Verses 60–82
Introduction
The story told by God about Moses and the learned one who knew the interpretation of events, the one that he [Moses] met at the junction of the two seas, is the fourth reminder after the commandment He gave at the beginning of the chapter to be patient and to carry on delivering His message. It comes after the reassurance over what he [the Prophet ] witnessed of the people turning away from the remembrance of God and devoting themselves to the world. He made it clear that what they were engrossed with is embellishment given in advance and finite enjoyment. What he encountered—their obviously enjoying life and succeeding at what they desire in life—should not bother him. This is because behind this outer shell, there is a hidden depth, and, above their power over what they desire is the divine power.
It is as if the reminder of the story of Moses and the learned one alludes to the fact that there is an explanation for these realities and incidents which affect what worldly people desire. The explanation will become clear to them when the Book reaches its end and God allows them to wake up from the sleep of obliviousness and they are raised for a creation different from the current one. On the day on which the interpretation comes, those who forgot before will say: . . . the Messengers of our Lord (indeed) brought the truth . . . ().
The Moses mentioned in the story is the one who was a messenger (rasūl) and prophet (nabī), the son of ʿImrān—one of those endowed with constancy according to Shī‘ah and Sunnī narrations.
Alternatively, it is claimed that he was one of the grandsons of Joseph (Yūsuf) son of Jacob (Yaʿqūb)—Moses, the son of Mīshā, the son of Joseph. He was one of the Israelite prophets. This is unlikely because the Qur’an mentions Moses several times—one hundred and thirty odd times—as the son of ʿImrān. If someone else had been meant in this story there would have been a contextual indicator to show he was not the same person.
It is (also) claimed that the story is fictitious, formed with the aim of the perfection of knowledge which puts humankind at the source of the spring of life and gives them its water to drink—that is, eternal life after which there is no death and everlasting happiness, above which there is no happiness whatsoever.
The problem with this interpretation is that it is a conjecture, not based on any evidence. There is no mention in the story told by the Qur’an of this spring of life apart from spurious claims made by exegetes and writers of historical fiction, which do not have any Qur’anic basis that can be relied on as evidence or any physical evidence of a spring of this description in any region of the world.
The servant mentioned by God and said to belong to Moses is claimed to be Yūshaʿ (Joshua) b. Nūn, his inheritor. Narrations say that he was called a servant because he was always with him, on journeys and in residence or because he served him.
The learned one met by Moses, described beautifully by God as, one from among Our servants whom We had granted mercy from Us and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves, but not named, was, according to narrations, called al-Khiḍr. He was one of the prophets contemporary to Moses. Some say that God bestowed longevity upon him and so he is still alive, having never died. There is no harm in what has been said thus far because there is no incontrovertible rational or textual evidence to contradict it. There has been much discussion about the identity of al-Khiḍr among the people, as in mentioned in long books of exegesis. There are many stories and tales about sightings of him but in spite of that, the narrations and stories are not free of fabricated or interpolated yarns.
Commentary
وَإِذۡ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِفَتَىٰهُ لَآ أَبۡرَحُ حَتَّىٰٓ أَبۡلُغَ مَجۡمَعَ ٱلۡبَحۡرَيۡنِ أَوۡ أَمۡضِيَ حُقُبٗا٦٠
(18:60) And when Moses said to his servant: I will not cease until I reach the junction of the two seas, or I will go on for years.
The adverbial phrase (I will not cease) hangs on something which is implied. The sentence is joined with a conjunction to the passage to which all three of the previous reminders were joined. Lā abraḥ means, “I will not cease.” It is a defective verb, the predicate of which is omitted for the sake of brevity because it is already implied by ḥattā ablugh (until I reach). It implies: “I will not stop walking or traveling.” It is claimed that majmaʿ al-baḥrayn means where the Mediterranean to the east and the Persian Gulf to the west meet. Ḥuqub means an age or time. Using the word in the indefinite indicates an implied adjective—a long time.
All together, it means—though God knows best: “Remember when Moses told his servant, I will not stop traveling until I reach the place where the two seas meet or I go on for a long time.”
فَلَمَّا بَلَغَا مَجۡمَعَ بَيۡنِهِمَا نَسِيَا حُوتَهُمَا فَٱتَّخَذَ سَبِيلَهُۥ فِي ٱلۡبَحۡرِ سَرَبٗا ٦١
(18:61) So when they had reached the junction of the two (seas) they forgot their fish, and it took its way into the sea (saraban), going away.
It is likely that majmaʿa baynihima (lit. the junction of between the two) is an example of annexing an adjective to the noun it describes. The basis of it is, bayn al-baḥrayn (between the two waters)—this bayn (between) being described as the junction of the two.
“They forgot their fish” proves that the fish was either a salted or fried one which they took with them as provisions on their journey. It was not alive and only came back to life there, making its way into the sea. The servant saw it come back to life, diving into the sea, forgot to mention that to Moses and Moses forgot to ask him where it was. Based on this interpretation, “they forgot their fish” attributes forgetting to both of them; they forgot the current status of their fish—Moses forgot its being in the large basket and did not check it. The servant forgot it when he failed to tell Moses of the wonder he had seen pertaining to its affair. This is what people say.
The reader should note that the verses do not explicitly state that the dead fish came back to life. On the contrary, the literal meaning of nasiyā ḥūtahumā (they forgot their fish) and similarly (the meaning) of nasiya al-ḥūt is that they had put it somewhere on the rock above the sea and then it had fallen into the sea, the waves had lapped it up or something similar to that. It disappeared into it and sank into its depths miraculously as if entering a tunnel. This interpretation is supported by what some oral traditions say, that is, that the sign was losing the fish, not its coming back to life. However, God knows best.
And it took its way into the sea (saraban), going away: A sarab is where one travels or walks. A sarab or nafaq means an impermeable tunnel dug into the earth. It is as if the path taken by the fish in the water is likened to a tunnel taken by a traveler, disappearing into it.
فَلَمَّا جَاوَزَا قَالَ لِفَتَىٰهُ ءَاتِنَا غَدَآءَنَا لَقَدۡ لَقِينَا مِن سَفَرِنَا هَٰذَا نَصَبٗا ٦٢
(18:62) But when they had gone farther, he said to his servant: Bring to us our morning meal, certainly we have met with fatigue from this our journey.
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
“Nasab, wasab, and tiʿb are all synonyms meaning the weakness which results from exertion. Ghadaʾ means that which is eaten as a morning meal. This shows that this was during the daytime.”
What it means is that when they passed the point where the two seas meet, Moses told his servant to bring their morning meal—the fish they had been carrying with them so that they could eat it, tired as they were from their journey.
قَالَ أَرَءَيۡتَ إِذۡ أَوَيۡنَآ إِلَى ٱلصَّخۡرَةِ فَإِنِّي نَسِيتُ ٱلۡحُوتَ وَمَآ أَنسَىٰنِيهُ إِلَّا ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنُ أَنۡ أَذۡكُرَهُۥۚ وَٱتَّخَذَ سَبِيلَهُۥ فِي ٱلۡبَحۡرِ عَجَبٗا ٦٣ ِ
(18:63) He said: Did you see when we took refuge on the rock then I forgot the fish, and nothing but the Shayṭān made me forget it—to speak of it—and it took its way wondrously into the river.
This refers to when they reached the point where the two seas meet and they stayed there, because there was a rock there, as evidenced by (the previous clause), and it took its way into the sea, going away. As mentioned above, that happened where the two seas meet. He told Moses: “We have nothing to eat as a morning meal because our morning meal was supposed to be the fish. However, it came back to life, entered the sea, and went away when we reached where the two seas meet and took refuge on the rock which was there. I forgot to tell you about that.”
Did you see when we took refuge on the rock—refers to taking refuge on the rock and staying there to rest a little.
The clause, then I forgot the fish, means I forgot the state of the fish which I witnessed and so I did not mention it to you. Proof of that—so people say—is in the clause, and nothing but the Shayṭān made me forget it—to speak of it, because, an adhkurahu (to speak of it) is in apposition to the pronoun in, ansānīhu (made me forget it). The implied meaning is, nothing but the Shayṭān made me forget to mention the fish to you. He did not forget the fish itself. Rather, he forgot to mention to Moses its state, which he had witnessed.
There is no harm in the servant’s attributing his forgetting to the Shayṭān even if the servant was Joshua b. Nūn the Prophet—divinely protected as prophets are from the Shayṭān—because they are protected from what results from disobedience. As for mere annoyance by the Shayṭān with regard to what does not result from disobedience, there is no evidence against it. He says: And remember Our servant Job [Ayyūb], when he called upon his Lord: The Shayṭān has afflicted me with toil and torment ().
The basis of the clause, and it took (wa-ttakhadha) its way wondrously (ʿajaban) into the river, is “and it took its way into the river a wondrous taking (ittikhadhan ʿajaban).” ʿAjaban (wonderful) is an adjective and it takes the place of the implied noun which it describes—a taking (ittikhadhan). The noun implied, ittikhadhan, is an absolute object. Alternatively, it is claimed that the expression, and it took its way into the river, is what the servant said and “what a wonder” (ʿajaban) is what Moses said. However the context (of the verse) refutes this interpretation.
The reader should note that what was said above about the clause, they forgot their fish, applies here too, but God knows best.
قَالَ ذَٰلِكَ مَا كُنَّا نَبۡغِۚ فَٱرۡتَدَّا عَلَىٰٓ ءَاثَارِهِمَا قَصَصٗا ٦٤
(18:64) He said: This is what we sought (kunnā nabghi); so they returned (fa-rtaddā) retracing (qaṣaṣan) their footsteps (āthārihim).
Baghy means seeking. Irtidād means returning to the beginning. Āthārihim means their footsteps. Qaṣaṣ means following a track. All together, it means Moses said: That which happened—the matter of the fish—is what we were seeking. So they traced their footsteps back, following them.
That is what we sought, reveals that Moses had been commanded by revelation to meet the learned one where the two seas met. The marker for the place where he would find and meet him was what had happened—the matter of the fish, either specifically its coming back to life and going off into the sea, or, in vague and general terms, for example, the fish’s being lost, its coming back to life, the dead coming back to life or something similar. That is why when Moses heard what he heard from his servant—the matter of the fish—he said what he said, they returned to the place they had left, and, found one from among Our servants.
فَوَجَدَا عَبۡدٗا مِّنۡ عِبَادِنَآ ءَاتَيۡنَٰهُ رَحۡمَةٗ مِّنۡ عِندِنَا وَعَلَّمۡنَٰهُ مِن لَّدُنَّا عِلۡمٗا ٦٥
(18:65) Then they found one from among Our servants whom We had granted mercy from Us and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves.
Every blessing is a mercy from Him. However, natural causes play a part in and act on some of them, for example, the various kinds of apparent blessings. In others, natural causes play no part, for example, esoteric blessings such as prophethood, the various branches and levels of guardianship (wilāya). Specifying the mercy as being “from Us”—the likely meaning of which is that it is a gift from Him, not anyone else’s doing—gives the impression that it is one of the second kind, that is, esoteric blessings. Guardianship in its true sense being His alone—as in (the verse), But God is the Guardian ()—and prophethood’s being something in which the noble angels have a part to play, for example, in revelation, lends support to exegetes’ interpretation of the words, “mercy from Us” as prophethood. This is because of the use of the first person plural as opposed to the first person singular indicative of prophethood as opposed to guardianship. However, God knows best.
The words, and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves, is like the mercy from Him which is unrelated to normal causes like sensation and thought such that it be something which can be acquired. What proves that is the phrase, from “Ourselves.” Thus, it is gifted, not acquired knowledge exclusive to His friends (awliyāʾ). The last verse of the story indicates that it was knowledge of how to interpret events.
قَالَ لَهُۥ مُوسَىٰ هَلۡ أَتَّبِعُكَ عَلَىٰٓ أَن تُعَلِّمَنِ مِمَّا عُلِّمۡتَ رُشۡدٗا ٦٦
(18:66) Moses said to him: Shall I follow you in return for your teaching me right (rushdan) knowledge of what you have been taught?
The word rushd, the opposite of ghayy (error), means correct understanding. In this verse it is either a purposive object or direct object. It means Moses said to him: “Shall I follow you on the condition that you teach me [some] of what you have been taught so I may be guided by it, or that you teach me [some] of what you have been taught.”
قَالَ إِنَّكَ لَن تَسۡتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبۡرٗا ٦٧
(18:67) He said: Surely you cannot have patience with me.
This is an emphatic denial of his being able to have any patience in the face of anything he will witness him doing while teaching him. The proof of that is:
a) In the use of the emphatic inna (surely) and putting ṣabr (patience) in the indefinite after the negative which renders a meaning of any patience whatsoever.
b) Saying you will not have istitaʿa—that is, not be able—to have patience is more emphatic than simply saying you will not have patience.
c) Negating with lan (will never) as opposed to saying, la tuṣbir (you will not have patience).
d) The action is dependent upon ability, constituting negation of the action by negation of one of the causes of the action.
e) Negating patience by negating the cause of being able to be patient, that is, having comprehensive khubr (see below) and knowledge of the reality and interpretation of the incident through which one would know that it has to happen in accordance with that reality.
He said Moses would not be able to have the patience for what he [al-Khiḍr] did on the basis of what he knew—he said, Surely you cannot have patience with me, and did not say Moses would not be able to have the patience for his [al-Khiḍr’s] knowledge per se. He did not say: “You will not have the patience for and not be able to withstand what I know”. Moses was not indignant with al-Khiḍr when he told him the interpretation of what Moses had seen with him. Moses was only indignant with him when he saw the actions themselves, which al-Khiḍr showed him in the process of teaching him. Thus there is one rule for knowledge and another for seeing what is done on the basis of that knowledge. It is like when Moses returned from the meeting place to his people and saw that they had worshiped the calf after he had gone; he was filled with rage, threw down the tablets, and took his brother by the head, dragging him toward him. God had told him about that while he was at the meeting place but he did not do anything like what he later did, even though God’s word is more truthful than physical experience. The full story is in Sūrat al-Aʿrāf (The Heights).
Surely you cannot have patience with me, tells Moses that he will not be able to withstand the teaching method employed by al-Khiḍr if he followed him and not that Moses would not be able to withstand the knowledge.
وَكَيۡفَ تَصۡبِرُ عَلَىٰ مَا لَمۡ تُحِطۡ بِهِۦ خُبۡرٗا ٦٨
(18:68) And how can you be patient regarding that which you do not encompass in knowledge (khubran)?
The word khubr means knowledge. Grammatically, it is a specification (tamyīz).
قَالَ سَتَجِدُنِيٓ إِن شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ صَابِرٗا وَلَآ أَعۡصِي لَكَ أَمۡرٗا ٦٩
(18:69) He said: If God pleases, you will find me patient and I shall not disobey you in any matter.
Moses promised him to be patient but made that conditional on God’s will, so he had not told a lie when he was not patient. Wa la aʿsi. . . (I shall not disobey . . . ) is joined with a conjunction to ṣabiran (patient) on account of the verbal meaning it comprises. Thus, the promise not to disobey him is also conditional upon God’s will and Moses did not break his promise when he did not follow his order not to ask questions.
قَالَ فَإِنِ ٱتَّبَعۡتَنِي فَ َ تَسَۡٔلۡنِي عَن شَيۡءٍ حَتَّىٰٓ أُحۡدِثَ لَكَ مِنۡهُ ذِكۡرٗا ٧٠
(18:70) He said: If you would follow me, then do not question me about anything until I myself speak to you about it.
It is likely that minhu (“about it”) is connected to dhikran (lit. “mention”). Iḥdāth al-dhikr of something means initiating talk of it without anything preceding it. All together, it means: “If you follow me, do not ask me about any of my business which you see, and which is difficult for you to watch, until I initiate a talk about it.” It comprises an allusion to the fact that he will see him do things which will be difficult for him to watch. He will explain them to him but Moses should not initiate questioning him and inquiring. Instead, he should wait patiently until al-Khiḍr initiates telling him.
Moses behaved with the exceptional good manners and etiquette of a conscientious pupil with al-Khiḍr—according to these verses. This is amazing, given that he was the one to whom God spoke (Kalīm Allāh), Moses, son of ʿImrān, the Messenger Prophet and one of those endowed with constancy, the recipient of the Torah.
What he says from first to last is founded on humility. First, he was polite to him—he did not present his request to be taught by him in the imperative but rather as a question—a suppression of his own appetite. He called accompanying al-Khiḍr “following him”. He did not suggest being taught as a condition. On the contrary he said, “in return for your teaching me”. Next, he deemed himself to be a learner. Next, he aggrandized the level of al-Khiḍr’s knowledge by referring to the acquisition of it in the passive, what you have been taught, as opposed to what you know. Next, he praised him by saying, rushdan (right). Next, he said just “some of what you have been taught (mimma ʿullimta)” as opposed to “everything you have been taught (ma ʿullimta).” Next he elevated al-Khiḍr’s status by referring to his guidance as an order (amr) given by al-Khiḍr, considering a breach by him (Moses) of it to be disobedience. Next, he did not take his ease with al-Khiḍr by making an explicit promise. On the contrary he alluded to it by saying, If God pleases, you will find me patient and I shall not disobey you in any matter.
Al-Khiḍr was also polite to him by not immediately refusing and instead indicating to him that he would not be able to be patient. Then, when Moses promised to be patient, God willing, he did not command him to follow, distancing himself from what he wanted, saying, If you would follow me. Next, he did not categorically forbid him from asking questions in the form of a pure nahy mawlawī (interdiction, punishable if breached). Instead he made it contingent upon Moses’ following him by saying, If you would follow me, then do not question me, so as to make him understand that he was not forbidding him imperiously. Instead it was something upon which following him was contingent.
فَٱنطَلَقَا حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا رَكِبَا فِي ٱلسَّفِينَةِ خَرَقَهَاۖ قَالَ أَخَرَقۡتَهَا لِتُغۡرِقَ أَهۡلَهَا لَقَدۡ جِئۡتَ شَيًۡٔا إِمۡرٗا ٧١
(18:71) So they went (their way) until when they embarked in the boat he made a hole in it. [Moses] said: Have you made a hole in it to drown its passengers? Certainly you have done a grievous thing.
Imr, means a great calamity. So they went (fa-nṭalaqā), follows on logically from what precedes it. The two who went their way were Moses and al-Khiḍr. The literal meaning of this is that Moses’ servant did not accompany him on his journey with al-Khiḍr. Li in li-tughriqa ahlahā (to drown its passengers) is purposive; even though their drowning was the consequence of the sinking and in no way intended by al-Khiḍr, an inevitable consequence may metaphorically be considered to be an intended consequence which he assumed because of its obviousness. It is like when one says: Are you doing such and such a thing to kill yourself? The meaning is obvious.
قَالَ أَلَمۡ أَقُلۡ إِنَّكَ لَن تَسۡتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبۡرٗا ٧٢
(18:72) He said: Did I not say that you will not be able to have patience with me?
This is disapproval of Moses’ question and a reminder of what he had previously said, Surely you cannot have patience with me.
قَالَ لَا تُؤَاخِذۡنِي بِمَا نَسِيتُ وَلَا تُرۡهِقۡنِي مِنۡ أَمۡرِي عُسۡرٗا ٧٣
(18:73) He said: Blame me not for what I forgot, and do not constrain me to a difficult thing in my affair.
Rahq, means forcibly muddling while irhāq means constraining. It means: “Do not blame me for my forgetting the promise and being oblivious to it; do not burden me with difficulty in my affair.” Nisyān may be interpreted as failure to do something but the first meaning is more likely. In any event, these words are an apology.
فَٱنطَلَقَا حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا لَقِيَا غُلَٰمٗا فَقَتَلَهُۥ قَالَ أَقَتَلۡتَ نَفۡسٗا زَكِيَّةَۢ بِغَيۡرِ نَفۡسٖ لَّقَدۡ جِئۡتَ شَيۡٔٗا نُّكۡرٗا ٧٤
(18:74) So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. [Moses] said: Have you slain an innocent person who has not [slain] another person? Certainly you have done an evil thing.
There is some omission (here) for the sake of brevity. The implied meaning is: “So they disembarked from the boat and set off.”
Fa qatalahu (he slew him), is joined with the conjunction fa, indicative of logical sequence—to the conditional phrase. Qāla (he said), is the result (apodosis) of idha (when), based on a literal reading. Thus, it is clear that what is important is the reference to Moses’ objection and not the reference to the killing itself. The same applies to the subsequent verse, So they went on until when they came to the people of a town . . . [Moses] said: If you had pleased, unlike the previous verse, So they went (their way) until when they embarked in the boat he made a hole in it. [Moses] said . . . This is because the result (apodosis) of idha (when) in the previous verse is, he made a hole in it, and qala, ([Moses] said) is a new sentence following a full stop.
Thus, the verses are set out in the form of a single story in which Moses objected to al-Khiḍr three times, one after another and not in the form three objections made during the course of three stories. It is as if what is being said is: Such and such happened and so he objected to it, then objected, then objected again. The story is the story of his objections and so it is a single story, not a story of this one’s actions and the other’s objections, which would make it three stories.
Thus the difference between the three verses becomes clear—kharaqaha (he made a hole in it) made the result (apodosis) of idha (when) in the first verse, whereas qatalahu (he slew him), fa wajada (then they found) and fa-aqama (so he put it in a right state) are not made the result (apodosis) in the second and third verses. Instead they are part of the conditional phrase, joined to it with a conjunction. This is something the reader should note well.
Have you slain an innocent person?: Zakiyya means pure in the sense of innocent of sins on account of not reaching adulthood. This is the impression given by the word ghulāmān (a boy). The question is a rhetorical disapproval. It is Moses who says this.
Bi-ghayri nafs (who has not [slain] another person?) is metaphorical because slaying by a minor is not a capital offense. It may be possible to infer from bi-ghayri nafs, that he was an adult because an adult can also be called a ghulām. Based on this interpretation, the meaning would be: “Have you unjustifiably slain a person innocent of any capital crime? After all, nothing the ghulām (boy) has done warrants it.”
Certainly you have done an evil (nukran) thing: Nukr means a crime against nature, something society has never known. Making a hole in the boat was considered to be imr, that is, a calamity resulting in misfortunes the like of which will never be repeated. Slaying a person is a nukr or munkar, which people consider to be much, much worse than making a hole in a boat. The latter normally causes deaths but does not do so directly.
قَالَ أَلَمۡ أَقُل لَّكَ إِنَّكَ لَن تَسۡتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبۡرٗا ٧٥
(18:75) He said: Did I not say to you that you will not be able to have patience with me?
The meaning of this is clear. The addition of (the clause) “to you” is a kind of reproach to him for not listening to his instruction and an allusion to his not having listened to what he told him the first time, you will not be able to have patience with me, or had listened but thought that he did not really mean it, instead meaning something else—as if he was saying: “I only meant when I said, ‘you will not’—that is, you, as opposed to anyone else.”
قَالَ إِن سَأَلۡتُكَ عَن شَيۡءِۢ بَعۡدَهَا فَ َ تُصَٰحِبۡنِيۖ قَدۡ بَلَغۡتَ مِن لَّدُنِّي عُذۡرٗا ٧٦
(18:76) He said: If I ask you about anything after this, keep me not in your company; indeed you shall have (then) found an excuse in my case.
The (pronoun) “this” as in “after this” refers to this time or the question, that is, if I ask you another question after this time or after this question, do not accompany me or allow me to accompany you.
Qad balaghta min ladunnī—means: “You will have reached an excuse and found a way to excuse yourself from me because your responsibility for me has reached its end.”
ففَٱنطَلَقَا حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَآ أَتَيَآ أَهۡلَ قَرۡيَةٍ ٱسۡتَطۡعَمَآ أَهۡلَهَا فَأَبَوۡاْ أَن يُضَيِّفُوهُمَا فَوَجَدَا فِيهَا جِدَارٗا يُرِيدُ أَن يَنقَضَّ فَأَقَامَهُۥۖ قَالَ لَوۡ شِئۡتَ لَتَّخَذۡتَ عَلَيۡهِ أَجۡرٗا ٧٧
(18:77) So they went on until when they came to the people of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused to entertain them as guests. Then they found in it a wall which was on the point of falling, so he put it into a right state. If you had pleased, you might certainly have taken (la ttakhadhta) a recompense for it.
The same thing can be said about (the phrases), so they went on; but they refused; then they found, and, so he put it in a right state, as was said about (the phrases), so they set off, and, he slew him.
Istaṭʿamā ahlahā (they asked them for food), is adjectival to the word, town. Istaṭʿamāhum was not said because of the vulgarity of our saying—qariyatan istaṭʿamāhum (a town they asked for food) unlike atā qariyatan (lit. he came to a town) in the sense of ata ahla qariyatin (he came to the people of a town) because a town can be reached and it is permissible, metaphorically, to say town but actually mean the people of a town. This is not true in the case of asking for food because it is something which can only be done to the people of a town. Thus, “its people” (ahlahā) is not an instance of spelling out something which could be said just as well with a pronoun.
The Qur’an does not say, “So they went on until when they came to a town” because that would literally mean the town itself; the main purpose—as the reader already knows—depends on the result (apodosis), that is, [Moses] said: If you had pleased, you might certainly have taken a recompense for it. This contains a reference to payment, which can only be from the people and not the town itself. The words, they came to the people of a town, prove that he put the wall into a right state in the presence of the people of the town. This is what made saying, “taken a recompense from them”, or, “taken a recompense from its people” redundant.
Istiṭʿam means asking for food as guests. That is why the Qur’an says, but they refused to entertain them as guests.
Then they found in it a wall which was on the point of falling (an yanqaḍḍa): Inqiḍāḍ, means falling so here it is used metaphorically to mean on the point of falling and collapsing.
So he put it in a right state (Fa-aqāmahu): al-Khiḍr made it firm by fixing it but He does not say how he put it in a right state—whether by way of a miracle, building or laying down support. However, what Moses said, If you had pleased, you might certainly have taken a recompense for it, gives the impression that it was not miraculous, because it is usual for a wage to be taken for something non-miraculous.
If you had pleased, you might certainly have taken (la ttakhadhta) a recompense for it: Takhadha and akhadha mean the same thing. The pronoun “it” refers to iqāma (putting in a right state) understood from, fa-aqāmahu (so he put it in a right state). It is a verbal noun which can be considered either masculine or feminine. The contexts testifies that they were hungry so Moses mentioned al-Khiḍr’s taking a wage for his work because if he had done so, they would have been able to buy food with it to satisfy their hunger.
قَالَ هَٰذَا فِرَاقُ بَيۡنِي وَبَيۡنِكَۚ سَأُنَبِّئُكَ بِتَأۡوِيلِ مَا لَمۡ تَسۡتَطِع عَّلَيۡهِ صَبۡرًا٧٨
(18:78) He said: This shall be separation between me and you; now I will inform you of the significance of that with which you could not have patience.
The demonstrative pronoun “this” refers to what Moses said, that is, this thing you said is the reason for the separation between me and you. Alternatively, it refers to the time, that is, the time for separation between me and you. This is what some claim. It could also refer to the separation itself, that is, this separation has come, as if it pertained to the unseen and it was time for it when Moses said, If you had pleased, you might certainly have taken a recompense for it. Al-Khiḍr said, this will be separation between me and you, and not just “between us,” for the sake of emphasis. He only said this after the third objection because before that, Moses had apologized to him—the first time—and asked him for another chance—the second time. As for the separation after the third time, Moses had given al-Khiḍr an excuse because he had said after the second objection, If I ask you about anything after this, keep me not in your company. The rest is clear.
أَمَّا ٱلسَّفِينَةُ فَكَانَتۡ لِمَسَٰكِينَ يَعۡمَلُونَ فِي ٱلۡبَحۡرِ فَأَرَدتُّ أَنۡ أَعِيبَهَا وَكَانَ وَرَآءَهُم مَّلِكٞ يَأۡخُذُ كُلَّ سَفِينَةٍ غَصۡبٗا ٧٩
(18:79) As for the boat, it belonged to (some) poor men who worked on the sea and I wished to damage it, and there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force.
This starts explaining in detail what al-Khiḍr had vaguely promised, “I will inform you.” An aʿībahā means “I should damage it.” This indicates that “every boat” really means every undamaged boat.
And there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force: The word warāʾ means “behind,” that is, the adverb denoting a place, which is the opposite of the other adverb denoting a place, which a person faces, and which is called before or in front of. However, it can also be said of what a person is oblivious to, where there is someone who wishes him harm or unpleasantness even if it is in front of him, or, where there is something which distracts a person from it, or, where there is something which makes a person too concerned with himself for anything else, like when a person turns his face away from the direction he is facing. He says: But whoever seeks to go beyond that (warāʾa dhalika), these are they that exceed the limits . . . (); And it is not for any mortal that God should speak to him except by revelation or from behind (warāʾa) a veil . . . () and And God encompasses them on every side (min warāʾihim muḥīṭ) ().
In brief, it means: “The boat belonged to a number of poor people who worked on the sea, and who made a living from it. There was a tyrannical king who ordered the seizure of the boats, so I wanted to make a hole in it to make it defective so that the tyrant would not covet it and would leave it to them.”
وَأَمَّا ٱلۡغُلَٰمُ فَكَانَ أَبَوَاهُ مُؤۡمِنَيۡنِ فَخَشِينَآ أَن يُرۡهِقَهُمَا طُغۡيَٰنٗا وَكُفۡرٗا ٨٠
(18:80) And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared (fa-khashīnā) lest he should overburden them with his impropriety and disbelief.
What is likeliest from the context of the verse and from (the statement), and I did not do it of my own accord, yet to come—is that khashīnā means metaphorically, “we were wary of kindness and compassion” and not the literal meaning of the specific emotional state which God and His prophets do not experience. As God says: Those who deliver the messages of God and fear Him, and do not fear anyone but God . . . ().
Lest he should overburden them with his impropriety and disbelief (an yurhiqahumā ṭughyānan wa kufran), means the boy’s making his parents give in to that, that is, driving his parents to disobedience and ingratitude by leading them astray and having a psychological effect on them because of their strong love for them. However, what the next verse says, wa aqraba ruḥman (and more caring towards his kin), is not free of endorsement for disobedience and ingratitude actually being two specifying complements to irhāq (pressuring), that is, they are two attributes of the boy, not his parents.
فَأَرَدۡنَآ أَن يُبۡدِلَهُمَا رَبُّهُمَا خَيۡرٗا مِّنۡهُ زَكَوٰةٗ وَأَقۡرَبَ رُحۡمٗا ٨١
(18:81) So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity (zakatan) and more caring toward his kin (aqraba ruḥman).
Better than him in terms of zakat means better than him in terms of propriety (ṣalāḥ) and faith (īmān) as contextually indicated by making it the opposite of impropriety (ṭughyān) and unbelief (kufr) in the previous verse. It is claimed that the root meaning of zakat is purity. Nearer to him (ruḥman) means more caring toward his kin (awṣal li-l-raḥim) and relations so he will not pressure them. The word aqrab (nearer) does not fit an interpretation of it as more merciful to them. This, as the reader will realize, supports the interpretation of, yurhiqahumā ṭughyānan wa-kufran, in the previous verse as overburdening them with his impropriety and unbelief, not making them exceed proper bounds and fall into disbelief and overwhelming them to do so.
The verse—in any event—alludes to the fact that his parents’ faith was of value to God and they deserved a good son who is caring toward his parents. That which was ordained in the boy was the opposite of that so God commanded al-Khiḍr to slay him so that He could replace him with a child who was better and more caring toward them.
وَأَمَّا ٱلۡجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَٰمَيۡنِ يَتِيمَيۡنِ فِي ٱلۡمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحۡتَهُۥ كَنزٞ لَّهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَٰلِحٗا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَن يَبۡلُغَآ أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسۡتَخۡرِجَا كَنزَهُمَا رَحۡمَةٗ مِّن رَّبِّكَۚ وَمَا فَعَلۡتُهُۥ عَنۡ أَمۡرِيۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأۡوِيلُ مَا لَمۡ تَسۡطِع عَّلَيۡهِ صَبۡرٗا ٨٢ ا
(18:82) And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father was a righteous man; so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, a mercy from your Lord, and I did not do it of my own accord. This is the significance of that with which you could not have patience.
It would not be surprising if it could be inferred from the context that the city mentioned in this verse was not the same as the town in which they found the wall which he put into a right state. If they had been one and the same, there would not have been much need to say that the two orphan boys were in the city. The reader/listener’s attention is directed to the point that they and those charged with looking after them were not present in the town.
Mentioning that the boys were orphans, there being a treasure belonging to them under the wall, that if the wall collapsed it would become exposed and be lost, and that their father was righteous, is all a prelude and introduction to (the statement), so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, and the clause, a mercy from your Lord, explains His desire.
His mercy is the reason for His desiring that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure. Their taking out their treasure was dependent on al-Khiḍr’s fixing the wall. The reason for the mercy’s being sent was the righteousness of their father. It happened that he died, orphaning the two boys, and leaving them a treasure.
There is a lot of discussion about reconciling their father’s righteousness with the treasure belonging to them under the wall—the apparent significance of which is that their father had hoarded it. This contention is based on the belief that hoarding is reprehensible as per (the verse): . . . and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in God’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement ().
However, the verse addresses no more than the fact that there was a hoard belonging to them under the wall without indicating that it was their father who had buried and hoarded it. Furthermore, their father’s being described as righteous is proof that whatever this hoard was, it was not something reprehensible, assuming that it was their father who had hoarded it. Besides, it is possible that their righteous father could have hoarded it for them for a good reason. What can be more serious than making a hole in a boat and taking the life of a person whose blood should not be spilled—both of which appear in the story and both of which had been made permissible through an explanation by divine command? There are some relevant oral traditions in the discussion below, God willing.
There is proof in the verse that a person’s righteousness may cause his children to inherit a nice legacy and might leave them in happiness and goodness. Thus, this verse—about goodness—is like: And let those fear who, should they leave behind them weakly offspring, would fear on their account . . . ().
وَمَا فَعَلۡتُهُۥ عَنۡ أَمۡرِيۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأۡوِيلُ مَا لَمۡ تَسۡطِع عَّلَيۡهِ صَبۡرٗا ٨٢
(18:82) And I did not do it of my own accord. This is the significance of that with which you could not have patience (mā lam tasṭiʿ ʿalayhi ṣabran).
This is an allusion to the fact that whatever he did was by the command of another—that is, God—and not something his own self told him to do.
Ma lam tasṭiʿ alayhi ṣabran means the same as, mā lam tastaṭiʿ ʿalayhi ṣabran (that with which you could not have patience). It was explained at the beginning of the exegesis of Surat Āl ʿImrān (Eng. vol. 7) that, according to Qur’anic convention, taʾwīl (interpretation) is the reality which something contains, where it originates, and what it is based on, like the taʾwīl of a dream which means interpretation of it. Taʾwīl of a ruling means the reason for it. Taʾwīl of an action means the benefit in performing it and its true purpose. Taʾwīl of an incident means the true reason for it, etc.
This is the significance of that with which you could not have patience, is an allusion by him [al-Khiḍr] to the fact that the reason he had given for the three incidents and his actions in regard to them was the real reason for them, not the apparent reasons which Moses thought could be related to al-Khiḍr’s actions, that is, causing those people’s death by making a hole in the boat, unjustifiably slaying the boy, and bad planning over provision regarding the matter of putting the wall in a right state.
Some say that an example of the wonderful politeness shown by al-Khiḍr toward his Lord when speaking—was to attribute those actions not free of fault, to himself, for example, and I wished that I should damage it, and to use the third person plural when referring to what could politely be attributed to himself and his Lord, for example, so we desired, and, and we feared. He also attributed to God alone anything that was exclusive to Him on account of being contingent upon His being Lord (rubūbiyya) and His regulation of His property (tadbīr mulkihi), for example, so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity . . .
Discourse
The discussion “Historical Discussion Divided into Two Sections” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Examining Narrations
- Al-Burhān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān narrates on the authority of Ibn Bābūwayh on the authority of Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad on the authority of ʿImāra on the authority of his father on the authority of Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad:
After God had spoken to Moses, revealed the Torah to him, written a warning in relation to everything and detailed everything for him, put a miracle in his hand and his staff, sent the flood, the locusts, lice, and frogs, Moses parted the sea and God drowned Pharaoh and his hordes, Moses’ humanity got the better of him to the point that he said to himself: I do not think that mighty and sublime God has created a creature more knowledgeable than me. God then revealed to Gabriel: Save my servant before he is doomed and tell him: There is a servant at the junction of the two seas. Follow him and learn from him.
Gabriel took what his Lord, had commanded him to Moses and Moses realized that that was because of what his ego had told him. He and his servant Joshua b. Nūn set off until they reached the junction of the two seas. There, they found al-Khiḍr worshiping God, as God says in His Book, Then they found one from among Our servants whom We had granted mercy from Us and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves.
Author’s comment: The hadith is long and mentions Moses’ accompanying al-Khiḍr and what transpired between them as mentioned by God in the story in His Book.
The story is narrated from two sources in al-ʿAyyāshī’s exegesis, and in al-Qummī’s exegesis from two sources, one citing the chain of narration, the other not citing it. It is narrated from many sources in al-Durr al-manthūr, from compilers of hadith collections such as al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Nisāʾī, al-Tirmidhī and others on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās on the authority of Kaʿb on the authority of the Prophet.
The hadiths all agree with the beginning of Muḥammad b. ʿImāra’s hadith, and state that the fish they were carrying with them came to life at the rock and made its way, plunging into the sea. They disagree, however, on many matters which they all add to the basis of the story in the Qur’an.
This includes what can be inferred from Ibn Bābūwayh and al-Qummī’s oral tradition—that the junction between the two seas was in Greater Syria and indeed Palestine, as indicated by their context which states that the town they came to was al-Nāṣira [Nazareth]—the place after which the Naṣārā (Christians) are named. Some say that the land was Azerbaijan; this agrees with what al-Durr al-manthūr says on the authority of al-Suddī—that the two seas were the Kur and Araz because they both flow into the sea. The town was called Bājīrwān and its people were miserly. It is narrated that it happened in Africa, on the authority of al-Qarẓī that it was Tangiers and on the authority of Qatāda that it was where the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf meet.
Another example is what some of the narrations say—that the fish was fried. However, most of the others say that it was salted.
Another example is what is said by al-Qummī’s narration, which does not state the chain of narration, along with what shaykhs al-Nisāʾī and al-Tirmidhī and others say—that it happened in the desert at the spring of life. Muslim’s oral tradition even says that the water was the water of life—whoever drank from it would have everlasting life. Nothing dead would ever get close to it without coming back to life. When they rested and the water came into contact with the fish, it came back to life. Others say that Moses’ servant made ablution from minor impurity using the water, a drop fell on the fish and it came back to life. Others say he drank from it but was not supposed to, so al-Khiḍr took him, found him a suitable boat and left the boat in the sea. It will remain between its waves until the Hour comes. Some say that the spring of life from which al-Khiḍr used to drink was at the rock. The rest of the oral traditions are free of any mention of the spring of life.
The four authentic hadith collections and others say that the fish fell in the water and made its way, plunging into the water. God then held back the flow of water from the fish and so it passed along as if in a tunnel. Some of these oral traditions say that after Moses returned, he saw the trail left by the fish and started following the fish, walking on water until they ended up on one of the Arab islands. Al-Ṭabarī’s narration says about the story, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās: He, that is, Moses, returned until he reached the rock. He found the fish which began bounding through the sea, Moses following it, his staff outstretched, parting the water and following the fish. All the seawater the fish came into contact with dried up, becoming like rock. Other oral traditions say nothing of the sort.
Most say that Moses met al-Khiḍr at the rock and some say that he walked through the tunnel made by the fish or walked on water until he found him on one of the islands on the sea. Some say that he met him sitting or resting on the surface of the water.
And there is disagreement on whether the servant accompanied them or they left him behind.
And there is disagreement over how he made a hole in the boat, how he slew the boy, how he fixed the wall, and over the treasure which was underneath it. However, most of the oral traditions say that it was a gold tablet on which admonitions were engraved. There is also disagreement over their righteous father. Most agree that he was their father, but others say that he was their ancestor going back ten generations, others seven generations, others that seventy generations separated them and others that there were seven hundred years between them and him. There are other differences between the narrations.
- Tafsīr al-Qummī says, on the authority of ʿAlī b. Bilāl on the authority of Yūnus, regarding a letter they wrote to al-Riḍā asking him about the learned one Moses came to. Which of them was the more knowledgeable? Was it possible for there to be an authority (ḥujja) senior to Moses in his time? He wrote in reply:
“Moses came to the learned one (al-ʿālim) encountering him either sitting or resting on one of the islands in the sea. Moses uttered the greeting of peace but he did not greet him back because there was no peace in the land. He asked: Who are you? He replied: I am Moses son of ʿImrān. He asked: Are you the Moses son of ʿImrān to whom God spoke? He replied: Yes. He asked: What do you need. He replied: I came so you could teach me right knowledge of what you have been taught. He said: I have been charged with something which you will not be able to bear and you in turn have been charged with something which I cannot bear.”
Author’s comment: Oral traditions to the same effect are narrated by both sects [Sunnī and Shī‘ah].
- Al-Durr al-manthūr says, cited and deemed to be authentic by al-Ḥākim on the authority of Ubayy on the authority of the Prophet:
“When Moses met al-Khiḍr, a bird came along and dipped its beak in the water. Al-Khiḍr asked Moses: Do you know what this bird says? He replied: What does it say? He said: It says, your knowledge and Moses’ knowledge out of all God’s knowledge is like what my beak takes from this water.”
Author’s comment: The story of this bird appears in most of the oral traditions telling the story.
- Tafsir al-ʿAyyāshī says, on the authority of Hishām b. Sālim on the authority of Abū ʿAbdullāh:
“Moses was more knowledgeable than al-Khiḍr.”
Abū Ḥamza says on the authority of Abū Jaʿfar, Moses’ executor was Joshua b. Nūn. He was the servant mentioned in His book.
On the authority of ʿAbdullāh b. Maymūn al-Qaddāḥ on the authority of Abū ʿAbdullāh on the authority of his father: “While Moses was sitting among a crowd of Israelites a man said to him, I do not think that there is anyone who knows more about God than you do. Moses replied: I do not think so. God then revealed to him: On the contrary, My servant al-Khiḍr does. He then asked the way to get to him. He had the fish with him. When he lost it, it would be a sign. His affair was as God told in the story.”
Author’s comment: The differences in the oral traditions over who was more knowledgeable must be interpreted as a difference in the type of knowledge they each had.
- On the authority of Abū Baṣīr on the authority of Abū ʿAbdullāh (about the God's words), and we feared:
“It means he [al-Khidr] feared if the boy went on living he would invite his parents to disbelief and they would respond because of the excessive love they had for him.”
- On the authority of ʿUthmān on the authority of a man on the authority of Abū ʿAbdullāh (about) God’s words: So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and more caring toward his kin:
“They had a little girl who went on to have a little boy who went on to become a prophet.”
Author’s comment: Most oral traditions say that seventy prophets were born from her but what is meant is from her line.
- On the authority of Isḥāq b. ʿAmmār, I heard Abū ʿAbdullāh say:
“Because of a man’s righteousness, God makes his children and his children’s children righteous. He will protect him in his house and in the houses around him and they will remain in God’s protection because of his being precious to God. He then mentioned (about) the two boys, saying, and their father was a righteous man. Do you not see that God thanked them for their father’s righteousness?”
- On the authority of Masʿada b. Ṣadaqa on the authority of Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad on the authority of his forefathers, The Prophet said:
“God provides a legacy in a righteous servant’s family and property after his death even if his family are evil people. He then recited this verse: . . . and their father was a righteous man, up to the end of the verse.”
- Al-Durr al-manthūr says, Ibn Mardawayh cites on the authority of Jābir, God’s Messenger said:
“Because of his righteousness, God makes a righteous man’s children and his children’s children and the houses around him righteous. They will remain in God’s protection so long as he is among them.”
Author’s comment: Oral traditions to the same effect are mustafīḍa (many, almost to the point of being irrefutable).
- Al-Kāfi says, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Ṣafwān al-Jammāl, I asked Abū ʿAbdullāh about God’s words, And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them. He replied:
“It was neither gold nor silver. Instead it was four statements: There is no god but God. Whoever is certain of death will not laugh. The heart of whoever is certain of the reckoning will not be joyful. Whoever is certain of ordainment (al-qadar) will fear no one else but God.”
Author’s comment: Many are the oral traditions narrated by both the Shi‘ah and Sunnī to the effect that the treasure which was underneath the wall was a tablet on which words were inscribed. Most of them say that it was a gold tablet. This is not contradicted by what this oral tradition says—it was neither gold nor silver—because what that means is neither dinars nor dirhams, which are what one immediately thinks of when one hears the word treasure.
The oral traditions differ on the exact words inscribed on the tablet. However, most of them agree that there was the declaration that there is no god but God and there was something written about death and ordainment.
Some of them include both declarations of faith, as in:
- al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority al-Bayhaqī’s Shuʿab al-īmān on the authority of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib on God’s words, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them:
“It was a gold tablet on which was inscribed: There is no god but God. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God. It is amazing that anyone who remembers that death is true is joyful. It is amazing that anyone who remembers that hell is true laughs. It is amazing that anyone who remembers that ordainment is true, is sorrowful. It is amazing that anyone who sees the world and its disposal of the people in it, state after state, has confidence (yuṭmʾin) in it.”
Based on this interpretation, the use of the word majmaʿ meaning junction or where they meet is somewhat metaphorical. (Trans.) ↩︎
If recited with a shadda above the tāʾ the word comes from ittakhadha but if it is recited without a shadda, it comes from takhadha. (Ed.) ↩︎
It is interesting to note that according to one exegete, the three acts which al-Khidr performed were all the things that Moses had done or got involved before. First he was thrown into the nile as an infant, yet that was to save him and not to drown him. Then he accidentally killed an Israelite who did not deserve to die. And, he also drew water for prophet Shuʿayb daughters without asking any reward. God probably wanted to show Moses that his accusation of al-Khidr could return to him by the same token. (Pub.) ↩︎