The Difference in Attribution of Forgetting the Fish

After Moses informed his companion Joshua about his journey to the junction of the two seas to meet Khiḍr, they took with them the sign that God had established for them—which according to existing sources was at the level of a probable indication—and set out: the sign was a fish that would fall into the water and disappear at that location.(49) When they reached the meeting place and appointment, they sat by a rock to rest a while and placed their food on the rock. Their fish fell into the water and made its way toward the sea, but they completely forgot about their fish at that place: “When they reached the junction between them, they forgot their fish, and it took its way into the sea, slipping away.”

The expression “junction between them” (majmaʿ baynahimā) is a case of adding an adjective to what it describes; meaning when Moses and his companion reached the place between the two rivers—which is described as being their meeting place and appointment—both of them forgot the story of the fish: “When they reached the junction between them, they forgot their fish.” The forgetting in the phrase “they forgot their fish” (nasiyā ḥūtahumā) is attributed to both of them, but Moses’s forgetting differs from his companion’s forgetting: His companion directly witnessed the fish falling from the container or tablecloth into the sea and departing, and Moses had previously told him to inform him wherever the fish fell into the water. However, he forgot to report the falling of the fish to Moses, and Moses also did not ask about the condition of the fish at that place, because their appointed meeting place was where the fish would fall into the water. Therefore, Moses’s forgetting was not asking about the condition of the fish.(50)

In response to the question of how Moses, who was one of God’s prophets of firm resolve (ulū l-ʿazm), could experience forgetfulness and forget the story of the fish—“they forgot their fish”—and pass beyond the appointed place, it must be said that every new undertaking is sometimes accompanied by oversight and forgetfulness, and this is not a deficiency, since one who engages in such an endeavor is in the position of learning. Of course, the protection of the prophetic infallibility (ʿiṣma) of God’s prophet must be preserved throughout this story, and the forgetfulness attributed to Moses (forgetting to ask about the fish) was forgetfulness in a minor and peripheral matter that was neither a religious ruling nor its subject.

[al-Kabīr, vol. 21, pp. 479-480]

Explanation: The reception of revelation in the hearts of God’s prophets is definitive and beyond doubt, and there is no possibility of oversight or forgetfulness in it. However, in external actions for which there was no prior revelatory instruction, forgetfulness may occur, and such forgetfulness is not a deficiency—especially since it was mentioned earlier that Moses’s forgetfulness was different from his companion’s forgetfulness, as he forgot to inquire about the condition of the fish.