The Identity of “Moses” in the Verse

According to most exegetes(8) and based on both Sunni and Shi’i traditions, the “Moses” mentioned in the verse under discussion is Moses son of ʿImrān, one of the resolute messengers (ulū l-ʿazm) of God and a bearer of divine law(9), whose name appears 136 times in the Qur’an. However, some scholars, based on certain improbabilities, have suggested that the verse refers to “Moses son of Mīshā son of Joseph,” who was one of the prophets of the Children of Israel(10):

First Improbability: The story of Moses’s meeting with Khiḍr did not take place in Egypt, but must have certainly occurred after the exodus from Egypt and arrival in the land of wandering (tīh). During this event, Moses’s people were with him, and he passed away in that land, with his people departing from there after his death. If Moses’s journey to the junction of the two seas (majmaʿ al-baḥrayn) took place in the land of wandering, he would have had to be absent from his companions for several days. In this case, many of the Children of Israel who were with him would have known about this incident and would have transmitted it, but no such story has been narrated from them.(11) Therefore, the Moses mentioned in the verse under discussion cannot be Moses son of ʿImrān.

This opinion is incorrect and merely based on historical improbability, lacking any reliable revelatory or traditional evidence. It is not improbable that this journey took place in the land of wandering (tīh), since there was no specific city or territory there where everyone would be aware of each other’s whereabouts, and Moses was neither inclined nor commanded to reveal and recount it to the people. In any case, this significant historical event apparently occurred after Moses’s prophethood and outside of Egypt, since in Egypt, Moses was tasked with teaching scripture and wisdom, purifying souls, leading the revolution, and engaging in political struggles, and he was in contact with different groups daily. Therefore, if such a fateful journey had taken place then, Pharaoh’s spies and numerous others would have become aware of it, as the leader of any revolution during political struggles is monitored by many groups. Even if he does not share his news with anyone, it seems unlikely that he could be absent for several days without anyone noticing his absence. Thus, the story of Moses’s meeting with Khiḍr apparently took place after his prophethood and in the valley of wandering (tīh). However, this view is also merely at the level of conjecture and preference among various possibilities; otherwise, there is no definitive verse or historical evidence at hand.

Second Improbability: Moses was one of the resolute messengers (ulū l-ʿazm) and possessed numerous miracles, God spoke with him and granted him victory over the Pharaohs of Egypt through these miracles; how could such a prophet become Khiḍr’s student(12), especially if this incident occurred at the end of his life!

This improbability is also unfounded, as divine knowledge consists of two parts: exoteric (ẓāhirī) and esoteric (bāṭinī). Moses the Interlocutor was among the resolute messengers (ulū l-ʿazm), and through the revelation of the Torah, God taught him all the exoteric laws of religion. However, not all divine laws and wisdom are limited to exoteric matters; rather, there are also esoteric dimensions (taʾwīlāt) and inner realities. Events like the meeting of Moses and Khiḍr are connected to hidden purposes and the inner dimension of this world. Therefore, Khiḍr did not explain religious laws to Moses, but rather acted contrary to the apparent religious law, and his actions were based on inner judgment, esoteric interpretation, and celestial wisdom (malakūtī). He taught these rules to Moses outwardly and also showed us that behind this world and its apparent laws, there are other secrets and wisdom. Thus, what Moses learned from Khiḍr was not of the nature of religious sciences; rather, according to traditions, Moses was more knowledgeable than Khiḍr in matters of religious law.(13) Therefore, Moses being a student does not indicate Khiḍr’s superiority over Moses.

Another reason for the weakness and invalidity of this view is that Moses’s name appears 135 other times in the Qur’an, and in all cases it refers to Moses son of ʿImrān. Thus, if another person was intended in the verse under discussion, it should have been indicated with some evidence, whereas there is no such indication in the verse in question. Therefore, these kinds of improbabilities are incomplete and lack sound Qur’anic and traditional support.

It should be noted that the statement “Khiḍr’s story is of the nature of the spiritual path (ṭarīqat) while Moses’s story is of the nature of religious law (sharīʿat), and religious law stands in opposition to the spiritual path, and the people of the spiritual path have nothing to do with religious law” is incorrect, and the explanation of their longitudinal relationship will be left to its appropriate context.