: David had divided time into three days: one day in which he would judge between people…”

So Al-Tha’labi’s statement here: “The hadiths of some of them were mixed with others” means that their narrations were confused.

This is what the scholar Ibn Ashour confirmed in his investigation of Al-Tha’labi’s interpretation, saying in the margin:

“This is the mythical story that Allah exalts His saints from, let alone His prophets.”

So far, this response from the people of interpretation and what they said is sufficient, but I will not be satisfied with this alone because of the rancor that resides in my heart because of what the people have fabricated.

Come, let us see who the narrators of the hadith are.

Al-Suddi

His name is Ismail bin Abdul Rahman Al-Suddi.

• Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said: I asked Yahya bin Ma’in about Al-Suddi and Ibrahim bin Muhajir, and he said: They are close in weakness.

• Amr bin Ali said: I heard a man from Baghdad, one of the people of Hadith, mention Al-Suddi - meaning Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi - and he said: He is weak.

• Abbas al-Duri said: I asked Yahya bin Ma’in about Al-Suddi, and he said: There is weakness in his Hadith.

• Abu Ahmad bin Adi said: I heard Ibn Hammad say: Al-Sa’di said: He is a liar and a slanderer - meaning Al-Suddi.

• On the authority of Abdullah bin Habib bin Abi Thabit, he said: I heard Al-Sha’bi and it was said to him: Ismail Al-Suddi has been given a portion of knowledge of the Qur’an, he said: Ismail has been given a portion of ignorance of the Qur’an.

• Abu Hatim said: His hadith is written down but not used as evidence.

• Al-Jawzajani said: I was told by Mu’tamir, on the authority of Laith - meaning Ibn Abi Salim - who said: There were two liars in Kufa, one of them died: Al-Suddi and Al-Kalbi.

• Al-Uqaili said: He is weak, and he used to criticize the two sheikhs.

• Al-Tabari said: His hadith is not reliable.

Muqatil

His name is Muqatil ibn Sulayman ibn Bashir Al-Azdi Al-Khurasani.

• Al-Nasa’i said about him: He is a liar.

• Abu Hatim said about him: His hadith is abandoned.

• Al-Bukhari said about him: He is a denier of hadith.

• Al-Daraqutni said about him: His hadith is weak, and he counted him among the weak.

Al-Kalbi

His name is Muhammad ibn Al-Sa’ib ibn Bishr ibn Amr ibn Al-Harith Al-Kalbi.

• Yahya ibn Ma’in said about him: He is weak.

• Al-Asma’i said about him, on the authority of Abu Awana: I heard Al-Kalbi saying something that whoever says it is an infidel.

• On the authority of Yahya bin Ya’la Al-Maharbi: It was said to Zaidah: Three do not narrate from them: Ibn Abi Laila, Jabir Al-Ja’fi, and Al-Kalbi.

• Zaid bin Al-Habbab said: I heard Sufyan Al-Thawri say: It is strange that someone narrates from Al-Kalbi.

• Al-Nasa’i said: He is not trustworthy and his hadith should not be written down.

• Abu Hatim said: People agree to abandon his hadith, do not engage in it, his hadith is useless.

• Al-Jawzahani said: He is a liar, and he is weak.

• Ibn Hibban said: The obviousness of his lying is more evident than it requires going into great detail in describing him.

• Al-Saji said: His hadith is abandoned, and he was very weak due to his extreme Shi’ism. Trustworthy people of transmission have agreed to criticize him and abandon narrating from him in rulings and branches.

• Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah said: He narrated fabricated hadiths from Abu Salih.

3. Narration in Al-Tabari

A narration in Al-Tabari in the interpretation 21/184:

“Bishr told us, he said: Yazid told us, he said: Saeed told us, on the authority of Matar, on the authority of Al-Hasan: David divided time into four parts: a day for his wives, a day for his worship, a day to judge the Children of Israel, and a day for the Children of Israel to talk to them…”

The narrator of the hadith is Matar, whose name is Matar Al-Warraq.

• He said about him he is not strong.

• Ibn Saad said: He was weak in the hadith.

• Al-Ajurri said about Abu Dawood: He is not an authority in my view.

• Ibn Hibban mentioned him and said: Perhaps he made a mistake.

4. Another Narration by Al-Tabari

Another narration by Al-Tabari in Al-Tafsir 21/185:

“Ibn Hamid told us, he said: Salamah told us, he said: Muhammad ibn Ishaq told us, on the authority of some of the people of knowledge, on the authority of Wahb ibn Munabbih Al-Yamani…”

In this narration, there are several defects.

The First Defect: Ibn Hamid

His name is Muhammad ibn Hamad Al-Tamimi.

• Yaqub ibn Shaiba Al-Sadosi said about him: Muhammad ibn Hamid Al-Razi has many objectionable narrations.

• Al-Bukhari said: There is some doubt about his hadith.

• Al-Nisa’i said: He is not trustworthy.

• Ibrahim bin Yaqoub Al-Jawzjani said: He has a bad doctrine and is not trustworthy.

• Fadl Al-Razi said: I have fifty thousand hadiths from Ibn Hamid, but I do not narrate a single word from him.

• Al-Bayhaqi said: The Imam of Imams - meaning Ibn Khuzaymah - was not narrated from.

• Al-Nasa’i said about him in another place: Muhammad ibn Hamid is a liar.

The Second Defect: Salamah

His name is Salamah ibn al-Fadl al-Abrash.

• Al-Bukhari said: He has some strange narrations, and he was weakened by Ali.

• Al-Nisa’i said: Weak.

• Ibn Adi said, on the authority of Al-Bukhari: Ishaq declared him weak.

• Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim said: He is not strong according to them.

The Third Defect: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq

Al-Daraqutni said:

“The imams differed concerning him, and he is not an argument, but he is considered.”

He is considered trustworthy by many of the scholars, but he is known for tadlis, and tadlis is omitting a weak sheikh.

5. Another Narration in Al-Tabari

Another narration in Al-Tabari 21/186:

“Yaqub bin Ibrahim told me, he said: Ibn Idris told us, he said: I heard Laith mentioning on the authority of Mujahid who said: When David committed the sin, he prostrated to God for forty days until he grew from his tears…”

A weak narration, and Laith bin Abi Salim was considered weak.

• Ibn Saad said: He was a righteous, devout man, and he was weak in hadith.

• Ibn Hibban said: He became confused at the end of his life.

• Al-Tirmidhi said: Layth is truthful but makes mistakes.

• Al-Hakim Abu Ahmed said: It is not strong in their view.

• Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah said: It is agreed that his memory is poor.

• Al-Jawzajani said: His hadith is weak.

• Ibn Ma’in said: His hadith is rejected.

This defect alone is sufficient.

6. Narration in Al-Tabari 21/187

A narration in Al-Tabari 21/187:

“Yunus told me, he said: Ibn Wahb told us, he said: Ibn Lahi’ah told me, on the authority of Abu Sakhr, on the authority of Yazid Ar-Raqashi, on the authority of Anas bin Malik…”

The narration is very weak and has two defects.

Ibn Lahi’ah

His name is Abdullah Ibn Lahi’ah Ibn Uqbah Al-Hadrami Al-A’doli.

• Al-Bukhari said: Yahya Ibn Saeed did not consider him anything.

• Ahmad said: The hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah is not an argument.

• Al-Nasa’i said: He is not trustworthy.

• Ibn Ma’in said: He was weak and his hadith cannot be used as evidence.

• Al-Jawzajani said: His hadith should not be relied upon.

• Abu Zur’ah said: He was not accurate.

• Abu Ja’far al-Tabari said: His mind became confused at the end of his life.

7. Statement of Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi

Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi al-Muhaqqiq said in his investigation of Tafsir al-Baghawi 4/61:

“Fabricated. Its chain of transmission is very weak. Ibn Lahi’ah is weak in hadith, and his sheikh Abu Sakhr is weak in him, and Yazid is weak. He narrated many objectionable hadiths, and this one rejected them.”

He further said:

“It is a fabricated hadith without a doubt. Rather, it is one of the Isra’iliyyat.”

8. Statement of Muhammad Abdullah Al-Nimr

The investigator Muhammad Abdullah Al-Nimr said in his investigation of Al-Baghawi’s interpretation, Dar Taybah edition 7/78:

“These narrations are weak.”

9. Statement of Al-Zamakhshari

Al-Zamakhshari said in Al-Kashaf 4/81:

“This and similar narrations are shameful to narrate from some of the Muslims who claim to be righteous, let alone some of the prominent prophets.”

10. Statement of Ibn Atiyah

Ibn Atiyah said something similar in his interpretation 4/499 Beirut edition.

11. Statement of Ibn Al-Qayyim

Ibn Al-Qayyim said in Zaad Al-Masir 3/566:

“This is not correct by way of transmission, and it is not permissible in terms of meaning, because the prophets are free from it… As for what was narrated that he looked at the woman and desired her and presented her husband for killing, then this is an aspect that is not permissible for the prophets, because the prophets do not commit sins while knowing about them.”

12. Statement of Al-Razi

Al-Razi said in Mafatih al-Ghaib 26/377:

“What I believe in and agree with is that this is false.”

He then explained that even the most immoral people would reject being described with such acts, so attributing them to prophets is even more unacceptable.

He also explained that the story involves two enormous crimes:

• Attempting to kill a Muslim unjustly.

• Coveting and taking another man’s wife.

He further stated that God described David with many noble qualities before and after this story, and these descriptions contradict the accusation entirely.

13. Statement of the Investigators of Al-Qurtubi

Ahmad Al-Bardouni and Ibrahim Atfeesh said in their investigation of Al-Qurtubi’s interpretation 15/166:

“What Al-Qurtubi mentioned here about David, peace be upon him, is from the Israelite stories and has no basis in truth. It is nonsense and slander, as Al-Baydawi said.”

They added that such stories cast doubt on the infallibility of the prophets.

14. Statement of Al-Khazin

Alaa al-Din ibn Umar al-Shihi said in his interpretation known as al-Khazin 4/34:

“The scholars differed in the accounts of the prophets regarding the reason for that, and I will mention what the commentators said, then I will follow it with a chapter in which he mentioned the purity of David, peace be upon him, from what is not befitting his position.”

15. Statement of Al-Shanqeeti

Al-Allamah al-Shanqeeti said in Adwaa al-Bayan:

“What many commentators mention in the interpretation of this noble verse, which is not befitting the position of David, peace be upon him and our Prophet, peace be upon him, all goes back to the Israelite stories, so there is no trust in it, and no reliance on it.”

16. Statement of Ibn al-Arabi

Imam Ibn al-Arabi said in Ahkam al-Qur’an:

“What caused people to fall into that is the narration of the commentators and the negligent Muslims in the stories of the prophets, calamities beyond measure.”

17. Statement of Dar Al-Iftaa of Egypt

The Egyptian Dar Al-Iftaa - Mufti Attia Saqr - reported in May 1997:

“The Qur’an spoke about our master David, peace be upon him, in a manner befitting the status of prophethood, describing him as a penitent who returned to God.”

He further stated:

“It is not reasonable for him to rape a woman who is not permissible for him, or to think of a trick to get rid of her husband so that he can marry her.”

He emphasized that such claims contradict the status of the prophets.

18. Statement of Ibrahim Al-Qattan

Ibrahim Al-Qattan said in Tayseer Al-Tafseer 3/161:

“Many commentators have said what is stated in the Torah, that David loved the wife of Uriah the Hittite and that he sent him to war until he was killed and then married her, and nothing of this has been proven to us in the hadith.”

19. Statement of Abu Shabah

Abu Shabah said in Al-Isra’iliyyat wa Al-Mawdu’at fi Kutub Al-Tafsir p. 116:

“They mentioned in this a false story, which is: the story of David with Uriah, the commander of his army, and his beautiful wife, whom David wanted to take to himself, even though he had ninety-nine wives… The story is absolutely false.”

He further said that interpreting the ewe as a woman is an error in both evidence and meaning.

20. Statement of Ibn Baz

The scholar Ibn Baz said in his fatwas “Light on the Path”:

“As for what the storytellers and some of the commentators tell of stories about that, it should not be relied upon. Rather, it should be informed by the Qur’an and that is sufficient.”

He also said:

“This is a false story, and it is not permissible for anyone to transmit it unless it is made clear that it is a lie.”