A Promise - Scholarly Article

The story of David and Bathsheba conflicts with the Islamic doctrine of prophetic infallibility.
The Bible presents prophets as morally fallible, while Islam (in most forms) limits or denies major sin in prophets.
The Qur’an itself shows prophets seeking forgiveness, which complicates strict interpretations of ismah.

The biblical account of David and Bathsheba portrays David committing serious sin. This directly challenges the Islamic doctrine of ismah, especially in its stronger forms.

In Islamic theology, prophets are generally protected from major sins. Some traditions allow minor mistakes, but not moral failures like adultery or murder.

By contrast, the Bible consistently portrays prophets as flawed. David’s sin is not hidden, but openly confronted and judged.

From a Christian perspective, this strengthens the narrative’s credibility. It presents leaders “warts and all,” rather than idealized figures.

The Qur’an does not clearly define ismah as later theology does. Instead, it includes multiple examples of prophets seeking forgiveness. Muhammad is told to ask forgiveness for his sins (Surah 47:19, 48:2). Hadith literature also portrays him repenting regularly.

Other prophets like Adam, Moses, and Noah are also linked with error or repentance.

This creates tension with the later, stricter doctrine of infallibility.

Regarding David, the Qur’an includes a shortened and less explicit version. It alludes to wrongdoing but omits the Bathsheba narrative. Some scholars argue this reflects a partial retelling of the biblical account.

In summary, the Bible and Islamic theology diverge here. The Bible affirms the fallibility of prophets in terms of admitting their sins (though not the fallibility of their prophecies), while Islam tends to minimize or deny the sins of prophets.

The biblical story of David and Bathsheba contradicts the Islamic idea of prophetic infallibility. This is a problem for the biblical story only if one assumes that this Islamic concept, which is not found in the Qur’an, is correct.

According to the concept of ‘Isma al-Anbiya (which is not explicitly found within the Qur’an, but which originated amongst Shia Muslims in the 8th century CE), if someone is a prophet of Allah, “they are infallible with regard to the message that they convey from Allah.”[427] Moreover, this infallibility is extended by Muslim scholars to cover the entire conduct of a prophet. In the words of the 12^th century CE theologian Fakhruddin Razi, “According to us the best view is that, owing to their prophethood, there is neither a grave nor a small sin or error (dhanb).”[428] The majority of contemporary Muslim scholars hold that while prophets may make ethical mistakes, and may also commit minor sins, they are protected against committing any major sins (at least once they have become a prophet).

Most Christians would affirm that any genuine prophetic message is infallible. However, except in the special case of Jesus Christ, Christians do not extend this infallibility to the prophet’s ethical conduct in general.

However, the concept of ‘Isma al-Anbiya is not found in the Qur’an. Indeed, the Qur’an appears to assume that prophets both can and do sin. For example, according to Surah 69:44-47:

And if he [Muhammad] had forged a false saying concerning Us [Allah], We surely would have seized him by his right hand [or “with power and might”], And then We certainly would have cut off his life artery, And none of you could have withheld Us from [punishing] him.

Note that the conditional counterfactual statement “if he had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), We surely would have seized him . . .” assumes it was possible for Muhammad to make such a false statement. Furthermore, the Qur’an asserts that Muhammad did sin:

• “Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest, that Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow…” (Surah 48:1-2)
• “So know [O Muhammad] that there is no deity except Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin…” (Surah 47:19)

According to Sahih Muslim 2702a, Muhammad said: “By Allah, I seek forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day.” Sahih Muslim is “a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi” and is considered by Muslims to be “one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet . . .”[429] According to Sahih al-Bukhari 6307, Muhammad said: “Sometimes my heart is clouded, and I ask Allah for forgiveness a hundred times a day.”[430] Sahih al-Bukhari “is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 CE),” and is “recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be the most authentic collection”[431] of Sunnah (sayings, actions, and tacit approvals inferred from silence) ascribed to Muhammad.

As David Suarez reports, the Sunni Muslim scholars Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir both say that Muhammad “had committed past errors and would need forgiveness for future ones. These sins are often minimized, but they still affirm the Qur’an’s admission of moral fallibility.”[432] Suarez notes that:

While Muslims claim Muhammad is the ‘perfect example,’ the Qur’an plainly acknowledges that he sinned and required forgiveness. This stands in stark contrast to Jesus (‘Isa), whom the Qur’an calls ‘pure/sinless (zakiyy)’ (Surah Maryam 19:19) and never asks forgiveness for.[433]

In the Qur’anic depiction of Adam, he eats the forbidden fruit in Eden. Although this is described as an act of forgetfulness (Surah, 20:115), Allah is said to have “turned to him in forgiveness” (Surah 20:122). According to Surah 2:37: “Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance . . .” Presumably, Adam’s forgetfulness is a sinful failure to remember what he is under an obligation to remember. After all, if Adam’s fruit-eating was not sinful, how can it receive forgiveness? However, if Adam’s fruit-eating was sinful, then the concept of ismah cannot extend to entirely excluding all sin from the life of a prophet. According to Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi:

Although Adam did not commit a sin, it was improper for him to adopt an inappropriate behaviour. The people with high ranks are expected to live by the standard that is higher than that of the normal human beings. As the saying goes: the virtuous deeds of the pious are considered ‘sins’ by those who are nearest to God.[434]

But if Adam’s act was rebuked by Allah only as if it was a sin (even though it was only inappropriate and not actually a sin), we are left to wonder how forgiveness enters into the picture. The Qur’an does not say that Allah only acted as if Adam was forgiven, but did not actually forgive him. It says that Allah “turned to him in forgiveness” (Surah 20:122).

Then again, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah argued (al-Fataawaa 10/296) that:

Concerning the issue of forgiveness of the Prophets sins: Allah, may He be exalted, does not speak of any Prophet in the Quraan, except He also mentions repentance and seeking forgiveness. For example, Adam and his wife said: Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers. [al-Araaf 7:23 interpretation of the meaning]. Nooh said: O my Lord! I seek refuge with You from asking You that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have Mercy on me, I would indeed be one of the losers. [Hood 11:47 interpretation of the meaning]. Ibraaheem said: Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents, and (all) the Believers on the Day when the reckoning will be established. [Ibraaheem 14:41 interpretation of the meaning] and You are our wali (Protector), so forgive us and have Mercy on us, for You are the Best of those who forgive. And ordain for us good in this world, and in the Hereafter. Certainly we have turned unto You [al-Araaf 7:155-156 interpretation of the meaning]. Moosa said: You are our wali (Protector), so forgive us and have Mercy on us, for You are the Best of those who forgive. [al-Araaf 7:155 interpretation of the meaning]. Then he [Ibn Taymiyah, may Allah have mercy on him] gave further examples, but what we have mentioned here is sufficient.[435]

When it comes to King David, Mateen Elass observes that:

The longest Koranic story about David finds its source in the biblical account of the prophet Nathan’s rebuke of David over his sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:1-15). In the Koran, however, Nathan is absent from the scene, and the parable he tells to trap David in his sin becomes an historical event (Sura 38:21-26). Two men with a complaint come to David seeking his wise judgment between them. The stronger, with ninety-nine sheep, has demanded of the weaker his lone ewe. Immediately David, without listening to the other side, takes up the cause of the weaker man and judges on his behalf. Somehow from this event, David discerns that God is convicting him of sin (though we are told nothing of his transgressions related to Bathsheba), and he prostrates himself in repentance.[436]

The historical evidence indicates that the later Qur’anic text is based upon an incomplete understanding of the much earlier biblical text. The biblical story about King David being an adulterer is so embarrassing that it is highly unlikely to have been an unhistorical invention.

The Qur’an does not explicitly state that Jesus is from David’s line, but it is consistent with that idea.
Some Muslim scholars accept a Davidic lineage through Mary.
In the New Testament, this lineage is essential for identifying Jesus as the Messiah.

In the New Testament, being descended from King David is central to the Messiah concept. Jesus is explicitly presented as part of David’s lineage in passages like Matthew 1. This fulfills Jewish expectations of a Davidic Messiah.

The Qur’an affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that Mary is his mother.
 However, it does not explicitly state that Jesus descends from David. Still, it places Jesus within a prophetic lineage connected to earlier figures.

Some classical Muslim scholars, such as Al-Tabari, trace Mary’s ancestry back to David. If this is accepted, then Jesus would also belong to the Davidic line. So while the Qur’an is silent on the detail, it does not contradict the claim.

In Jewish tradition, the Messiah is expected to come from David’s house. This expectation forms the backdrop for New Testament claims about Jesus.

The Gospels emphasize several connections between Jesus and David. He is born in Bethlehem, David’s city. He is portrayed as a shepherd figure, echoing David’s early life. His kingship is framed as a fulfillment of God’s covenant with David. Jesus himself refers to David in ways that reinforce this connection. From a Christian perspective, these links are deliberate and foundational.

In summary, the Qur’an allows for a Davidic connection, while the New Testament requires it.

For the New Testament writers, having a family tree that stems from King David is a pre-requisite for Jesus’ status as Messiah. The Qur’an affirms that Jesus’ mother was Mary, and that he is the Messiah (a role that Jewish tradition connects with the David line); and although it does not explicitly say that he is a descendent of King David, it is consistent with this claim, which is accepted by at least some Muslim scholars (e.g. Al-Tabari).

The Qur’an says that the mother of Jesus is Mary. According to Aliah Schleifer, “The Qur’an informs us that the father of Mary was named ‘Imran and the classical Muslim scholars unanimously accept that she was from the line of the prophet David . . .”[437] Likewise, Muslim scholar and historian Al-Tabari traces Jesus’ genealogy to King David.[438] The Qur’an describes Jesus’ messianic status in conjunction with his lineage, with the angels saying of Mary in Surah 3:45 that “his name will be the Messiah,² Jesus, son of Mary; honoured in this world and the Hereafter, and he will be one of those nearest ˹to Allah˺.” Jewish tradition associates the Messiah with the Davidic line. Surah 6:84-85 says:

And We bestowed upon Abraham (offspring) Ishaq (Isaac) and Ya’qub (Jacob) and each of them did We guide to the right way as We had earlier guided Noah to the right way; and (of his descendants We guided) Da’ud (David) and Sulayman (Solomon), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses) and Harun (Aaron). Thus do We reward those who do good. (And of his descendants We guided) Zakariya (Zachariah), Yahya (John), Isa (Jesus) and Ilyas (Elias): each one of them was of the righteous.[439]

While these verses do not explicitly state that Jesus was a descendent of King David, they are consistent with Jesus being his descendent.

From a Christian viewpoint, Catholic theologian Scott Hann highlights various parallels between King David and Jesus:

Beyond the fact that Jesus has a Davidic genealogy that links him with this ancient king (Mt 1: 1- 16), it is significant that Jesus was born in David’s hometown of Bethlehem (17: 12; Mt 2: 1), that he was baptized by John the Baptist, a Levitical prophet and Nazirite (Mk 1: 9- 10; Lk 3: 21- 22), just as David was anointed by Samuel, a Levitical prophet and Nazirite (16: 13), and that he claimed to be the Good Shepherd who, like David, was willing to risk his life for his sheep (17: 34- 35; Jn 10: 11). These connections are not playful inventions of the early Church, for Jesus himself laid the groundwork for Davidic typology when he declared that he and his disciples were comparable to David and his men, who had eaten holy bread on a Sabbath day in 1 Samuel (21: 1- 6; Mt 12: 1- 4).[440]