Abstract

The Qur’an has told the stories of many prophets and past tribes in order to convey the message it wants to give to its addressee. The Qur’an has narrated the stories that were narrated in the Bible in accordance with its purpose, by correcting the distorted points and without going into the details reported in the ‘Kutub-i al-Qadim’. One of the stories told in both the Qur’an and the Bible is Dawoud (David) and the plaintiffs. In this study, the story of Dawoud and the plaintiffs deals with the evaluation of the story of Davud and the plaintiffs and the opinions expressed in the interpretation of the story in the context of Mushkil al-Quran al-Karim. From the earliest times to the present day, commentators have adopted different interpretations of the story of Dawoud and the plaintiffs. Some commentators, taking into account the literal meaning of the verses, interpret the verses based on the fact that the case described in the story is real. On the other hand, some interpret the parable based on the assumption that the case event expresses a representative expression, not a genuine event. The commentators who adopt this understanding are also divided into two as those who interpret the tale over the narrated narrations and those who interpret the tale over wording. The main reason why commentators adopt different interpretations of the tale is that the narrations about the background of the tale, primarily from the Bible, whether to be accepted or not. It is stated that the different opinions expressed in the article by the commentators, whom we have included in the classification, with the fear that they will harm the authority of prophethood, are difficult for the understanding of the story. In this article, different works that emerged according to the interpretation style of the commentators will be resolved in the context of the interpretations made by the same commentators.