His saying, exalted and glorified is He:

﴿And David and Solomon when they judged concerning the field when the sheep of the people had pastured therein, and We were witnesses to their judgment﴾ ﴿So We gave understanding of it to Solomon, and to each We gave judgment and knowledge, and We subjected the mountains to glorify [Us] along with David and the birds, and We were doing﴾

The meaning: And mention David and Solomon. Thus, a group of the commentators has interpreted it.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

It is possible in my view and it is strong that the meaning is: "And We gave to David" as an addition to His saying: "and Noah," and that is an addition to His saying: ﴿And Lot, We gave him judgment and knowledge﴾ [Al-Anbiya: 74], and the meaning according to this interpretation is consistent.

And Solomon is the son of David, blessings and peace be upon them, from the Children of Israel. He was a just king and a prophet who judged between the people. This incident occurred before him, and his son was then grown. He used to sit at the door through which the disputants would exit, and they would enter to David, blessings and peace be upon him, from another door. A man with a field, and it is said: a vineyard, disputed with David, blessings and peace be upon him.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And "the field" is said regarding both of them, and it is more distant from being a metaphor in the case of crops. A man's sheep entered his field and spoiled it. David, blessings and peace be upon him, saw that he should give the sheep to the owner of the field. One group said: On the condition that his vineyard remains with him. Another group said: Rather, he gave the sheep to the owner of the field and the field to the owner of the sheep.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

It resembles this single statement that he saw the sheep resisting the crops that were spoiled, and according to the second statement, he saw them resisting the field and its crops.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And it is not thought of David, blessings and peace be upon him, except that his judgment was with a focused consideration. When the two disputants came to Solomon, blessings and peace be upon him, the owner of the sheep complained to him. Solomon then came to David and said: O Prophet of Allah, you judged such and such, and I saw what is more accommodating for all. He said: And what is it? He said: That the owner of the sheep takes the field, tends to it, and repairs it until it returns to its original state, and the owner of the field takes the sheep during that period to benefit from its resources of milk, wool, offspring, and other than that. When the field is complete and returns to its state, each one returns the property of his companion. The sheep returned to its owner and the field to its owner. David, blessings and peace be upon him, said: You have been guided, O my son, and he judged between them with that.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And there is no doubt that Solomon, blessings and peace be upon him, saw what the owner of the sheep could bear from the loss of the resources of his sheep during that period and from the burden of repairing the field, which balances what was spoiled in the field. His judgment excelled that of his father in that he ensured that the property of each one of them remained with his belongings, and his soul remained content with that.

And a group went to say that this incident was not judged by ijtihad, but rather Dawud judged by revelation, and Sulayman judged by a revelation that Allah abrogated the judgment of Dawud with. A group, including Ibn Furak, made His saying, 'So We made him understand it' (Qur'an 21:79) mean that We made him comprehend the decisive judgment that Allah, Blessed and Exalted, intended to establish in the incident.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And this group needs in this wording to this effort, and its meaning remains unsettled.

(p-185) The majority of the ummah said: Their ruling was by ijtihad, and the scholars included this verse in their books regarding the issue of the ijtihad of the two scholars. It is appropriate to mention here a summary of the issue of ijtihad. The people of the Sunnah differed regarding the two scholars - what exceeds - who give fatwas on the branches and rulings in the matter and they differ. A group said: The truth in the matters of the branches is in one side with Allah, the Exalted. They established evidence for that and urged the mujtahideen to search for it and reflect upon it. Whoever encounters the sought-after point in the matter is the one who is correct absolutely, and he has two rewards: a reward for the ijtihad and a reward for being correct. Whoever does not encounter it is correct in his ijtihad but mistaken for not hitting the point, so he has a reward and he is not excused. This is what the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'If a scholar strives and errs, he has a reward.' Likewise, it also falls under his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: 'If a scholar strives and errs.' The scholar strives and contradicts a text he has not encountered, like the saying of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib regarding marriage: that it is the contract in the matter of the permissibility for the divorced husband and the like. This combines between his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: 'If a scholar strives and errs' and between his saying: 'Every mujtahid is correct,' meaning he erred in the sought-after point and was correct in his ijtihad. This group saw that the mistaken scholar has no sin upon him in his mistake even if he is not excused. Another group said: The truth is in one side and Allah, the Exalted, did not establish evidence for it, but rather entrusted the matter to the view of the mujtahideen. Whoever hits it has hit it, and whoever misses it is excused and rewarded. We were not commanded to hit the point, but we were commanded with ijtihad only. The majority of the people of the Sunnah - which is what is preserved from Malik and his companions - said: The truth in the matters of the branches is in both sides, and every mujtahid is correct. What is sought is only the best in assumption, so every mujtahid has led his view to the best in his view. The evidence for this statement is that the Companions and those after them established some differences among themselves, and none of them saw that reliance should be placed on his saying without the saying of his opponent. Among them is Malik's, may Allah have mercy on him, rejection of al-Mansur Abu Ja'far regarding compelling people to the Muwatta due to much of this meaning. If a scholar says regarding a matter: it is lawful, then that is the truth concerning that scholar with Allah, the Exalted, and with everyone who follows his saying. If another says: it is unlawful, and all of that is by ijtihad, then that is also truth with Allah, the Exalted, concerning that scholar and with everyone who follows his saying. As for whoever said that the truth is in one side, he saw the matter of Dawud and Sulayman, peace be upon them, as consistent with his saying, and that Sulayman, peace be upon him, encountered the sought-after point which is what he understood. Whoever saw the truth in both sides saw that Sulayman, peace be upon him, understood the optimal case which is the more preferable, not that the first was a mistake. Based on this, they interpret the saying of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: 'If a scholar strives and errs,' meaning: he erred in the preferable.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Often, there is little variation among the sayings on these issues, except that this clarity honors the saying. Frequently, the virtue between the two sayings becomes clear with the slightest consideration. The issues of branches differ from the issues of fundamentals in this regard. The matter of the two mujtahids in itself is a matter of principle. The difference between the issues of branches and the issues of fundamentals is that the issues of fundamentals involve discussion about the existence of something, how it is. Like our saying: "Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection," the Mu'tazila said: "He will not be seen," and like our saying: "Allah is One," while the Christians said: "Three." Is there a specific matter that is sought? The issues of branches involve discussion about something whose existence is established, how its ruling is, whether it is permissible or prohibited, and so on. The rulings are external to its essence and existence; they are based on measures and inferences. The issues of branches are considered to be everything that can abrogate one another, while the issues of fundamentals, if one established view were to be confirmed, it would not be correct for another to come and abrogate it.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The matter of ijtihad is lengthy and complex, but this brief discussion is appropriate for the verse and necessitates it, out of a desire for brevity.

Another section related to the verse must be mentioned, which is the judge's return after his ruling from one ijtihad to another that is more sound than the first. Indeed, Dawud, peace be upon him, did this in this incident. The scholars of the Maliki school differed regarding a judge who rules in a case, then sees afterward that something other than what he ruled is more correct. He wants to overturn the first ruling and rule with the second. Abd al-Malik and Mutarrif said in [p-187] (the clear): That is permissible for him as long as he is in his jurisdiction. However, if it is another jurisdiction, then that is not permissible for him, and he is like any other judge. This is the apparent view of Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, in the "Mudawwana." Sahnun said regarding his return from one ijtihad to another that he sees as more correct: He does not have that. Ibn Abd al-Hakam said that he can start a new ruling based on what is stronger for him in the end. Sahnun said: Except if he forgot the stronger opinion or made a mistake and ruled otherwise, then he has the right to overturn it. But if he ruled with a ruling that was the stronger opinion for him at that time, then if something else becomes apparent to him, he has no way to overturn the first ruling. [Sahnun said this in his son's book. Ashhab said in the book of Ibn al-Mawaz: If his return is to the more correct opinion regarding wealth, then he has the right to overturn the first ruling.] But if it is regarding divorce, marriage, or emancipation, he does not have the right to overturn it. The statement regarding agriculture has already been mentioned. One group narrated that it was crops, while another group narrated that it was a vineyard.

And "the nafsh": the infiltration of animals into the crops and others at night. And "the haml": their infiltration in that during the day and night. Ibn Sidah said: The term haml is not used for sheep, but rather it is for camels. The ruling in Islam has been established by obligating the owners of livestock to compensate for what they have destroyed at night. This is because it is upon their owners to restrain them. And the people of agriculture and others must protect it during the day. This is the implication of the hadith regarding the she-camel of Al-Bara' ibn Azib, and it is the position of Malik and the majority of the ummah. It has been mentioned in the book of Ibn Sahnun that the hadith only applies to places like Medina, which are surrounded by walls. However, as for lands that are connected crops that are not enclosed, and gardens likewise, the owners of the sheep must compensate for what they have destroyed, whether at night or during the day.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It seems that he went to the view that neglecting to restrain the animals in such lands is a transgression, as they will inevitably cause destruction. Abu Hanifah said regarding this: There is no obligation to compensate, and he included it in the general statement of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: "The injury of a mute animal is to be compensated for." He analogized all of its actions to its injuries.

And His saying, the Exalted, ﴿And We gave both of them judgment and knowledge﴾, some of the people interpreted that David, peace be upon him, did not err in this matter, but rather he was given judgment and knowledge in it. A group said: Rather, because he did not hit the desired target in this matter, Allah, the Exalted, praised him for having judgment and knowledge that he refers to in other than this matter.

And His saying, the Exalted, ﴿And We were acting﴾ is an exaggeration in good and a confirmation of it. And in the wording, there is a meaning: And that was in His right and at the deserving of it from us. So it is as if He said: And We were acting for the sake of responding to that, and it was omitted for brevity, indicating the apparent meaning of the statement regarding what was omitted from it. And His saying: "for their judgment" refers to David and Solomon and the two disputants, because judgment is attributed to all of them even if the aspects of attribution differ. A group read: "for their judgment."

And the people differed in His saying, the Exalted: "They glorify". A group - and they are the majority - went to the meaning of His saying "Glory be to Allah". And a group from them, including Mundhir ibn Sa'id, went to the meaning: They pray with him in his prayer.