Appearance
Summaries of Sūrat al-Kahf
The summary with which Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī opens his commentary on each verse of Sūrat al-Kahf, in the order of the verses. To read the summary of one verse, type it on the Summary page.
18:60 — When Moses said to his lad
When Moses said to his lad, ‘I will go on [journeying] until I have reached the confluence of the two seas, or have spent a long time [travelling].’
This section of verses (verses 18:60-82) is dedicated to the third story of Sūrah al-Kahf—the narrative of Moses and Khiḍr—which God reminds His messenger about. In the first verse, referring to the conversation between Moses son of ʿImrān and his successor Joshua, He asks the Prophet to remember the time when Moses told his young companion that he would continue journeying until he reaches the meeting place of the two seas to meet the person knowledgeable in the explanation (taʾwīl) of events and the master of divine knowledge, and benefit from his divine knowledge, even if his journey becomes prolonged.
In this story, the Divine Being reveals to Moses the secrets behind certain divine rulings.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:60 →
18:61–62 — So when they reached the confluence between them
(61) So when they reached the confluence between them, they forgot their fish, which found its way into the sea, sneaking away. (62) So when they had passed on, he said to his lad, ‘Bring us our meal. We have certainly encountered much fatigue on this journey of ours.’
When Moses and his young companion reached the junction of the two seas, which was their appointed meeting place with Khiḍr, the young companion forgot to inform Moses about where the fish had fallen into the sea, and Moses also forgot to ask him about the condition of the fish. The falling of the fish into the sea was their sign for the meeting place.
The fish fell from the rock into the water at the meeting place and made its way toward the sea, disappearing from their sight. When Moses and his traveling companion forgot about the matter of the fish and passed beyond that place (the junction of the two seas), Moses said to his companion, “Bring us our morning meal, for we have encountered fatigue from this journey.” The fish was not their food, but rather a sign from God for them that wherever it fell into the water would be their meeting place with Khiḍr.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:61–62 →
18:63 — He said, ‘Did you see?! When we took shelter at the rock
He said, ‘Did you see?! When we took shelter at the rock, indeed I forgot about the fish—and none but Satan made me forget to mention it!—and it made its way into the sea in an amazing manner!’
This verse conveys the response of Moses’s young companion to him, reminding him of the time they rested by the rock, and indicates that the rock was the place where the fish fell into the water and amazingly made its way to the sea, and Moses’s companion forgot to report this extraordinary event to him.
Moses’s companion did not forget the fish itself, rather Satan made him forget to tell Moses about the story of the fish, and with this statement he wanted to apologize to him.
Satanic influences in some ordinary aspects of the prophets’ affairs do not contradict their infallibility, because they are only protected from any harm that would affect God’s religious rulings, not from all forms of Satan’s harassment.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:63 →
18:64–65 — He said, ‘That is what we were after!’ So they returned
(64) He said, ‘That is what we were after!’ So they returned, retracing their footsteps. (65) [There] they found one of Our servants whom We had granted a mercy from Ourselves, and taught him a knowledge from Our own.
After Moses’s companion reported to him about the fish falling into the sea near the rock, Moses told him that this was the place they had been seeking. The story of losing the fish, or its coming back to life and falling into the water at the meeting of the two seas (majmaʿ al-baḥrayn), was a sign from God, and Moses was instructed to meet Khiḍr there. Therefore, upon hearing the story of the fish, they followed their footsteps back along the same path they had come, returning to the place where the fish had fallen into the water. There, at their meeting place, they found one of God’s special servants—a servant whom God had blessed with His special mercy, namely the blessing of prophethood or divine authority (wilāya), and had granted him direct divine knowledge (ʿilm ladunnī) and immediate, pure understanding.
Divine knowledge (ʿilm ladunnī) is knowledge where the learner is a direct student of God Almighty. Such knowledge is absolute truth and cannot contain error—falsehood has no way into it, and it is free from the risk of mistake or forgetfulness.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:64–65 →
18:66–68 — Moses said to him, ‘May I follow you for the purpose that you teach me some of the…
(66) Moses said to him, ‘May I follow you for the purpose that you teach me some of the probity you have been taught?’ (67) He said, ‘Indeed you cannot have patience with me! (68) And how can you have patience about something you do not comprehend?’
After Moses met Khiḍr, Moses said to him that he had come to learn from him, asking: “Would you allow me to accompany you so that you may teach me from what God has taught you that would lead to my growth?” From this expression, it becomes clear that the main purpose of teaching and learning is growth.
Khiḍr strongly denied Moses’ ability to be patient with his teaching method and what he was commanded to do, saying that you cannot tolerate what you will see from me in the course of learning; meaning, you cannot endure my teaching method, not that you cannot bear my knowledge.
On this basis, Khiḍr explained the scope of Moses’ action and his capability, saying you cannot be patient because you do not have comprehensive knowledge of my method; how can you be patient with that which you do not know its secrets, since Moses was commanded with the outer aspects of religious law, while Khiḍr’s mission concerned inner matters and internal secrets. Therefore, he knew that his actions, which would conflict with the outer aspects of Moses’ religious law, would be met with questions from him.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:66–68 →
18:69–70 — He said, ‘You will find me
(69) He said, ‘You will find me, God willing, to be patient, and I will not disobey you in any matter.’ (70) He said, ‘If you follow me, do not question me concerning anything until I myself first mention it for you.’
Moses pledged to Khiḍr that by God’s will he would be among the patient ones and would not disobey his command. He made his patience and non-opposition conditional upon divine will, because he knew that enduring actions that outwardly appear contrary to religious law is not easy. By making his patience and non-disobedience conditional upon divine will, he effectively absolved himself of responsibility and, through this statement, placed himself within the realm of divine unity (tawḥīd).
After Moses’s pledge, Khiḍr told him that if he wished to accompany him and follow him, he must not question anything he witnessed during their companionship that he found incomprehensible, and must refrain from premature interrogative questions, until Khiḍr himself revealed the secret of his actions.
Khiḍr’s actions were reminders (tadhkira), not guidance about something Moses did not know, because similar or more significant events had occurred in Moses’s life before, although they differed in outward appearance.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:69–70 →
18:71–73 — So they went on and when they boarded the boat
(71) So they went on and when they boarded the boat, he made a hole in it. He said, ‘Did you make a hole in it to drown its people? You have certainly done a monstrous thing!’ (72) He said, ‘Did I not say that you cannot have patience with me?’ (73) He said, ‘Do not take me to task for my forgetting, and do not be hard upon me.’
The Qur’an narrates the story of Khiḍr and Moses in its own unique storytelling style. It appears that Joshua’s mission in accompanying Moses had come to an end. After a brief dialogue and Moses’s commitment to Khiḍr, they both set out and boarded a ship. When the ship began moving, Khiḍr made a hole in it, and Moses, based on his religious zeal, objected to this action which outwardly appeared contrary to religious law, saying: “Are you making a hole in their ship to drown its people? You have certainly done a strange and questionable thing!”
In response to Moses, Khiḍr said, “Did I not tell you that you would not be able to bear my actions?” Moses apologized to Khiḍr and said, “Do not hold me accountable for my forgetfulness and do not be harsh with me, but be lenient with me in accompanying you.”
The forgetfulness (nisyān) attributed to Moses in these verses is a praiseworthy and commendable forgetfulness. Moses was zealous in protecting divine religion and law, and his religious zeal caused him to forget his commitment. Such forgetfulness is not only not a deficiency but is actually commendable.
From the entirety of the Moses and Khiḍr story, it appears that Moses’s questions were inquisitive and aimed at understanding the secrets and mysteries of Khiḍr’s actions, focusing on the wisdom of the acts rather than objecting to the doer, as he knew that Khiḍr possessed divine mercy (raḥmat ʿind Allāhī) and divine knowledge (ʿilm ladunī), and companionship with him was for learning the science of the inner meaning of rulings (taʾwīl).
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:71–73 →
18:74–76 — So they went on until they came upon a boy
(74) So they went on until they came upon a boy, whereat he slew him. He said, ‘Did you slay an innocent soul, without [his having slain] anyone? You have certainly done a dire thing!’ (75) He said, ‘Did I not tell you that you cannot have patience with me?’ (76) He said, ‘If I question you about anything after this, do not keep me in your company. You already have enough excuse on my part.’
The second question and answer in the tripartite story of Khiḍr and Moses revolves around the killing of the youth. After disembarking from the ship and continuing their journey, they came across a youth, whom Khiḍr killed without any preamble. For the second time, Moses forgot his commitment and, in a tone even more intense than before, objected. He questioned Khiḍr about killing a youth who had not taken a life and was not guilty of any crime warranting death. Moses condemned the act as something reprehensible and unrecognized—meaning it was not acknowledged as permissible by either of the two primary sources of religious knowledge: reason and tradition.
The term “reprehensible” (nukr) is stronger than the term “grievous” (imr) used in the incident of making a hole in the ship, because Khiḍr’s action in damaging the ship did not result in anyone’s death, unlike the second incident which ended in the taking of a life.
In response to Moses’ objection, Khiḍr reiterated his earlier warning with greater emphasis, reminding him that he had already said Moses would not be able to exercise patience in accompanying him. Once again, Moses apologized and then made a final commitment, stating that if he were to question Khiḍr about anything after this, Khiḍr would have full justification to end their companionship. Moses recognized that his excuses had reached their limit, and Khiḍr would be justified in parting ways with him.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:74–76 →
18:77–78 — So they went on until they came to the people of a town
(77) So they went on until they came to the people of a town. They asked its people for food, but they refused to extend them any hospitality. There they found a wall which was about to collapse, so he erected it. He said, ‘Had you wished, you could have taken a wage for it.’ (78) He said, ‘This is where you and I shall part. I will inform you about the interpretation of that over which you could not maintain patience.
Moses’ third question to Khiḍr concerned the incident of their passage through a village where, due to hunger, they wished for the people there to host them. However, those people, lacking in aspiration, refused to host and welcome them. Nevertheless, when Moses and Khiḍr saw a wall on the verge of collapse during their journey through that place, Khiḍr undertook its reconstruction and restored it. This action also caused Moses to forget his commitment once again and say to him that if he had wished, he could have taken wages from them for rebuilding the wall.
Moses had told Khiḍr that if he asked any more questions after this, he would have no excuse and Khiḍr could end their companionship. Khiḍr responded to Moses saying that now was the time for complete separation between them, and that he would soon inform him of the taʾwīl (inner reality) and truth of what he had been unable to bear patiently.
The taʾwīl (inner meaning) of an event is the explanation of its ultimate purpose, and taʾwīl in Qur’anic usage means the reality upon which the existence of everything is established and to which it returns.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:77–78 →
18:79 — As for the boat, it belonged to some poor people who work on the sea
As for the boat, it belonged to some poor people who work on the sea. I wanted to make it defective, for behind them was a king seizing every ship usurpingly.
This verse begins explaining the true meaning of al-Khiḍr’s actions regarding damaging the ship: The ship that al-Khiḍr damaged was a source of income for poor and needy people who earned their living by carrying cargo or passengers at sea. Al-Khiḍr, in protection of these disadvantaged people, damaged the ship so that the oppressive king who was in that region, and who would seize every sound ship by force, would not covet their ship and take it from them forcefully.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:79 →
18:80–81 — As for the boy, his parents were faithful [persons]
(80) As for the boy, his parents were faithful [persons], and We feared he would overwhelm them with rebellion and unfaith. (81) So We desired that their Lord should give them in exchange one better than him in respect of purity and closer in mercy.
Khiḍr explained the esoteric meaning of killing the youth as follows: His parents were believers. Through divine revelation, Khiḍr knew that if the youth remained alive, he would lead his parents to disbelief and transgression through evil influence and corrupt inclinations, or he would harm them through his own disbelief and transgression. God was not pleased that his believing parents should be led astray due to their son’s deviation, or suffer from his harm. Therefore, we desired that God would grant them another child in place of this youth—one who would possess both spiritual purity and self-refinement, faith and righteousness, and who would be closer to them in avoiding disobedience to parents, maintaining family ties, and supporting his parents in their religion.
It is clear that the principle of exchanging children lies solely with God. Therefore, in the verse, the word “exchange” (ibdāl), which is God’s action, is singular, while “desire” is plural, since Khiḍr was also commanded and was an instrument of divine action.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:80–81 →
18:82 — As for the wall, it belonged to two boy orphans in the city
As for the wall, it belonged to two boy orphans in the city. Under it there was a treasure belonging to them. Their father had been a righteous man. So your Lord desired that they should come of age and take out their treasure—as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do that out of my own accord. This is the interpretation of that over which you could not maintain patience.’
In explaining the third part of the story, namely rebuilding the wall, al-Khiḍr said that the wall belonged to two orphan boys in that city. By “city” is meant the village whose inhabitants refused to host Moses and al-Khiḍr. A treasure was hidden beneath the wall, and the father of the two orphans was a righteous man. The Merciful God willed that this treasure be preserved until the two boys reached maturity and could retrieve it and benefit from it. Therefore, al-Khiḍr, by God’s command, rebuilt the wall to protect the treasure for them. The cause of God’s will was His mercy, and what prompted divine mercy was the righteousness of the orphans’ father. From the rebuilding of the wall for these two orphans, it becomes clear that the effects of good deeds never disappear.
The rebuilding of the wall by al-Khiḍr, like his other actions, was not done of his own accord. Thus he said that everything he did was by the command of God the Exalted, and this is the explanation (taʾwīl) of that about which you could not have patience. The explanation and clarification of the secrets behind al-Khiḍr’s actions in the events of piercing the ship, killing the boy, and rebuilding the wall were answers to Moses’ questioning amazement.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:82 →
18:83 — They question you concerning Dhul Qarnayn
They question you concerning Dhul Qarnayn. Say, ‘I will relate to you an account of him.’
The fourth story in this surah is that of Dhū al-Qarnayn. After consulting the Jews, the polytheists of the Hijaz ask the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.) about the story of Dhū al-Qarnayn in order to test him, and God says: Tell them that I will soon recite to you verses of the Qur’an about him. The polytheists of the Hijaz were interested in stories and history, but the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) made them understand that they ought to ask about Dhū al-Qarnayn’s standing and his identity in knowledge and in action.
Various explanations have been given for why he was called Dhū al-Qarnayn. Knowing them brings no doctrinal benefit, and not knowing them does no harm, although some of them may carry historical points that lie outside the level of exegetical teachings.
The story of Dhū al-Qarnayn has a central element and a non-central one: the Noble Qur’an presents its central element, while the narrations and historical reports contain its non-central element.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:83 →
18:84–86 — Indeed We had granted him power in the land and given him the means to all things
(84) Indeed We had granted him power in the land and given him the means to all things. (85) So he directed a means. (86) When he reached the place where the sun sets, he found it setting over a warm sea, and by it he found a people. We said, ‘O Dhul Qarnayn! You will either punish them, or treat them with kindness.’
Dhū al-Qarnayn is a righteous servant whose affair God the Glorified deemed great and upon whom He bestowed His favour. He gave him firm power in the land and placed at his disposal the means of reaching material and spiritual resources – from intellect, knowledge, religion and good management to bodily strength and abundant wealth and troops – so that he might attain his goal. He made good use of these resources and, with the help of these means, began his journey towards the west, until he reached the place where the sun sets (the shores of Africa) and a place where he imagined the sun was sinking into muddy water; that is, he reached the shore of a sea beyond which there was no hope of reaching land, and so it appeared to him that the sun had set into the sea. What is meant by the setting-place of the sun is the last inhabited town in the western region of the earth.
Dhū al-Qarnayn saw a people in that region and gained authority over them. God the Glorified said to him: What decision will you make about them – will you punish them, or take the path of goodness? God did not delegate the matter to him so that he might act on his own opinion; rather, He said that punishing them or pardoning them, after the proof has been completed, is an alternative obligation (wājib takhyīrī) upon you.
On the Summary page · Read the commentary on 18:84–86 →
18:87–88 — He said, ‘As for him who is a wrongdoer
(87) He said, ‘As for him who is a wrongdoer, we will punish him. Then he shall be returned to his Lord and He will punish him with a dire punishment. (88) But as for him who has faith and acts righteously, he shall have the best reward, and we will assign him easy tasks under our command.’
In answer to God’s command about how he should treat the people of the west of the earth, Dhū al-Qarnayn said that I will call them to the divine religion. So whoever of them does not believe in God and engages in unbelief and polytheism, or believes but does not do righteous deeds and commits oppression and corruption, we will soon punish in this world; and after death, too, his return is to his Lord, and God will also punish him with an unknown punishment. And whoever believes and does good, a good reward is his: he will benefit from our kindness and affection, we will treat him well, and he will have a good end and a good reward.
We impose nothing on people; our call and our obligatory command are not contrary to reason and fiṭrah; rather, our word is pleasing and easy, and in harmony with the fiṭrah of all.