فَانْطَلَقَا ۥ So they both set out حَتّٰۤی until اِذَا when رَكِبَا they had embarked فِی on السَّفِیْنَةِ the ship خَرَقَهَا ؕ he made a hole in it قَالَ He said اَخَرَقْتَهَا Have you made a hole in it لِتُغْرِقَ to drown اَهْلَهَا ۚ its people لَقَدْ Certainly جِئْتَ you have done شَیْـًٔا a thing اِمْرًا grave قَالَ He said اَلَمْ Did not اَقُلْ I say اِنَّكَ indeed you لَنْ never تَسْتَطِیْعَ will be able مَعِیَ with me صَبْرًا (to have) patience قَالَ He said لَا (Do) not تُؤَاخِذْنِیْ blame me بِمَا for what نَسِیْتُ I forgot وَ لَا and (do) not تُرْهِقْنِیْ be hard (upon) me مِنْ in اَمْرِیْ my affair عُسْرًا (raising) difficulty فَانْطَلَقَا ۥ Then they both set out حَتّٰۤی until اِذَا when لَقِیَا they met غُلٰمًا a boy فَقَتَلَهٗ ۙ then he killed him قَالَ He said اَقَتَلْتَ Have you killed نَفْسًا a soul زَكِیَّةًۢ pure بِغَیْرِ for other than نَفْسٍ ؕ a soul لَقَدْ Certainly جِئْتَ you have done شَیْـًٔا a thing نُّكْرًا evil 18. Al-Kahf Page 302 قَالَ He said اَلَمْ Did not اَقُلْ I say لَّكَ to you اِنَّكَ that you لَنْ never تَسْتَطِیْعَ will be able مَعِیَ with me صَبْرًا (to have) patience قَالَ He said اِنْ If سَاَلْتُكَ I ask you عَنْ about شَیْءٍۭ anything بَعْدَهَا after it فَلَا then (do) not تُصٰحِبْنِیْ ۚ keep me as a companion قَدْ Verily بَلَغْتَ you have reached مِنْ from me لَّدُنِّیْ from me عُذْرًا an excuse فَانْطَلَقَا ۥ So they set out حَتّٰۤی until اِذَاۤ when اَتَیَاۤ they came اَهْلَ (to the) people قَرْیَةِ (of) a town سْتَطْعَمَاۤ they asked for food اَهْلَهَا (from) its people فَاَبَوْا but they refused اَنْ to یُّضَیِّفُوْهُمَا offer them hospitality فَوَجَدَا Then they found فِیْهَا in it جِدَارًا a wall یُّرِیْدُ (that) want(ed) اَنْ to یَّنْقَضَّ collapse فَاَقَامَهٗ ؕ so he set it straight قَالَ He said لَوْ If شِئْتَ you wished لَتَّخَذْتَ surely you (could) have taken عَلَیْهِ for it اَجْرًا a payment قَالَ He said هٰذَا This فِرَاقُ (is) parting بَیْنِیْ between me وَ بَیْنِكَ ۚ and between you سَاُنَبِّئُكَ I will inform you بِتَاْوِیْلِ of (the) interpretation مَا (of) what لَمْ not تَسْتَطِعْ you were able عَّلَیْهِ on it صَبْرًا (to have) patience اَمَّا As for السَّفِیْنَةُ the ship فَكَانَتْ it was لِمَسٰكِیْنَ of (the) poor people یَعْمَلُوْنَ working فِی in الْبَحْرِ the sea فَاَرَدْتُّ So I intended اَنْ that اَعِیْبَهَا I cause defect (in) it وَ كَانَ (as there) was وَرَآءَهُمْ after them مَّلِكٌ a king یَّاْخُذُ who seized كُلَّ every سَفِیْنَةٍ ship غَصْبًا (by) force وَ اَمَّا And as for الْغُلٰمُ the boy فَكَانَ his parents were اَبَوٰهُ his parents were مُؤْمِنَیْنِ believers فَخَشِیْنَاۤ and we feared اَنْ that یُّرْهِقَهُمَا he would overburden them طُغْیَانًا (by) transgression وَّ كُفْرًاۚ and disbelief فَاَرَدْنَاۤ So we intended اَنْ that یُّبْدِلَهُمَا would change for them رَبُّهُمَا their Lord خَیْرًا a better مِّنْهُ than him زَكٰوةً (in) purity وَّ اَقْرَبَ and nearer رُحْمًا (in) affection وَ اَمَّا And as for الْجِدَارُ the wall فَكَانَ it was لِغُلٰمَیْنِ for two orphan boys یَتِیْمَیْنِ for two orphan boys فِی in الْمَدِیْنَةِ the town وَ كَانَ and was تَحْتَهٗ underneath it كَنْزٌ a treasure لَّهُمَا for them وَ كَانَ and was اَبُوْهُمَا their father صَالِحًا ۚ righteous فَاَرَادَ So intended رَبُّكَ your Lord اَنْ that یَّبْلُغَاۤ they reach اَشُدَّهُمَا their maturity وَ یَسْتَخْرِجَا and bring forth كَنْزَهُمَا ۖۗ their treasure رَحْمَةً (as) a mercy مِّنْ from رَّبِّكَ ۚ your Lord وَ مَا And not فَعَلْتُهٗ I did it عَنْ on اَمْرِیْ ؕ my (own) accord ذٰلِكَ That تَاْوِیْلُ (is the) interpretation مَا (of) what لَمْ not تَسْطِعْ you were able عَّلَیْهِ on it صَبْرًاؕ۠ (to have) patience
(18:71) Then the two went forth until, when they embarked on the boat, he made a hole in it, whereupon Moses exclaimed: "Have you made a hole in it so as to drown the people in the boat? You have certainly done an awful thing."
(18:72) He replied: "Did I not tell you that you will not be able to patiently bear with me?"
(18:73) Moses said: "Do not take me to task at my forgetfulness, and do not be hard on me."
(18:74) Then the two went forth until they met a lad whom he slew, whereupon Moses exclaimed: "What! Have you slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone? Surely you have done a horrible thing."
(18:75) He said: "Did I not tell you that you will not be able to patiently bear with me?"
(18:76) Moses said: "Keep me no more in your company if I question you concerning anything after this. You will then be fully justified."
(18:77) Then the two went forth until when they came to a town, they asked its people for food, but they refused to play host to them. They found in that town a wall that was on the verge of tumbling down, and he buttressed it, whereupon Moses said: "If you had wished, you could have received payment for it."
(18:78) He said: "This brings me and you to a parting of ways. Now I shall explain to you the true meaning of things about which you could not remain patient.
(18:79) As for the boat it belonged to some poor people who worked on the river, and I desired to damage it for beyond them lay the dominion of a king who was wont to seize every boat by force.
(18:80) As for the lad, his parents were people of faith, and we feared lest he should plague them with transgression and disbelief,
(18:81) and we desired that their Lord should grant them another in his place, a son more upright and more tender hearted.
(18:82) As for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and under it there was a treasure that belonged to them. Their father was a righteous man and your Lord intended that they should come of age and then bring forth their treasure as a mercy from your Lord; I did not do this of my own bidding. This is the true meaning of things with which you could not keep your patience."60
60. This story gives rise to a difficult and complex problem which needs to be explained of Khidr’s three acts, all except the third, are opposed to injunctions which, since man’s inception, have always been an integral part of Divine Law. No version of the Divine Law permits man to damage things which belong to others, or to kill-an innocent person. In fact, such injunctions are of fundamental importance. Hence, even if a person were to learn by means of revelation (Ilham) that a boat will be forcibly damaged by someone in the future, or that a young person will grow into an unbeliever and commit excesses, still no one, according to all versions of Divine Law, has the right to damage that boat by making a hole in it, or to kill that innocent person.
One can of course, claim that both these acts were committed under God’s command and hence the person concerned was not blameworthy. This contention, however, does not solve the problem. For the question as to who asked Khidr to commit those acts is not at all relevant. There is no doubt that those acts were in compliance with God’s command. Khidr himself states [in this very verse] that it was God’s mercy rather than his own volition which caused those acts. This is also confirmed by God Who clearly states that He bestowed a special knowledge upon Khidr (see verse 65 above). Thus, there can be absolutely no doubt that these acts were carried out in compliance with God’s command. The real issue, however, is what the nature of those commands was.
It is obvious that these commands were not part of the Law revealed by God as an imperative for man. For doubtlessly the basic principles which form part - of the Qur’an or the earlier Scriptures do not permit the killing of any person who has not been convicted of a crime. Hence, the only reasonable assumption in this case is that these commands are in the nature of God’s cosmic laws — laws which are merely statements of causal relationships. These laws are similar to those by which some people fall sick and then recover, which cause some to die and enable others to survive, and which lead some to their destruction but enable others to prosper.
This being the nature of the commands in the present context, it is clear that they could only have been communicated to angels: For there can be no question that the angels would violate God’s commands, that is so because angels, [according to the Qur’an], involuntarily carry out God’s commands. (See al-Tahrim 66: 7; al-Nahl 16: 49-50 - Ed.) But man’s position is quite different. Whether he performs an act involuntarily in accordance with the laws of nature, or does so in accordance with some inspiration (Ilham) or on the basis of some special knowledge obtained from some unseen source, ‘he will be guilty of committing a sin if his act is opposed to any of God’s revealed laws.
This is so because man, qua man, is responsible for carrying. out God’s commands [in the sense of imperatives]. Additionally, the principles of Divine - Law do not permit anyone to violate any of God’s laws on the grounds that he ‘was directed by means of inspired knowledge or that he had discovered the rationale and wisdom of violating God’s laws through some extraordinary, super-sensory means of cognition.
There is complete agreement on this point among all scholars of the Shari‘ah. Not only that, prominent Sufis are also agreed on this point. Al-‘Alusi has quoted extensively from the writings of prominent Sufis such as ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha‘rani (d. 973 A.H./1565 C.E.), Muhi al-Din ibn al-‘ Arabi (d. 638 A.H./1234 C.E.), Mujaddid-i Alf-i Thani (d. 1034 A.H./1625 C.E.), ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (d. 561 A.H./1166 C.E.), Junayd al-Baghdadi (d. 297 A.H./910 C.E.), Sari al-Saqati (d. 253 A.H./867 C.E.), Abi al-Husayn al-Nuri (d. 295 A.H.), Abu Sa‘id al-Kharraz (d. 279 A.H.), Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad al-Dinawari (d. circa 340 A.H.) and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 350 A.H./1111 C.E.). On the basis of these quotations, al-Alusi has established that according to the Sufis a person may not do anything against a law clearly laid down in the authoritative texts even if he is the recipient of an inspiration which directs him to do-so. (See al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 16, pp.16-18.)
Should we, then, assume that at least one human being — Khidr — was granted exemption from this rule? Or should we hold that Khidr was not a human being; that he was one of those creatures of God who work in consonance with God’s cosmic providential Will rather than according to the injunctions of Divine Law? It would be logical to opt for the former position if the Qur’an had explicitly stated that the ‘servant’ under whom the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) was to receive this instruction was a human being. The Qur’an, however, does not specifically describe him as a ‘human being’. The word used by the Qur’an is ‘abd which simply indicates that Khidr was one of the creatures or servants of God, a word that does not necessarily signify a human being. It is significant that the same expression has been used at several places in the Qur’an for angels. (See, for example, al-Anbiya’ 21: 26 and al-Zukhruf 43: 19.)
Nor do we find in any authentic tradition mention by the Prophet (peace be on him) of Khidr as a human being. The most authentic traditions in this regard are those which bear the following chain of transmission: Sa‘id ibn al-Jubayr — Ibn ‘Abbas or Ubayy b. Ka‘b — the Prophet (peace be on him). The word that occurs in these traditions is rajul, and although it is used for human males, this is not exclusively the case. (For the occurrence of the word rajul see al-Bukhari, K. al-Ilm, ‘Bab ma yustahabb li al-‘Alim idha su’ il ayy al-Nas A‘lam...’ —Ed.) The Qur’an itself uses the same word in connection with jinn (see al-Jinn 72: 6). Obviously whenever a jinn, an angel or any invisible being appears before man, it will also do so in human form and in this state it will also be called a human being (bashar or insan). For example, when an angel came to Maryam, the Qur’an makes the point that it appeared before her as a human being (Maryam 19: 17). Hence, the statement by Muhammad (peace be on him) that the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) found a male does not conclusively establish that Khidr was necessarily a human being.
The only way for us to resolve this difficulty is to consider Khidr not as a human being but as one of the angels of God, as a creature belonging to some other species of God’s creation, one of those who act as God’s agents and carry out God’s will as reflected in the laws of nature and who are not bound by the Shari‘ah. Some earlier scholars also hold this view, which has in any case been mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir on the authority of al-Mawardi. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on al-Kahf 18, verse 82 — Ed.)