The Incident of Killing the Youth and Moses’ Question

After their sea journey and disembarking from the ship(266), Moses and Khiḍr continued their journey on land. Along the way, they saw a young man and Khiḍr killed him without any preamble. Upon witnessing this scene, Moses once again forgot his commitment and, with even stronger protest than before, said to Khiḍr why he had killed someone who appeared pure and innocent, and was not guilty of crimes like murder or other forbidden acts deserving of retaliation or execution. He said: “You have certainly done something reprehensible”: “So they proceeded until when they met a boy, and he killed him. [Moses] said, ‘Have you killed a pure soul for other than having killed a soul? You have certainly done a reprehensible thing.’”(267)

The expression “pure soul” (nafs zakiyya) indicates that Moses had verified the youth’s lack of criminal history, because if the youth was unknown to him and he didn’t know whether he had killed someone or not, he would not have used this expression.

The apparent meaning of the phrase “Have you killed a pure soul for other than having killed a soul” negates all factors that would make killing permissible and make blood lawful to shed—such as apostasy, adultery by a married person, murder, and being an enemy combatant—from the youth; meaning he neither held false beliefs, nor was he impure, nor had he killed anyone.

According to divine law, whoever kills a person except in retribution for murder or for corruption in the land, it is as if they have killed all of humanity: “Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely”.(268) Therefore, Khiḍr’s action, from the perspective of religious law, was strange and unrecognizable to Moses, as reason and tradition (the two sources of religious knowledge) did not acknowledge it: “You have certainly done something reprehensible”.(269) If the outward appearance of Khiḍr’s actions were not “reprehensible” (nukr), Moses would have remained patient; but since these actions appeared contrary to religious law, the one responsible for religious law could not tolerate actions against it. Indeed! Moses’ questions were from this perspective.

It should be noted that exegetes differ in their opinions about the age of the slain youth:

Some believe that from the terms “youth” (ghulām) and “pure soul” (nafs zakiyya) it can be understood that the victim was an adolescent who had not reached puberty(270); however, this inference is not complete, since a mature young man can also be called a youth (ghulām). In contrast, others have said that from the phrase “for other than having killed a soul” it can be understood that the term “soul” (nafs) in the phrase “Have you killed a soul” also refers to a mature young man (an adolescent who has not reached puberty, even if they commit intentional murder, cannot be subject to the law of retaliation before puberty), and being a “youth” (ghulām) is not evidence of his not having reached puberty, since the term youth can be applied to both those who have and have not reached puberty.(271)