Certainly, he has wronged you; this is the response to an omitted oath. In that is a condemnation of the action of his companion and a mingling of his greed.

And the question: a source added to the object, as His saying, "from the supplication of good." It has encompassed the meaning of addition, so it has taken its transitive form, as if it were said by adding your sheep to his sheep in the manner of a question and request. If you say:

How did he hasten to believe one of the two disputants until he wronged the other before hearing his words? [Mahamud said: "If you say, how did he hasten to believe one of the two disputants before hearing the words of the other? He answered that this was after the acknowledgment of his opponent, but it was not mentioned in the Qur'an because it is known." Ahmad said: It is possible that this was from Dawud as a hypothetical situation, meaning: if that is correct, then he has wronged you.]? I say: He did not say that except after his companion's acknowledgment, but it was not mentioned in the Qur'an because it is known. It is narrated that he said: I want to take it from him and complete my sheep to one hundred. Dawud said: If you desire that, we will strike you here and here, and he pointed to the tip of the nose and the forehead. He said: O Dawud, you are more deserving to be struck here and here, and you have done such and such. Then Dawud looked and saw no one, so he realized what he had fallen into, and the partners who mixed their wealth; the singular is: خليط [khalit], and it is the mixing. It has predominated in livestock. And Al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, considers it. If two men are partners in livestock between them that is not divided, or if each of them has livestock separately, but their grazing places, paths, milking spots, shepherd, and dog are one, and the males are mixed: then they give the zakat of one. If they have forty sheep, then they owe one sheep. If there are three and they have one hundred and twenty, each having forty, then they owe one just as if it were for one. And according to Abu Hanifa: the mixing is not considered, and the partner and the individual are one in his view. In forty between two partners: there is nothing due from him. In one hundred and twenty between three: three sheep. If you say: What do you say about this mixing? I say: They owe one sheep, and it is obligatory for the owner of the sheep to pay one part of one hundred parts of the sheep according to Al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him. And according to Abu Hanifa, there is nothing due from him. If you say: What did he intend by mentioning the state of the partners in that context? I say: He intended by it a good admonition and encouragement to prefer the habit of righteous partners who were judged to be few, and that he should detest the oppression and aggression that most of them are upon, while expressing sorrow for their state, and that the wronged one should find solace for what has befallen him from his partner, and that he has in most partners a model. And it was recited: ليبغى [liyabghī] with the opening of the 'ya' on the assumption of the light 'nun', and its omission as in the saying:

"Push away from you the worries that come to you" ["Push away from you the worries that come to you... as if you were struck with a whip by the horse's tail" by Tarfa ibn al-Abd, and Abu Hatim and Ibn Barri said: It is fabricated.]

And "push" is an imperative verb built on the opening due to its connection to the light 'nun' in estimation, and its omission is not for a pause and for the meeting of the two silent letters is rare. It is said to be a necessity as here. And the meaning: repel from you the worries; it is a metaphorical expression. And "as if you were struck with a whip" means: like your being struck by it, it is a suggestion, and "that comes to you" is a substitute for worries, meaning the one that spreads to you from them, and "the whip" is made of leather used to drive the horse. It is narrated: with the sword, but it is not suitable for the horse, rather for the horseman. And "the top of its head" is its highest point. And it is said: the hair of its neck. And it is permissible to liken worries to an animal that can be struck in a figurative way, and striking is an imagination, and "that comes to you" is a suggestion.]

And it is the response to an omitted oath. And "ليَبْغِ" [liyabghī]: with the omission of the 'ya', sufficing with the kasra, and what is in وَقَلِيلٌ مَا هُمْ [waqalīlun mā hum] is for ambiguity. And in it is astonishment at their fewness. If you want to ascertain its benefit and position, then discard it, from the saying of Imru' al-Qais:

"And the talk of what is upon its shortness" [Refer to the explanation of this evidence in this part, page 75, if you wish, the corrector.] And see if it has any meaning at all. When the predominant suspicion approaches knowledge, it was borrowed for it. And its meaning: And Dawud knew and was certain that we had tested him; we have certainly tested him with the wife of Uriah. Will he stand firm or falter? And it was recited: فَتَنَّاهُ [fatannāhu], with emphasis for exaggeration. And أَفْتَنَّاهُ [aftannāhu], from His saying:

If she had tempted me yesterday, she certainly tempted me. Every Muslim has turned away from her. And he cast aside the lamps of reading and bought the company of beautiful women with the embellished book. For Al-A'sha Al-Hamdani. And he was tempted by the woman - with both the light and heavy forms of the word - and he was led astray: she confused him and bewildered him. 'If she had tempted me yesterday' is the answer to the oath indicated by the 'lam' in the phrase: 'If she had tempted me.' The answer to the condition is omitted, indicated by the answer to the oath. The meaning is: If she tempts me, I will not grieve nor be astonished, for that is her habit from before; thus, 'yesterday' refers to the past time. And 'Saeed' is Ibn Jubair, who was a knowledgeable and pious man. 'Every Muslim has turned away' means: every Muslim has hated her except for her. He expressed it with 'Muslim' because it is more distant from hatred. The 'lamps' may be literal, or they may be a metaphor for books. The 'beautiful women' are the lovely ones. The 'embellished' refers to the beautification of the writing. And we tempted him and we tempted him, on the condition that the 'alif' is the pronoun of the two angels. And he expressed the 'bending' by the 'bowing' because he bends and submits like the one who prostrates. This was cited by Abu Hanifa and his companions regarding the prostration of recitation, that bowing takes the place of prostration. And according to Al-Hasan: he cannot be prostrating until he bows. It may be that he sought forgiveness from Allah for his sin and entered into the two units of prayer for seeking forgiveness and repentance, thus the meaning is: and he fell to the ground for prostration while bowing, meaning praying, because bowing is a term for prayer. And he turned back to Allah, the Exalted, in repentance and seeking forgiveness. It was narrated that he remained prostrating for forty days and nights, not raising his head except for a prescribed prayer or what was absolutely necessary, and his tears did not cease until the grass grew from his tears to his head. He did not drink water except that two-thirds of it was tears, and he exerted himself desiring Allah's pardon until he nearly perished, and he was preoccupied with that from kingship until his son, named Aisha, seized his kingdom and called to himself, and the people of deviation from the Children of Israel gathered around him. When he was forgiven, he fought him and defeated him. It was narrated that he wrote his sin on his palm so that he would not forget it. It was said that the two disputants were from mankind, and the dispute was truly between them: either they were partners in sheep, or one of them was wealthy with many wives from the free and slave women, and the other was poor with nothing but one woman. He was led away from her, and he was frightened by their entering upon him at a time outside of judgment, fearing that they were assassins. And David's only sin was that he believed one of them over the other and wronged him before asking. Mahmoud said: 'Some have reported that this story was not of the angels and was not a representation, but rather it was of humans, either partners in sheep in reality, or one of them was wealthy with many wives from the free and slave women, and the other was poor with nothing but one woman. He was led away from her, and David was frightened, fearing that they were assassins because they entered upon him at a time outside of judgment. And David's only sin was that he believed one of them over the other and attributed to him wrongdoing before asking.' Ahmad said: The intent of this speaker is to purify David from a sin that would lead him by the desire of women, so he took the verse at its apparent meaning and attributed the sin to hastiness in attributing wrongdoing to the accused before asking, because the motivation for that is usually the inflammation of anger, and its dislike is less than what would motivate it by desire and whim. And perhaps this speaker emphasizes his opinion in the verse with Allah's saying that follows it, a command to David, peace be upon him: 'O David, indeed We have made you a vicegerent upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow desire.' The care for advising him regarding rulings was only that which was initially issued from him and was revealed from him regarding what happened to him in judging between the people. And the scholars among our imams have committed to the fact that the prophets, peace be upon them, including David and others, are exalted from falling into minor sins and are free from that, and they sought correct interpretations for such stories. And this is the clear truth, and the most delightful path, if Allah wills.