Saul, Gideon, David and Goliath
In Surat al-Baqara we find the Qur'anic version of the story of King Saul.
Ayahs 2:246-248 give an account of the appointment of Israel's first king, and 249-251 report on preparation and result of his first battle. Muslim translators usually write Saul, David and Goliath in their English translations for the Arabic names Talut, Dawud and Jalut in the Qur'an. And all commentators and encyclopedias of Islam (that I have seen) agree that these are the correct identifications without indicating any diverging opinion. Al-Baqarah 2:246-251 presents a story that is essentially an exhortation to the Israelites to fight in the cause of Allah and recounting their first battle and Allah's miraculous help to victory.
In comparison with the Bible we make the following observations:
Observing all these differences, the obvious question is:
There seems to be no theological reason for altering these many details as there might be in regard to passages on the crucifixion (since the Qur'an rejects the idea of atonement) or the various claims of Jesus to be the unique Son of God and other doctrinally important texts. No such theological motivation presented itself to Muhammad, nor is there any reason why the Israelites should produce such an elaborate fraud over many chapters and even books in order falsify their history.
What would be a reasonable explanation? What would a Muslim answer be?
My own conclusion is based not only on this text but several similar ones and I think the following presents consistent and coherent explanation.
Muhammad had heard many stories from the Jews, but as it regularly happens with hearsay, one remembers some parts, other details are forgotten, and one might confuse parts of separate stories. Muhammad recites the story depending on his own memory and, more importantly, to suit his purposes and current needs. The latter claim of deliberate invention is obviously even more serious than the charge of forgetfulness. Yet, there seems to be sufficient evidence for this conclusion.
According to Yusuf Ali's introduction to Surat al-Baqara, most of this sura is an early Medinan sura. This means it was "revealed" shortly after Muhammad and his Meccan followers had to flee from Mecca to Medina, and had to leave behind their homes and families (2:246). This is the first piece of information that does not at all fit in Saul's time, but it perfectly fits in Muhammad's situation.
What is the motivation for this story about Talut?
The context of the passage in the Qur'an clearly states it.
The motivation is very clear. Verses 243 and 244 set the topic of having had to abandon homes and the consequence is the command to fight now in the cause of Allah. In order to support this purpose, the story of Talut is recited in a way that is tailor-made for the current situation of the Muslim community. The truth of historical accuracy is not a major concern. The issue is the call to fight for Allah (meaning: for Muhammad and the Muslim community). Current reality is projected back into the old stories, and used to warn the listeners that turning back and refusing to fight will incur the displeasure of Allah (2:246 - "those who do wrong"), and to call for investment not only of their life (fighting) but all they have (their possessions) into this cause (2:245).
Why the inclusion of David and Gideon into the story? This could be part of the motivation: The Muslims were still few, and the enemies were many. One of the great victories over a fearsome enemy was little David's slaying of the giant Goliath. So this well known story got included into Muhammad's recitation because he wanted to give his followers confidence for the upcoming battles. The same dynamic holds for Gideon's case. It surely looked like a small group of Muslims would have to fight a large Meccan army. This is similar to Gideon who was called to fight with only 300 men against ten thousands of the Midianites (Judges 7:12) and God deliberately downsized Gideon's army several times, so that the victory is God's, not Gideon's (Judges 7:1-8). The number of fighters is not a problem for God. This is a very motivational element.
Has Muhammad only confused the stories because he didn't remember all the details he had heard from the Jews? That might be part of the reason for the historical confusion and compression in these verses, and this partial memory and confusion based on hearsay can be seen even clearer in some other Qur'anic passages. One part pointing to memory problems is the fact that the author of the Qur'an is seemingly not able to name the prophet, and so he leaves him anonymous. But it was probably not only a problem of Mohammed's memory - more likely the changes were motivated in part by his desire to use the inspiring stories of courage and God's miraculous intervention in the past to encourage and spur on his small band of followers to obey him without questioning as the one on whom Allah has put his authority (2:248). And indeed, that verse is an exhortation challenging the listener with the question for self-examination: "if ye indeed have faith".
In the 4th point above, it was already pointed out that it is historically incorrect to claim that the Israelites supposedly wanted to begin fighting, since they have been fighting their enemies under God's command already for centuries. However, military action is new for the Muslim community at this time. Muhammad was only their spiritual leader during the time in Mecca. After the flight to Medina, Muhammad becomes their political leader and chief commander of the Muslim armies. The beginning of fighting is the historical situation for the Muslims, not the Israelites. Symbolically speaking, Muhammad was a prophet before (like the the unnamed Samuel who is seen in a spiritual leadership role only), but now he becomes like the king Saul, who is a military commander. And just as Muhammad encounters the resistence of his people who do not want to follow him for various reasons - including that he is not among the most respected leaders, or not wealthy enough, not a noble one - so he lets the enemies of Talut speak out these accusations, and then let's Allah answers on his behalf that these are not valid reasons and that he has chosen Talut in His own superior knowledge (He knows all things) and His sovereign will (Allah chooses whom he pleases).
Furthermore, the prayer of the Israelites in ayah 2:250 does not reflect historical reality. The Philistines might have mocked the faith of the children of Israel as part of their general war propaganda, but they were not in a religious war. They just wanted to conquer and loot Israel for the booty they could get. Nor was Israel fighting against the Philistines because they were unbelievers, but because they were attacking the land and cities of Israel and they had to defend themselves. The recurring phrases of "fighting in the cause of Allah" and "help us against those who reject faith" are distinctly Muslim phrases that are projected back into the mouth of the Israelites. Muhammad was waging a religious war against the Meccans who had rejected him and the message he had preached to them for many years. Israel was only defending against a military attacker to whom they had never preached their faith.
In point 5 we noted, that Saul was not rejected by the majority of his people, but celebrated as their king. There is no mention of open opposition to Saul at all (even though this might have been justifiably included in the light of the later development of his disobedience and rejection by God himself. They could have said: See, I told you from the beginning). But Muhammad was mostly rejected in Mecca and only a few followed his message and recognized his authority over them. Again, it is Muhammad's story that is narrated as if it were Talut's.
This is a further strange point: How come Talut has an army, even a large army as it seems, if he is rejected by the people? Where does this army come from? This is not coherent.
In point 7, we saw that Talut publically explains Allah's test to the soldiers. This again makes the story incoherent in regard to the original purpose of this test, but it is not about history, it is a sermon and call to action in the present time of need for the Muslim community. The issue is not the way people drink water, it is about being obedient. The challenge of obedience to Allah through obedience to Muhammad is placed before the listener. (And so the incoherence of the story makes sense in the historical context of the sermon.) And we see this challenge many times in the Qur'an when we read "Obey Allah and His messenger". Muhammad very cleverly binds the allegience of the people to himself.
A last small observation: Why did Muhammad name Saul "Talut"? This is seemingly the only name in the Qur'an for a Biblical figure which seems to have no linguistic connection to its Biblical name. According to the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam it is most probably chosen for poetic reasons to make his name rhyme with Jalut (Goliath, 2:249,250). Maybe another reason is that Muhammad correctly remembered that Saul was very tall (1 Samuel 10:21-24), and hence he is called Talut under the influence of the Arabic word taala (to be long/tall) as suggested in Paret's commentary on the Qur'an. But this is not directly stated in the Qur'an, and thus must remain speculative. The Qur'an does state that he had an impressive physique (bodily prowess: 2:247).
The Qur'anic story of Talut exhibits many historical inaccuracies. In particular we recognized the merging of several events that took place decades or even more than a century apart. The motivation for this version of the account is obviously the current situation of the early Muslim community in Medina which was in need of being encouraged for the upcoming battles.
Muhammad uses examples from "history" to inspire and encourage his companions to follow him in these battles and that Allah would give them victory just as he had given victory to the believers in earlier times, when they were in similar situations. He is not, at this point, concerned with historical accuracy and so, in order to make the account more applicable to the current situation, he takes liberties with history and produces a story which is conspicuously divergent from the historical narrative in the Biblical account.
Muhammad's message appeals to the experience and circumstances of his listeners, who were forced from their homes and families for the sake of following Muhammad's message. That would indeed be a reason for them to fight. But it has no foundation in the history of the Israelites at the time of Samuel.
Through the Qur'an (presumably from Allah) Muhammad is asking his followers (through the mouth of Samuel) if they would fight for Allah if they were so commanded! This exactly was Muhammad's call (2:244), and the current believers should follow the example of the old believers... And the displeasure of Allah on those who refused to fight (in the old story) is a warning to the current the listeners that Allah certainly will be displeased if they act likewise. This is Muhammad's way of indirect accusation against those who would not want to fight without having to confront them directly and personally. Honor and shame are very important elements in Middle Eastern culture and that might be one reason for using a story - since this allowed not having to shame anyone by naming them directly for their resistance, but nevertheless effectively communicating to them what Allah would think of them depending on their action.
To this day story telling, parables, are very popular means in the Middle East to communicate truth. Basically, Muhammad is creating a parable to get his message across in this indirect but nevertheless clear manner. The same method is used by the prophet Nathan to convict king David of his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-10) and Jesus tells many parables for the same reason, for example see Matthew 21:33-45 where the intended meaning is understood clearly by the audience. The problem is that Muhammad has chosen a historical figure for his parable and corrupted historical truth for his own ends. This is the reason we cannot accept this passage as a revelation from God, who is the truth, nor Muhammad as a true prophet. He has shown himself as an effective communicator, a great leader and motivator, but the standard to evaluate a prophet is whether he speaks truth, not whether he can get a large following through his oratory and people skills.
Muhammad recognizes that the bottom line is about truth. And so he concludes this section with
This is the ultimate purpose of this whole story. The listener is again called to accept Muhammad as the messenger of God. But the standard has to be truth. And according to his own standard of truth pointed to in this verse, Muhammad has failed this test. How then can we accept him as a true messenger of God?
I am indebted to this article on Saul in the Comparative Index to Islam for some of the details and for setting my research on this topic in motion.
The argument of this article is strengthened and greatly expanded by similar observations in other stories of the Qur'an, cf. I am all the Prophets.
There are different ways in which Muslims try to deal with the problem. Interestingly, even people from the same sectarian Muslim movement hold to contradictory opinions.
Saqib Virk, who is (as far as I know) a member of the larger Qadiani group of the Ahmadiyya sect (probably taking his opinion from the Quran commentary of their group which I currently do not have access to), argues that this story is only about Gideon, not about Saul:
"The Quran does not name Saul. It refers to Talut who many believe must have been Saul. Personally, I believe Talut corresponds to Gideon." (Source; and arguing the same position in more detail in this newsgroup posting.)
The Lahori branch of Ahmadiyya sect take the opposite view:
249a. “The story of Saul is here confounded with that of Gideon” says a Christian critic. All that the Qur’an states is that Saul tried his forces by a river, and the Bible does not say anything about it. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of a trial of a somewhat similar nature by Gideon (Judges 7:1–6), while the Qur’an does not speak of Gideon at all. The Qur’an does not undertake to give a full and detailed history of the Israelites, and no Christian does, I think, hold the belief that the Bible gives a full and detailed record of the whole of the Israelite nation, so that it could not have omitted a single incident. Nor is there anything strange if Saul followed the example of Gideon. That these are two different incidents is made clear by the fact that while Gideon tried his forces by “the well of Harod” (Judges 7:1), Saul tried his forces by a river, as stated in the Qur’an. It further appears from the Bible that the river Jordan was there: “Some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead” (1 Sam. 13:7).
249b. The Arabic word is Jalut, of the same measure as Talut, meaning he assailed or assaulted in the battle (LL), and thus instead of Goliath the Holy Qur’an has adopted a name which expresses his chief characteristic. Source
The latter view is close to the opinion of the conservative Muslim commentator Maududi, which is cited and discussed by James Arlandson.
Sources of the Qur'an
Historical Compressions in the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page