Article

In its vision of the past, which is at the same time a rewriting of a major part of the biblical story, the Qur’an often associates David and Solomon. It does so in a particularly close way when relating the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem. This tendency is already indicated in the following verse from Sūrat Sabẚ : “O House of David, observe thanksgiving, and few of my servants are grateful” (Q 34:13). The declaration of David in Chronicles takes a particular sense if reread in light of the Late Antique rabbinic account of the “four who entered paradise.” By a verbal analogy, this story underlines the fact that the heavenly stones of pure marble are the place of the realization of the unified exegesis of the Scriptures (Talmud Yerushalmi Hagigah 2:1 (77b-c), Talmud Bavli Hagigah 14b, and Bernard Barc, Les arpenteurs du temps: Essai sur l’histoire de la Judée à la période hellénis tique ( Histoire du texte biblique 5 ; Lausanne: Éditions du zèbre, 2000), 73–74). In such a perspective, David participated next to Solomon in the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem at the same time as he participated in the elaboration of the reunified interpretation of the Scripture which takes place in the Temple’s paradisiac celes tial center. In this way, the Qur’an represents David through a multiform twinship with Solomon. The numerous links between the father and the son, which one also finds in some apocryphal texts, manifest themselves in the Qur’an by many elements, an inventory of which it is important to establish.

Twinship in repentance
Solomon’s repentance fulfills in reality a double theological function in the Qur’an (Genviève Gobillot, “Des textes Pseudo Clementins à la mystique juive et du Sinaï à Mẚrib. Quelques coïncidences entre contexte culturel et localisation géographique dans le Qur’an,” in The Coming of the Comforter: When, Where, and to Whom? Stud ies on the Rise of Islam and Various Other Topics in Memory of John Wansbrough , ed. Carlos A. Segovia and Basil Lourié (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012), 35). On the one hand, it makes this character entirely innocent of the devia tions from the “Law of the King” (see Deut 17:14–20) and frees him, by the same token, from the negative opinion of his reign that his infractions would otherwise cause. On the other hand, the Qur’an situates Solomon’s conduct, through its for mulation and its rhetorical presentation in the text, in a direct line with the repent ance of his father David, and even as a sort of double of the latter.

Concerning David, the Qur’an refers explicitly to the repentance that followed his conduct with Bathsheba, corresponding to 2 Samuel 12–13. In the biblical text, “David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord” after having heard the parable of the litigants concerning the rich man who had taken the only lamb of the poor man (in 2 Samuel 12:1–4). This parable is evoked in a noticeably dif ferent form by the Qur’an in Sūrat Sād (Q 38:21–34). It concludes with the two texts on the pardon accorded by God. Two striking particularities of this story in the Qur’an. First, the story in the Qur’an is not presented as a story told by Nathan, as it was in the Bible. Instead, the Qur’an relates a real legal case presented to David by the liti gants, who suddenly introduce themselves to him without having been announced, as the unique verb tasawwarū connotes (which is often rendered as “they scaled the wall”). The litigants immediately reassure the king, using the expression: “ lā takhaf , “do not be afraid” (Q 38:22), which allows one to understand, by virtue of a verbal analogy, that the litigants were divine messengers sent to address this admonition to him (Joseph Witztum, “Thrice Upon a Time: Abraham’s Guests and the Study of Intra-Qur’anic Parallels”). The second striking particularity in comparison with the bibli cal account is that he who plays the role of the litigant who has lost his only lamb specifies that his brother, who has extorted it from him, possessed already 99 oth ers, even though this numerical detail does not figure in the Book of Samuel. The addition of this number is the result of a combination of a passage from the Old Testament with a story from the New Testament.

Let us note, finally, that the minimization of David’s fault is also and perhaps especially counted in Solomon’s favor, for he appears in this case as the fruit of a union willed by God and not as the fruit of an adul tery followed by a murder. To come back to the parallelism between the father and the son, it is clear that in the Qur’an the same capacity for repentance characterizes in a general man ner all the prophets and the just of Scripture who have committed a grave fault, usually before being entrusted with their mission, a fault that God has effaced as soon as they have sought his pardon. Nevertheless, by using identical terms and expressions to designate the respective situations of David and of Solomon, not only in regard to pardon but also in regard to merits and gifts, the Qur’anic text establishes in relation to this question a very particular parallelism between the situations of the two great kings of Israel.

Twinship in gifts: orphism and wisdom
Concerning the gifts accorded to Solomon, Q 38:31–40 rejects definitively any shadow of suspicion that he practiced illicit magic, both by placing the reception of his supernatural powers after the episode of his repentance and by emphasizing that it is after this “return” that God conferred on him, at his request, such capacities (Q 38:34–40): “(34) Certainly We tried ( wa-la-qad fatannā ) Solomon, and cast a [lifeless] body on his throne. Thereupon he was penitent. (35) He said, ‘My Lord! Forgive me, and grant me a kingdom that does not befit anyone except me.’ ” In addition, these powers are presented in remarkable parallelism with the gifts given to David a few verses earlier in the same sura. If one examines minutely the content of the gifts given by God to David and to his son, respectively, it is evident that the Qur’an establishes an equivalence between the two series of powers belonging to these characters, which have some remarkable features in common. The wind, a natural phenomenon subjected to Solomon, can be put in parallel with the mountains subjected to David, and both men speak to the birds. The Qur’an also attributes to Solomon David’s ability to know their language (Q 27:16): “Solomon inherited from David, and he said, ‘O people! We have been taught the speech of the birds, and we have been given out of everything. Indeed, this is a manifest advantage.’ ” Finally, Solomon dominates furthermore the demons, while David has the ability to make the natural elements and the birds “sing the divine praise.”

The parallelism between the situations of David and of Solomon appears indeed in relation to the mastery of the elements of nature, in view of making them cel ebrate the divine praise. Just as the birds and mountains celebrate this praise with David, so also the winds submitted to Solomon render homage to the unique God. This connotation arises by the intermediary of a verbal analogy between concern ing the term ghudūww : in Q 34:12 “And for Solomon [We subjected] the wind: its morning course ( ghuduwwuhā ) was a month’s journey and its evening course was a month’s journey;” the term designates the morning in the periphrasis, which alludes to the adoring and rendering homage to God morning and night ( bi-l ghudūww wa-l-asāl ) in Q 13:15 and Q 24:36. This activity of the wind is therefore an activity of adoration and of divine praise. Nevertheless, it is specified concern ing Solomon that it is by submission that the wind comports itself thus, while for David, it is a matter of a kind of accompaniment resulting from a charm, like that attributed to Orpheus. As for the demons, the jinn , they have been put in the service of Solomon and accomplish all his wishes for the same purpose, as is indicated by the fact that they received as a principal task the construction of places of worship ( maḥārīb , Q 34:12), among which the temple of Jerusalem is the greatest. All these affirmations, and in particular verses 17–40 of Surah 38, which estab lish a total equivalence between the conduct of Solomon and that of David, tend implicitly to “make one forget” the affirmation contained in 1 Kings 11:6, accord ing to which “Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not completely follow the Lord, as his father David had done,” just as, according to Q 2:102, his disbelief must be “forgotten.”

The reasons for the twinship between David and Solomon in the Qur’an

It might be that, in the first place, it is a matter of a concern for re-establishing a coherence with certain other biblical passages, such as 2 Samuel 12:24, which specifies that “Then David consoled his wife Bathsheba, and went to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he named him Solomon. The Lord loved him ( ʾăhêḇōw ),” which is recalled in Q 38:30: “And to David We gave ( wa-wahabnā ) Solomon – what an excellent servant! Indeed, he was a penitent.” However, according to the rule of verbal analogy, the verb wahaba in the Qur’an indicates the gift of the legitimate son responsible for receiving a spiritual and religious heritage and mak ing it prosper. If, however, Solomon had been very inferior to his father David in his conduct, this declaration [“what an excellent servant”] would be seriously put in doubt, since an excellent servant of God cannot adore other gods besides him. But we note yet another thing. First of all, the Qur’anic text presents Solomon as an inspired prophet or, at least, as gifted with capacities equivalent to those of this category of biblical char acters (Q 4:163): “We have indeed revealed to you as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him, and [as] We revealed to Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon,” and Q 6:84: “And Noah We had guided before, and from his offspring, David and Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses and Aaron.” This theme is typical of the Midrash, while according to the Bible itself Solomon is only a simple king, a wise king certainly, but always limited to this role alone, a situation which renders less shocking his infraction of the deuteronomic law.

1. One finds that in reality the Qur’anic text went still further than these writings on certain points: by pushing to its ultimate implications this twin-like charac teristic, by the establishment of a total reciprocity in the attribution to David of the qualities of Solomon and to Solomon of the virtues of his father, and by presenting them even in a recurring manner as nearly identical or interchangeable characters.
2. David and Solomon: a unique calling and a single irreproachable reign (The character of Solomon in the Scriptures)

As Jean Koulagna has very justly noted, numerous passages of 1 Kings can be considered to be as much anti- as pro-Solomonian. They authorize in fact a read ing according to which the biblical narrator opted for a critical position vis-à-vis the character of Solomon. The following features bear witness to it: the reign of Solomon begins under the distressing auspices of a tumultuous succession with, crucially, the manipulations of Nathan the prophet and Bathsheba the queen mother and a series of summary executions (Jean Koulagna, “L’image de Salomon dans l’historiographie deutéronomiste. A propos de la place de 1 Rois 1–2,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 87.3 (2007): 293), and it ends obscured by revolts – notably that of Jeroboam, supported also by a prophet (Ahiyya). Furthermore, in contrast to Solomon, it is in recompense for his loyalty and his fidelity that the for mer (Jeroboam) receives prophetic support. Thus, the schism of Jeroboam, “even if it ends in failure, is sanctioned by God himself, while with Solomon, God is in a certain fashion placed before the accomplished fact and even manipulated”. Koulagna also observes that, in contrast to the first kings and even to the unfor tunate usurpers (Saul is beautiful and quite imposing, David courageous and faithful), no moral quality is evoked in favor of Solomon in the Bible.

1. Finally, Koulagna notes the following detail in regard to the law of Yahweh, that is to say in this case the Law of the King evoked earlier: As for the law of YHWH mentioned by David in 1 Kings 2:3, which echoes Deut. 17:18 and 29:9, it stresses the entire story in a regular rhythm: first, 1 Kings 2:3, then 3:14; 6:12; 9:4–9, 11:11 and 11:33–38. However, it is impor tant to note that this first mention is the unique occasion in the deuteronomic account of Solomon where allusion is made to the law of YHWH by the word Torah (“teaching”); as for the word “covenant,” it is mentioned seven times, of which one only refers to the law of YHWH (in 1 Kings 11:11). On the narrative plan, the unique use of these two terms, one at the beginning of the account and the other at the end, is strategic. It is this law which will consti tute the criteria of appreciation for Solomon and for all the kings of Israel and of Judah after him, and whose violation, if one believes the narrator, Solomon announces indirectly from the moment of this introduction. Koulagna concludes finally that, in this perspective, the reign of Solomon begins on more than contestable foundations and that the first two chapters of 1 Kings “can be read as a summary of the whole account, since they already announce subtly the end of his reign. Even the apparent attempts at legitimation remain negatively colored and in the end depict Solomon as the first of the ‘bad kings’ of Judah.”
2. Corrections in favor of David and Solomon in the Qur’an
3. There is no doubt that the Qur’anic text takes its position against a negative image of kingship which had developed in Late Antique Judaism. In order to do this, it openly defends the legitimacy and irreproachable character of the family of David, even if this involves proposing many corrections to the Torah. Fur thermore, it places in the foreground the fact that the God worshiped in Solo mon’s Temple was indeed the unique God whose message it proclaims. It is He alone who was celebrated by the two great king-prophets and sages, Solomon and David, who in the final reckoning never truly disregarded the Law of Moses, nor committed grave faults. Such is the image which it gives of them when it declares in Q 34:13, “O House of David, observe thanksgiving, and few of My servants are grateful ( wa-qalīlun min ʿibādiya sh-shakūru ).” 15 This verse is an echo of Q 21:80, “Will you then be grateful?” ( fa-hal ʾantum shākirūna ), which constitutes a universal appeal to the faithful in the image of the command “act righteously” ( iʿmalū ṣāliḥan , Q 34:11), according to a style familiar to preachers. From this point of view Solomon and David are set up as models for the community of the faithful, not only of their time but of all ages, and particularly for the community that saw the Qur’anic revelation emerge. In giving a perfectly unblemished image to Solomon, the Qur’an places itself likewise in opposition to the Gnostic, Marcionite, and Manichean attacks on the royalty of the Old Testament associated with the Temple and its cult. But this does not in any case signify that the Qur’an admits the blood sacrifices, principal objects of reproach for the latter groups. It adopts on the contrary a very clear position on the question; for example, in Q 51:57, “I desire no provision from them, nor do I desire that they should feed Me,” in agreement with other biblical passages.

1. In addition, in a manner even more supported than in the texts of Qumran, the Qur’an depicts David and Solomon as two twin-like messengers of a universal religion that involves the animals and the terrestrial elements in the proclamation of the divine praise. In parallel, it presents by these two characters the double figure of a king, prophet, and sage that is fundamentally very close to the pla tonic ideal of power. It is this vision in any case that numerous philosophers and even mystics of Islam have proposed (Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmiḍī, Le livre des nuances ou: de l’impossibilité de la synonymie, Introduction, traduction et notes par Geneviève Gobil lot (Paris: Geuthner, 2006), 102–106). It is also present in the Bible if one looks closely, since one reads there that Solomon had asked of God the wisdom to guide the people (1 Kings 3:9): “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil; for who can govern this your great people?” Yet the Qur’an deepens and modifies this portrait by closely associating with it the character of David, whom it presents like a twin to his son, according to the model that it also adopts for Moses and Aaron and, in certain respects, for Jesus and John the Baptist.
2. According to this text, the dedication of the sanctuary by David and Solomon was therefore well realized. These theses about the continuity between David and Solomon are in agree ment with the content of the other apocrypha and even with certain rabbinic tradi tions which recall the part entrusted to David in the construction of the Temple, when God said to David: “[T]hy good intentions shall receive their due reward. The Temple, though it be built by Solomon, shall be called thine.” 21 Concerning the dream of the restoration of a Davidic royalty, one can refer also to the Psalms of Solomon. 22 David and Solomon appear equally in this light in the Book of Enoch 89:47–56, presented in the form of rams. 23 David is presented as a ram that rises to lead the flock and has fathered a great number of sheep (48a). He killed the savage beasts that decimated the flock (48b). Then he lay down, and a young sheep (Solomon) becomes ram in his place. He became a chief and a guide for the f lock (49). At the time of Solomon, the Dwelling (a reference to the Tabernacle) was augmented, enlarged, and rebuilt for the sheep and a high and imposing tower was built above the Dwelling for the master of the sheep (a reference to the Tem ple sheltering the Tabernacle). The Dwelling was low and the tower was elevated and high. The ‘master of the flock’ took residence in this tower, and one presented AuQ43 before him a set table.” By its name, this table presents an analogy with that cited by the Qur’an in Surah 5, designated as “the set table.” In this case, it represents a first link of sacred continuity between David, Solomon, and Jesus to the extent, as Michel Cuypers has clearly shown, that it also undoubtedly evokes the Last Supper. 24 In superimposing the allusions to the two tables, the Qur’an carries here an element that is essential to its conception of the particularly close continuity between the Messiah and his ancestors, a continuity evoked in many other verses.