92. The word Musa used at this point is “nukra” which is stronger in disapproval than the word he used earlier, “imra” (Alusi and others). Further, points out Shafi`, Musa’s objection was entirely in order because it is not allowed for someone who knows the Shari`ah laws to remain silent when he sees them violated.

Another point of note: With this as precedence, some ignorant Sufis claim that just as a Khadir’s act of murder of an innocent soul was lawful unto him, the Awliya’ reach a stage in spiritual development when the Shari`ah is no more binding on them. They need not, e.g., do the five daily prayers. Their Tariqah requirements supersede the Shari`ah requirements. Not only they are wrong in this but also in asserting that Shari`ah and Tariqah are two different realities. They are not. Even if there is some difference, Tariqah always remains subjected to Shari`ah whose laws are entirely inviolable (Alusi, Ma`arif).

93. Notice that Khadir used the same sentence as he did earlier, but this time he added “laka” (you) to impress on Musa a slightly stronger exasperation on his part (Zamakhshari).

94. According to moral notions prevalent at a time when there were no eating shops, the town’s people were obliged to host these strangers. Far from that, they refused to provide food even when asked. Hence Musa’s indignation: you could have at least taken wages from these uncouth men, even if we did not need the money! (Au.)

95. According to a report in Bukhari, Khadir merely touched the wall and it became upright. (If this is correct then) in this is the proof of the possibility of miracles at the hands of the Awliya’ (Thanwi).

Yusuf Ali remarks: “As they were refused hospitality, they should, as self-respecting men, have shaken the dust of the town off their feet, or shown their indignation in some way. Instead of that, Khidhr actually goes and does a benevolent act. He rebuilds for them a falling wall.”

Musa (asws) and Khadir:

A hadith (in Bukhari: Ibn Kathir) gives us the whole story of Musa and Khadir. Ubayy bin Ka`b and others narrate (in several ahadith combined herewith): “Once Musa stood up to deliver a sermon among the Israelites. His speech brought tears into their eyes. Someone asked, ‘Who is the most learned of men?’ He replied, ‘I.’ Allah admonished Musa for failing to attribute (absolute) knowledge to Him. So He revealed to him, ‘I have a slave at the junction of the two seas who is more knowledgeable than you.’ He asked, ‘How am I to find him?’ He was told, ‘Take a fish with you, and put it in a (large) basket. Wherever you lose the fish, that is the place you will find him.’ So Musa took a fish, put it in a (large) basket and set out along with his attendant lad, Yusha` b. Nun (perhaps Joshua of the Bible), until when they reached the rock, they laid their heads on it and slept. Meanwhile, the fished wriggled out of the basket and betook its way into the river, burrowing (its way through). Allah held the water around the fish’s passage as if it was a tunnel. [Or perhaps the river water had freezed into ice due to cold weather: Zamakhshari]. (According to another report, also in Bukhari, there was a spring at the rock, called “The Spring of Life.” Its water touched nothing but gave it life. A few drops fell on the fish and it became alive). When they woke up, Musa’s companion forgot to tell him about the fish’ disappearance. They moved on journeying through the day and the following night, until when it was the next day, Musa said to his attendant, “‘Bring out our lunch. We have indeed encountered hardship from this our journey.’ “In fact, Musa did not feel fatigued until he had passed over the place which he was told to look out for. His attendant told him, ‘Did you see?! When we took shelter at the rock, I forgot about the fish, and none but Shaytan made me forget that I should mention it. It took its way into the sea in an amazing manner.’ [Note that Allah used the word sarab (a burrow) for the trace the fish left, but for Musa and his companion ‘ajab (an amazing thing)].’ Moreover, this part implies that Musa’s lad was awake when the fish jumped out.

Musa said, ‘That is the place we were seeking after.’ So they returned tracing their footsteps.’

They traveled back until they reached the rock. They encountered a man there, lying on the rock, covered with a cloak. Musa greeted him. Khadir asked in reply, ‘Is there such a greeting in our land?’ Musa said, ‘I am Musa.’ He inquired, ‘Musa of the Israelites?’ Musa answered in the affirmative and added, ‘I have come to you so that you may teach me what you have been taught of the higher knowledge.’ Khadir replied, “Assuredly, you will never be able to have patience with me. O Musa! I have some knowledge from Allah which He has taught me and which you do not have, while you have some knowledge which Allah has taught you but which I do not have.’ Musa said, ‘You will find me, Allah willing, patient; and I shall not disobey you in anything.’ Khadir said, ‘If you follow me, then do not ask me about anything until I myself speak to you about it.’ So both of them set out walking along the seashore. A boat passed by and they requested the boat crew to take them on board. The crew knew Khadir and let them climb in without charge. Khadir wasted no time but began to work on one of the planks from the bow side and tore it out. (Alusi adds from the scholars: ‘Eyes don’t see Khadir’). Musa objected, ‘Look! These people gave us a free ride but you broke their boat to drown its people? Surely, you have come up with something very strange. He replied, ‘Did I not say that you can never have patience with me?’ He answered, ‘Do not take me to task for what I forgot and do not make my affair difficult.’

So, Musa’s first (interruption) was because of forgetfulness, second conditional, and third intentional. (Another opinion is that the first was from forgetfulness, second intentional and third for parting ways: Alusi). Then a sparrow came and perched on the edge of the boat. It dipped its beak once or twice in the sea. Khadir said: `Musa! My knowledge and your knowledge have not decreased Allah’s knowledge except as much as this sparrow has decreased the water of the sea with its beak.’ (Some reports say that the bird incident took place while the two were still at the river where they had met first).

In any case, they left the boat. And as they were walking by the shore, Khadir spotted a boy playing with a few other kids. (Ghulam of the text is used for a teenager also). He took hold of the boy’s head and severed it off (its neck). [According to other reports, laid him down and slit his throat]. Musa protested, ‘Have you murdered an innocent soul without (retaliation) for another? Surely, you have come up with a deplorable act.’ He replied, ‘Haven’t I told you that you will never have patience with me?’ Musa said (to himself), ‘This was a stronger (reproach) than the earlier one, and added, ‘If I ever ask you about anything after this, keep me not in your company anymore. You have indeed obtained an excuse from me.’ Then they set forth until when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they asked them for food. But they refused that they should host the two. The two found there a wall about to collapse. That is, it was leaning on one side. Khadir set it up aright. Musa spoke up, ‘a people we went to, but they did not feed us nor hosted us. Had you wished, you could have taken some wages for it. He answered, ‘This is the parting between me and you. Now I will tell you the truth of that you could not bear patiently.

“The Prophet then added, ‘We wish Musa had shown patience so that we had learnt more from the two” (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir and others).

Khadir

With his usual thoroughness Alusi deals with the question of Khadir over a number of pages. Was he a Messenger, a Prophet, or a Waliyy? Quite a few scholars have believed that he was a Prophet but not a Messenger. As for whether he is still alive, some are of opinion that he is not, although he seems to have been alive at the time of the Companions. Imam Bukhari was asked about him and Ilyas, whether they were alive. He replied, “How can they be alive when the Prophet said a little before his own death, ‘Of those present now, none will remain alive after a century?’” Muslim’s version is, “There is not a breathing soul that will have a hundred years pass over it while it is alive.” Ibn Taymiyyah and a few others were also of the same opinion. Another contention of these scholars is that the affair is of such important nature that if he was to remain alive until the end of the world, surely, the Qur’an and Sunnah would not have failed to mention it. With reference to a few ahadith about Khadir’s life, Ibn Qayyim has stated that none of them is trustworthy.

Nonetheless, majority of scholars believe he is alive and is between us, although normally invisible. This is also the opinion of the Sufiya who say that he will remain alive until the end of all life on earth. Among those who said that the majority of scholars believe that he is alive, one is Nawawi. Ibn Salah (the famous author of Principles of Hadith Criticism) also stated that according to most scholars he is alive. Those who believe in his life reply to the hadith of the “hundred years” that it speaks of those on the land while Khadir could have been on water; though Alusi does not accept this argument as very strong. As for Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument that if he was alive he would have gone to the Prophet to embrace Islam, (since he said that even if Musa was alive he would have followed his Shari`ah), it has been replied that if we do not know that he did not go, we cannot conclude that in fact he did not go. In conclusion Alusi quotes a passage from Sheikh al-Akbar, (Muhiyyuddin Ibn al-`Arabiyy) from his “Futuhat al-Makkiyyah.” The Sufi and philosophical technicalities of the passage defy its successful rendition into English. Its sum and substance is that there are several realms of knowledge, Spirit, and existence. In the world of human existence (which itself has several layers of realms), the Messengers occupy the highest position. They are the Aqtab (sing. Qutb, poles), the Imams, and the Pegs of this religion, and in turn by whose virtue the world of the humans remains in existence. One of these Messengers has to always remain on earth, (in one realm or the other) throughout, until the end of the world. He is body and soul. At the moment it is our Prophet. Apart from him, three other great spiritual figures: Ilyas, ‘Isa and Khadir, have been kept alive, although in a different world within our own. (In fact, the entire world in existence is so small that, within it, the beginning and eternity are merely a point away from each other). These four command different functions and hold different statuses. Our Prophet holds the highest status ever, in any existence, any realm. By these four and through them Allah keeps alive and in existence the four pillars of the religion of Islam: Risalah, Nubuwwah, Wilayah and Iman (faith). In making these statements, Ibn al-`Arabiyy speaks from a knowledge special to him, which, as he claims, even most Sufis are denied. Not only that, he would not ever speak of it, if he did not have the signal from on High. Therefore, Ibn al-`Arabiyy says, the reader may thank Allah for having allowed him to look into a secret otherwise closely held, “accept it, and do not reject it, for if you did that, you will lose the benefit.” (He does not say what the nature of benefit is that we stand to lose! Or at least Alusi does not quote or explain).

Nevertheless, although Alusi himself believes in the life of Khadir, as also he gives credence to what he quotes of the Sheikh al-Akbar, he allows room for the skeptics by saying that the reader is free to accept or reject the above statements, since, after all, he will be questioned for his own honest judgment and not about what others had to state of their personal experiences. Hasn’t `Ali said, “Look at what is said, and not at who said”? But, a fair manner is not to deny altogether since one will be then denying something that neither he experiences, nor would allow others the ability to experience.

We may also point out that Ibn al-`Arabiyy’s claims are based on his kashf. But kash enjoys no authority in the religion of Islam (Au.).

The above said, Alusi also warns that most claims of people, especially the pseudo Sufis, to the effect that they have seen or met Khadir, are incredulous. They claim, “Khadir told me this..,” “Khadir came to me..,” “Khadir admonished me in words..” and so on. They forget that Khadir was quick to part ways with Musa. Will he part Kaleemullah’s company, and prefer the company of these ignorant misguided guys whose company no one covets but the Devil?!

Khadir and Orientalists

Mawdudi has a few words for this honest tribe: “The Orientalists, true to their ilk, have attempted to explore the possible sources of this Qur’anic story as well. After strenuous efforts, they identify three possible sources from which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) may have composed the story and ascribed it to God’s revelation. These sources are Gilgamesh epic, the Alexandrian romance in Syriac, and the Talmudic report..

“It is obvious that Orientalists share a common attitude: that one may be open to all assumptions except that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. That being definitely excluded, these scholars embark on this grand mission to dissect whatever was presented in the Qur’an (which, in their view, was definitely the work of Muhammad [peace be on him] rather than God) and to show how each fragment had some external source. They pursue this line of inquiry so brazenly and go to such absurd lengths that one feels instinctively repelled. Ironically, they term their bigoted pursuit scholarly research. If such biased inquiry can be called knowledge or research, one might as well do without it.

“The true nature of their bigoted research would become fully evident if they were asked to answer the following four questions:

“Firstly, granted that there are similarities in the contents of the Qur’an and the contents of several ancient texts, one might, nevertheless, ask: Is there any positive evidence to suggest that this similarity of content is the result of the Qur’anic account having been taken from other sources?

“Secondly, the sources mentioned as the material for the Qur’anic stories are quite numerous. Were all such sources to be added up, they would be so numerous to make a full-fledged catalogue of a fairly good library. Did any such library exist in Makka at the time of the Prophet (peace be on him)? And even if there had been an abundance of sources from which he might have drawn his material, is there any evidence to indicate that there existed a large team of translators available to the Prophet (peace be on him) whereby this wealth of information might have been brought to his knowledge? Now, since that is quite certainly not the case, the allegations of borrowing simply rest on the two or three trade journeys which the Prophet (peace be on him) took to lands outside Arabia; journeys which were made a few years before his designation as a Prophet. In this respect, it is pertinent to ask: Did the Prophet memorize whole libraries during those journeys? Additionally, how does one explain that before being designated a Prophet, Muhammad (peace be on him) never displayed any such knowledge?

“Thirdly, the Makkan unbelievers as well as the Jews and Christians were always on the look-out to identify possible sources of the Prophet’s statements. Yet the Prophet’s contemporaries were unable to point to any definite source for the Prophet’s alleged plagiarism. The Qur’an frequently challenges them by emphatically stating that the Qur’an is from God alone, that its only source is revelation from God. The Qur’an repeatedly asks its detractors to come forth with whatever proof they have to show that the Qur’an is the product of the human mind. This challenge struck at the very root of their contention, and yet they failed to point to any plausible human source for the Qur’an. Not only were they totally unable to point, in a persuasive manner, to any specific source from which the Qur’an might have been derived, they could not produce as much as a shred of evidence that would create any reasonable doubt about the matter. It is ironic that while the Prophet’s contemporaries failed to point to any plausible source of the Qur’an, some pseudo-scholars of our times, animated by inveterate hostility to Islam, have the temerity to claim – a thousand and several hundred years after the Prophet’s time – the so-called sources from which the contents of the Qur’an were derived!

“The last point to consider is the following. It is not possible for anybody to deny that there exists at least the logical possibility that the Qur’an might be the revealed word of God. It is logically possible that the information the Qur’an provides about past events might indeed be true whereas those reports commonly available to us about the past might be the distorted versions of oral reports of events over centuries, and hence unreliable. It should be noted that this possibility was arbitrarily ruled out without any valid reason whatsoever.”

Mawdudi’s comments end here. It might also be pointed out that if we assume that the Prophet had taken the story from the sources alluded to, then the question that arises is, why did the Jews or Makkan pagans had to ask him about Dhu al-Qarnayn and others? They would have better known the stories than the Prophet. But the problem with the Orientalists is that their research ends at the point truth begins to dawn (Au.).

Up to here in Dec. 2010

96. Imam Shafe`i has used this verse to arrive at the conclusion that a faqir is worse off than a miskin, since although the people of this instance owned a boat, Allah referred to them as masakin (Razi).

97. The word “amam” has the connotation both of behind as well as in front (Ibn Jarir).

98. That is, the king was confiscating every well-maintained boat but ignored this one because it was broken.

99. An alternative rendering can be, “impose upon them rebellion and disbelief.”

Ahmed has a report that Najdah Hirawi (a Haruri [Khariji sect: Au.]: Alusi) wrote ibn ‘Abbas a letter asking him if he could kill some boys (captured after a battle). He wrote back, “If you are a Khadir, capable of differentiating between a believer and an unbeliever, then you might.” According to another version in Ibn abi Shaybah, the reply also said, “.. but you are not. Indeed, the Prophet has forbidden their killing, therefore, free them.” And, according to a report in Muslim, Abu Da’ud and Tirmidhi, the Prophet said, “The boy that Khadir killed was created, the day he was created, an unbeliever. Had he reached his age of puberty, he would have only confronted his parents with rebellion and unbelief” (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani and others, under verse 74).

100. While Sa`id b. Jubayr and a few of the Followers thought Allah replaced the boy with a girl by next delivery, Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj believed it was a boy again (Ibn Jarir).

101. Although some have reported that the treasure that Khadir spoke of was nothing more than a piece of writing containing a two-line advice, there are reports from ‘Ikrimah that it was some gold and silver” (Ibn Jarir). There is in fact, a report from the Prophet (saws) himself to this effect. It is in Bukhari’s Tarikh as well as in Tirmidhi, (who evaluated it as Hasan), Bazzar, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn abi Hatim, Tabarani and Hakim who said it is Sahih (Shawkani).

In addition, there are several ahadith, (although none in the Sihah works, with a few not agreeing with the others: Au.), to the effect that the treasure was in the form of a golden plate over which some words of admonition were inscribed (Ibn Kathir).

Nevertheless, Ibn Kathir expresses his doubts about the authenticity of these reports. Shawkani ignores them altogether (Au.).

102. Ibn ‘Abbas has pointed out that Allah (swt) spoke of the righteousness of the father, but said nothing about the sons (Ibn Jarir); implying that piety-effects travel downward and not upward (Au.).

103. Sufi Thanwi comments: The meaning the verse lends us is that knowledge of the ‘hidden causes’ and Divine wisdom behind the apparent events, revealed to some by means of kashf (mystic insight) are not of the kind that can be termed as the “core knowledge,” the “essence” or the “ultimate truth.” Had it been so, Musa (asws), although superior to Khadir, would not have been denied it in the first place.

Pseudo Sufis exploit Khadir’s episode to lay claim to knowledge of the hidden, and, to escape from the obligations of the Shari`ah in the light of such knowledge. Sufi commentator Alusi takes up the issue for discussion. First he points out that the knowledge that Khadir drew on, obtained either through Wahiyy or Ilham (whatever the case), which allowed him, for example, to kill an innocent soul, was valid for him alone, not for others. In fact, not even for Musa, who was required to follow the Shari`ah laws (which would not allow for the killing of the boy: hence his protest). Therefore, whoever claimed knowledge by Ilham (Divine inspiration sans words) but which goes against the Shari`ah, spoke a lie. So that, if somebody claimed to receive knowledge by Ilham – rightly or wrongly – of a similar nature as Khadir, then killing of a boy, for example, will not be allowable to him. One of those who rejected the claim that knowledge by Ilham can nullify or supersede a Shari`ah law, was the Sufi Sha`rani. He said many people have gone astray and misled others over the issue, since no such thing is possible. Sheikh al-Akbar Mohiuddin ibn al-Arabiyy wrote in one of his works: “When we talk about Ilham as an angelic inspiration, we do not mean to say that it is brought to us by an angel. Not at all. In fact, inspiration and revelation, with the angels as the medium, is specifically the right of Prophets and Messengers. With the termination of Messengership, the possibility of inspiration through revelation has also terminated. Neither can anyone claim, nor has ever claimed, that knowledge comes to him directly from Allah. If anyone ever felt that, then the explanation is that it is a kind of Satanic fraud upon him. If at all there is some ‘opening of the heart, for a ‘special kind of knowledge’, it can never be of the kind of do’s or don’t do’s, the lawful and the unlawful. But rather, either of a hidden wisdom, or maybe a hint about what kind of event can be expected next.”

Imam Rabbani, Mujaddid Alf-Thani, continues Alusi, has also clearly stated in his “Letters” that Ilham cannot cancel out a Shari`ah law. It is possible, he stated, that when someone is high in a “state” or “trance,” he may hear, or utter things of that sort. But, back to sobriety, he can never utter any such thing. The state of sobriety melts off all those wild thoughts. He also wrote that Shari`ah is the name of three elements: knowledge, deeds, and sincerity. Whoever fell short in any of these, fell short on Shari`ah. But if he observed them wholly, he earns Allah’s approval, which is better than anything in the heavens or earth, including what is claimed as the haqiqah behind the Shari`ah. Indeed, the tariqah and haqiqah that the Sufis speak of are in the service of Shari`ah by strengthening the third of its elements as stated above, viz., Ikhlas (sincerity). In short, the best and the easiest way of gaining closeness to Allah is to follow the Shari`ah as revealed to the Prophet. The Qur’an said (12: 108), “Say, ‘This is my way, I invite you on a knowledge - I and my followers.’” And (3: 31), “Say, ‘If you love Allah, follow me, Allah will love you.’” And (10: 32), “What is left after untruth but error?” The Imam also wrote elsewhere, “You should know that in the final analysis, the knowledge of the Sufis is the knowledge of the scholars, not something else in sum and substance. Yes, as they travel on the path, they experience some kind of esoteric knowledge, (not comprehended by others). But in no way does it contradict the Shari`ah. The difference in the kinds of knowledge that the ascetics gain, and that which the traditional scholars posses, is that the latter’s is of the deductive type, supported by evidences, worked out with the help of reason and logic. In contrast, that in which the Sufis specialize is obtained through kashf (vision of the realities). He also wrote, “You must know that Shari`ah and Haqiqah are in their reality one and the same things. If there is any difference between the two, it is in that of details, manner of deduction, and that one has the backing of vision while the other relies entirely on derivation, or at worse, one could be theoretical, while the other a practical experience. Further, if the knowledge through vision contradicts the knowledge through deduction, even by a grain, then, it is the sign of its rejection from on High.

On the subject, we might note that Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani has said that the Awliya’ depend not on anything but the Qur’an and Sunnah. Junayd in fact has said that all the paths are closed, save that of the Sunan of the Prophet. Indeed, he said that he who did not memorize the Qur’an and does not write the Hadith, may not be followed at all. Sirri al-Saqti has said that whoever claimed hidden, secret knowledge, that clashes with the Shari`ah is in error. Abu al-`Abbas al-Daynuri said, “If you see someone in a state which the Shari`ah does not approve, you may criticize him.” Imam Ghazali wrote: “Whoever claimed that he is on a very special footing with his Lord, so that He has abrogated, say Prayers, or has allowed him to drink wine, or things of that sort, deserves to be killed. In fact, slaying him is better than slaying a hundred unbelievers, for the evil in him is greater.”

Nor, Alusi continues, kashf, or miracles, and things of this nature that some of the Sufiya are able to perform, are signs of true greatness. It is said that once Hasan al-Busri was waiting for a boat when Habib al-‘Ajami happened to pass by. When he learnt that Hasan was waiting for a boat to take him to the other shore, he asked, “Don’t you have faith?” Hasan replied, “Don’t you have knowledge?” Habib in any case walked over the water to the other shore. Yet, Hasan was far superior to Habib by virtue of knowledge and wisdom. He had mastered both the knowledge of the truth (‘ilm al-yaqin), as well as the truth of truths (‘ayn al-yaqin). In contrast, Habib was merely spiritually drunk. So, when he placed his foot on water in trust and good faith, physical laws were held in abeyance for him. (But that did not raise his esteem in the sight of Allah). This in fact is the secret behind why few thaumaturgies are reported of the Companions. They were people of great knowledge and high degree of faith. Imam Rabbani has aptly said that “the high point of Uways al-Qarni’s faith was the low point of Wahshi’s faith.” (Wahshi was Hamza’s killer, but counted a Companion). How will you then compare those whose quality of faith is not of the level of Uways with those (of the Companions) whose quality of faith was not that of Wahshi?

Away from the above discussion, the scholars have also pointed out that the following can be learnt from Musa-Khadir episode:

• The desirability to travel for knowledge.

• It is a virtue to seek it.

• The desirability to show respect to a teacher.

• Not to object or criticize the masters.

• Attempt to reconcile the inexplicable of their acts.

• Carrying one’s provision with him in a journey is not against trust in Allah.

• Scholar needs to show patience to the student.

• Forgetfulness is from Shaytan.

• Lawfulness of wages for one’s works.

• A miskin can own property.

• It is allowable to conceal treasure.

Quote from Alusi ends here, and Thanwi adds to the list his own that knowledge requires deeds and actions. Knowledge is not “the word” alone.