Subtleties and Allusions

1) Analysis and Explanation of Shaykh al-Mufīd’s Responses to Issues in the Story

Shaykh al-Mufīd, in addressing some objections and uncertainties about the story of Moses and Khiḍr, has responded to two issues:

First Objection: According to the Imāmiyya, divine prophets are perfect and infallible human beings. How did Moses, who was superior to Khiḍr, become his student and learn knowledge from him?

First Response: Moses’ discipleship and following of Khiḍr occurred before Moses’ prophethood and divine mission. At that time, he sought excellence and knowledge from Khiḍr, and when God spoke to him and he became the Interlocutor of God (Kalīm Allāh), he attained prophethood. There is no defect or imperfection to be found in prophets following scholars before their prophethood and divine mission.(440)

Just as Moses encountered Shuʿayb before his prophethood and learned from him, he also attended Khiḍr’s presence and learned knowledge from him, and this collection of experiences prepared the ground for his prophethood.

Not all divine prophets are like the blessed presence of the Messenger of God, who was the manifestation of the Greatest Name and unschooled yet knowledgeable of all sciences. Rather, their scope of knowledge is limited because they are manifestations of one of the divine names, and God the Exalted informs them through various means, just as He taught Moses the knowledge of esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl) through some of God’s friends who possessed divine mercy and divine knowledge.

This possibility is inconsistent with the apparent meaning of the Qur’an, which narrates Moses’ story because he was among the divine prophets, and with some traditions that consider him more knowledgeable than Khiḍr. From the apparent meaning of the verses and traditions, it appears that Moses’ meeting with Khiḍr occurred after Moses’ prophethood.

Second Response: Moses learning from Khiḍr even after prophethood and divine mission is not problematic and does not detract from his prophethood, because Moses’ following of Khiḍr was for understanding the inner meanings of rulings, not religious law. Being a prophet does not require encompassing all sciences and understanding the inner aspect of every outer reality…(441)

No prophet learns their religious law from anyone, unless they are not among the Resolute Prophets (Ulū l-ʿAzm), in which case they would follow the religious law of a Resolute Prophets; like Lot’s following of Abraham: “And Lot believed in him.”(442)

Moses also followed someone who possessed divine mercy and divine knowledge, and learned from him knowledge that was esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl), not religious law, since Moses himself was among the Resolute Prophets and had his own religious law.

Second Objection: How can Moses’ objections to Khiḍr’s actions be justified?

First Response: Moses did not object or say these actions were wrong, rather all his questions were aimed at understanding the secrets and inner meanings of those actions.(443)

Second Response: This response is based on the second possibility that this story occurred after Moses’ prophethood, as supported by the apparent meaning of the Qur’an and traditions. Therefore, the uncertainties and questions in this story regarding Moses’ lack of patience and forgetfulness must be explained.

Regarding the justification of his impatience, it must be said that patience was not appropriate. Patience in obedience, in the face of disobedience, and during calamity—all three are good qualities, and Moses the Interlocutor was among the most prominent examples of the patient ones among divine prophets; rather, he was extremely patient (ṣabbār). He patiently endured years of struggles and severe confrontations with the Pharaohs, and when the people of Pharaoh pursued him and his companions and caught up with them, and Moses’ companions said they were trapped—as Pharaoh’s people were behind them and the sea was before them—Moses declared without the slightest doubt that God was with him; both Pharaoh’s people and the sea were under God’s control: “And when the two groups saw each other, the companions of Moses said: ‘Indeed, we are to be overtaken!’ He said: ‘No! Indeed, my Lord is with me; He will guide me.’”(444) Thus, he remained patient between two apparently certain causes of death.

The Glorious God considers the story of Moses as a sign for all those who are patient (ṣabbār) and grateful: “And We had certainly sent Moses with Our signs, [saying], ‘Bring out your people from darknesses into the light and remind them of the days of God.’ Indeed in that are signs for everyone patient and grateful * And [recall] when Moses said to his people, ‘Remember…’”(445) Thus, the Qur’an counts Moses among the patient ones, and if he apparently objects to Khiḍr’s actions, it is because he considers himself religiously responsible for the people, since Khiḍr’s actions were contrary to his religious law and endangered others’ lives and property. Patience in the face of what contradicts religious law is not permissible, hence his questioning objection was appropriate, as he had not committed to enduring actions contrary to religious law without saying anything. Indeed! If Khiḍr had told Moses from the beginning that the same Lawgiver who prohibited killing had ordered him to kill this youth because his future was dangerous, Moses would have accepted it, just as he did at the end when Khiḍr said: “I did not do it of my own accord.” He accepted, confirmed, and submitted without raising objecting questions. However, when he did not know the inner ruling, he had to question based on his own religious law.

Of course, Khiḍr’s third action was not contrary to religious law; but since it was an act of kindness toward people without aspiration, it raised questions for Moses. Imam al-Ṣādiq (a.s.) had a camel during a journey that would have been harmed if not sacrificed, and when they reached a village, someone asked him to sacrifice the camel so the villagers could benefit from it; but the Imam did not permit this. When they passed that area and reached the desert, he ordered the camel to be sacrificed, and when asked about the reason, the Imam said it was better for the desert animals to eat it than those people.(446)

Moses’ question about building the wall was because those people lacked aspiration, and since they did not host us, he thought we should at least receive payment for this work. When Khiḍr explained the wisdom behind that action, Moses submitted. Therefore, rebuilding the wall was not a form of self-oppression, so it cannot be said that self-oppression is forbidden. Rather, it appeared to be an unwise action, which is why Moses questioned it.

2) Sayyid Murtaḍā’s Theological Responses to Objections About the Story

Sayyid Murtaḍā (may God be pleased with him) mentioned seven objections regarding this story and responded to them:(447)

First Objection: This is the same objection as Shaykh Mufīd’s and its response—how could Moses, who was one of the Resolute Prophets (ulū l-ʿazm), follow someone else and learn from him?(448)

Response: The scholar whom God described in these verses was a prophet, and there is no problem with God the Glorious teaching this scholar something that He had not taught Moses and guiding him to learn from him. Indeed! It is not permissible for a prophet to have a need for knowledge from his community to whom he has been sent.(449)

Based on this response, a prophet learning from another prophet who possesses divine mercy (raḥmat ʿind Allāhī) and divine knowledge (ʿilm ladunī) is not a deficiency and does not contradict the infallibility of prophets. Since Moses was not aware of the inner aspects of religious law, God the Glorious taught him knowledge of the inner meaning and esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl) through Khiḍr.

It should be noted that the path to esoteric interpretation, both in its inception and continuation, is only possible through traversing the stages of religious law, and Moses also attained inner knowledge through practicing religious law. However, this does not mean that everyone who practices religious law will attain the knowledge of esoteric interpretation.

Second Objection: Why did Khiḍr say to Moses that “you will not be able to have patience with me” and that he lacked the ability to accompany him, since capability (istiṭāʿa) is the same as power, and power exists before the action, and Moses was capable of patience?(450)

Response: The discussion concerns the negation of patience, not the negation of the capability for patience, because without capability, criticism and objection would not be valid. The main focus of the dialogue between these two great figures was the difficulty of patience for Moses. It is like a sick person who has the ability to fast but fasting is difficult and exhausting for them. This is why Moses replied: “You will find me, God willing, patient”(451) and did not say “you will find me, God willing, capable…”(452)

Third Objection: When Khiḍr told Moses that he would not be able to bear accompanying him, why did Moses make patience conditional on divine will by saying “You will find me, God willing, patient, and I will not disobey any of your commands”(453), but made obedience and non-disobedience absolute without saying “God willing”?(454)

Response: The phrase “God willing” in Moses’ statement is the connecting link between past and future, so the statement “and I will not disobey any of your commands” is also conditional upon divine will.(455) The conditioning upon divine will applies both to patience and to non-disobedience.

This conditioning upon divine will means that if God wills, I will be patient and not disobey your command, and if His will pertains to something else—that I should not be patient and not accept your words—I will not have transgressed, because I made my action conditional upon divine will.

Fourth Objection: Why did Moses say to Khiḍr regarding the damaging of the ship: “You have done something terrible”(456), and regarding the killing he said: “You have done something dreadful”(457), when in reality Khiḍr had not done anything wrong and his actions were based on wisdom and benefit?(458)

Response: The word “imr” has multiple meanings, such as an important matter, something astonishing and questionable, a reprehensible act, and a calamity. In the verse under discussion, given the infallibility of both parties, it must be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with the infallibility of these noble figures. Therefore, it does not mean something forbidden, unlawful, or reprehensible.

The explanation for the statement “You have done something dreadful” (nukr) is that the ‘dreadfulness’ of Khiḍr’s action is from the perspective of religious law, because according to religious law, retribution before the crime is considered reprehensible. However, in the realm of esoteric interpretation, Khiḍr’s action is recognized as proper, thus making reconciliation possible. Of course, the answer to the fourth objection regarding the word “imr” can also be applied to the word “nukr”, meaning that given the infallibility of these noble figures, it must be interpreted in an appropriate way.

Furthermore, according to Sayyid Murtaḍā, the words “imr” and “nukr” in Moses’ speech are accompanied by interrogative questioning. This means that Moses did not definitively attribute “imr” and “nukr” to Khiḍr, but rather he was essentially asking “Is this imr?” and “Is this nukr?” Since the damaging of the ship and killing of the youth were questionable from the perspective of religious law, he asked about the secret behind this damage and that killing. Therefore, since both statements begin with an interrogative particle, imr and nukr are in the context of questioning, and he did not definitively attribute a reprehensible act to Khiḍr.(459)

Fifth Objection: What is meant by forgetfulness in the statement “Do not hold me accountable for what I forgot”(460), since according to your belief, forgetfulness is not permissible for divine prophets and they do not forget anything?

Response: In response to this objection, three explanations have been offered:

a) Moses’ forgetfulness was not something extraordinary; sometimes a person becomes negligent of a matter due to other preoccupations, even though the time period is not long.(461) Moses had committed not to speak, but upon witnessing an action that outwardly appeared contrary to religious law, he forgot his commitment due to religious zeal. Such forgetfulness is not only not a deficiency, but is praiseworthy and does not conflict with infallibility.

b) The intended meaning of forgetfulness (nisyān) is abandonment; meaning, “Do not reproach me for what I did not do.” This verse is similar to “We had made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot”(462), where forgetfulness means abandonment. This meaning has also been narrated from the Prophet.(463)

c) The intended meaning is “Do not hold me accountable for my action”—something similar to forgetfulness, and due to this similarity it is called forgetfulness; not that he actually forgot. This is like what was said about Joseph’s brothers when one of his officials announced: “O caravan! You are surely thieves!”(464), meaning their action was similar to that of thieves.(465)

After citing these views, Sayyid Murtaḍā adds: If we interpret the word forgetfulness as something other than actual forgetfulness, there is no issue with it. However, if it is interpreted as actual forgetfulness, the answer is that attributing forgetfulness to a prophet is not permissible in matters relating to God or divine law, or in matters that cause aversion, but in other matters there is no issue, such as if he occasionally experiences inadvertence or forgetfulness in his eating and drinking.(466)

Sixth Objection: Why did Moses use the term “pure soul” (nafs zakiyya) regarding the killing of the youth, when in reality that boy did not possess a pure soul, since he had an evil future?(467)

Response: This expression in Moses’ speech is interrogative, not declarative, so there is no issue. Exegetes differ in their views about this soul:

Most of them have understood “pure soul” (nafs zakiyya) to mean an immature child, so they must interpret the word “pure” (zakiyya) based on purification (zakāt) which means growth and increase. However, some have said that the intended soul was that of a mature disbeliever, and Moses was unaware of his condition and deservingness of death, which is why he inquired about his state.(468)

Seventh Objection: Why did Khiḍr use the expression “feared” (khashyat) regarding the killing of the youth: “So we feared that he would overwhelm them with transgression and disbelief”(469)? Because if it means “fear of God” as some have thought, attributing fear to God is not permissible, and if it refers to Khiḍr, one cannot shed blood based on fear, since fear does not bring knowledge and certainty.(470)

Response: The apparent meaning of the verse refers to the sage’s fear, not God’s.(471) He mentions three interpretations of the meaning of fear (khashyat):

a) Knowledge; meaning he is saying that through divine notification, he knew that if this youth remained alive, he would lead his parents to disbelief and transgression, and if he were killed, they would remain firm in their faith.

b) Fear without certainty: This meaning corresponds with the answer of one who considered the youth to be a disbeliever deserving death.

c) Aversion; like when someone says “I separated the two men fearing they would fight,” meaning “I disliked that happening.” Based on this interpretation (the meaning of aversion) and the first interpretation where fear means knowledge, attributing it to God is not impossible.(472)

In response to the objection that “if fear (khashyat) is attributed to Khiḍr, one cannot shed blood based on fear,” it must be said that if that youth had reached maturity, he would have become a disbeliever and transgressor himself, and would have led his parents to disbelief and transgression. Although this matter cannot be justified within the framework of religious law, which is why Moses questioned it, it is possible within the framework of esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl) or the mission of one possessing divine knowledge (ʿilm ladunnī). These two frameworks should not be confused: In the system of religious obligation, those who are accountable are not permitted to take practical action and kill someone, unlike the system of divine authority (wilāyī) and existential authority (takwīnī) where if the killer is among the divine authorities and has a mission from God: “I did not do it of my own accord”(473), they can do so. In summary, if the boy had not been killed, they all would have been afflicted with God’s painful punishment in the hereafter. Therefore, God took the youth from his believing parents and in return gave them a child who was both faithful and righteous himself, and who strengthened his parents’ faith, leading them to paradise, and who was compassionate and kind in the parent-child relationship.

Note: Shaykh al-Ṭūsī considered the verse “…and their father was righteous…” as evidence for the necessity of divine grace (luṭf) and writes that the meaning of the verse implies the necessity of God’s management of His servants, such that its opposite is not permissible.(474) Of course, explaining the principle, as well as the possibility of deriving a theological principle that serves as an epistemic source for some jurisprudential principles, from a single event requires complete investigation.

3) The Story of Khiḍr and Moses Being Based on Truth and Wisdom

The entire story of Moses and Khiḍr revolved around truth and wisdom, and all its events were manifestations of divine actions that Moses the Interlocutor received from the Divine Sacred Essence through Khiḍr’s mediation. Fundamentally, every action of God, whether in creation or lordship, is accompanied by truth and wisdom.

Explanation:

a) Based on the monotheistic teaching of the Qur’an, all things are created by God the Glorious, and creation is solely God’s work: “God is the Creator of all things.”(475)

b) Divine creation is also based on truth and reality; meaning that according to the causal order, everything is in its specific place: “We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in vain”(476); “We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them except in truth.”(477)

c) The lordship and nurturing of things is also under the control of the Lord of the Worlds, based on the unity of lordship (tawḥīd rubūbī). d. His lordship is also based on wisdom, and He does not nurture anything without wisdom. These four matters (God’s creatorship, the truthfulness of creation, divine lordship, and the wisdom of lordship) are among the fixed principles and unchangeable divine traditions, and no change can occur in any of these matters: “You will never find any change in God’s tradition, and you will never find any alteration in God’s tradition.”(478) Neither is there creation without truth, nor lordship without wisdom, and God never does anything unwise, and no means can change the path of divine wisdom: “O He whose wisdom cannot be altered by any means.”(479) The story of Moses and Khiḍr also follows this divine law and is based on “truth” and “wisdom,” so if an action is taken that humans fail to analyze, they know in general that it certainly has wisdom; it is either a divine test to separate the pure from the impure, or a punishment based on justice. These are general principles and are not limited to the story of Moses and Khiḍr.

4) Prioritizing the More Important over the Important in the Two Domains of Religious Law and Esoteric Interpretation

We have discussed that the world is God’s creation and was created with truth; it is also under God’s lordship and is managed based on wisdom. A fifth principle that is added to these four principles is the law of “prioritizing the more important over the important when criteria conflict” (taqdīm ahamm ʿalā muhimm). God’s work is beyond reproach, and humans must place themselves in alignment with truth in the domain of creation and in the channel of wisdom in the domain of lordship, so that divine grace may reach them. Based on these five principles, humans have no right to object to the universe, because from a theoretical perspective, existence revolves around truth, and from a practical perspective, it is managed wisely according to the domain of religious law.

Accordingly, in response to the question “If Moses is commanded to act in the domain of revealed knowledge (tanzīl), what is the purpose of his learning from Khiḍr and gaining knowledge of esoteric science?”, it must be said that the domains of revelation and esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl) have shared principles and are not disconnected or separate from each other. If there were no common ground between Moses, who possesses external knowledge and revelation and acts according to religious law, and Khiḍr, who possesses knowledge of esoteric interpretation and acts according to it, God would not have made Moses travel as Khiḍr’s student. If the actions of the possessor of esoteric interpretation in the world of religious law and the actions of the possessor of religious law in the world of esoteric interpretation were unrelated and these two domains were disconnected, making the possessor of religious law travel with the possessor of esoteric interpretation would have been meaningless. Therefore, bringing these two together indicates shared principles between the two domains.

One of the shared principles between the domains of religious law and esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl) that plays a decisive role in the story of Moses and Khiḍr is the principle of prioritizing the more important over the important (taqdīm ahamm ʿalā muhimm). Since this principle was accepted by both Moses and Khiḍr, Khiḍr’s three explanations are justified based on this principle: Regarding the incident of damaging the ship, Khiḍr said that they inflicted minor damage to preserve its essence; similar to how, based on prioritizing the more important over the important, sometimes a human limb is amputated to keep the person alive and healthy. This principle applies to all financial and physical matters.

The incident of killing the youth was also carried out based on this same principle: His survival and reaching maturity would have led to several corruptions; he would have fallen into disbelief and transgression and painful punishment, and would have drawn his parents into disbelief and transgression, leading them to the brink of destruction. Thus, God took him and granted his parents a believing child in his place who had a good end himself and strengthened his parents’ faith and was kind to them. Therefore, the incident of killing the youth was also a case of prioritizing the more important over the important.

Note: The principle of prioritizing the more important over the important is also evident in rebuilding the wall, because although the people of that village were inhospitable and did not welcome Moses and Khiḍr as guests, satisfying hunger or offering hospitality is important; however, more important than that is that one should not forget the righteousness of the father of two orphan boys due to the presence of some people, and should not neglect the future of those two helpless ones, but rather should prioritize it.

In summary, prioritizing the more important over the important is an accepted, rational principle shared between religious law and esoteric interpretation, and Moses and Khiḍr reached understanding about the three incidents based on this shared principle.

Note: After referring to the laws based on the apparent (ẓāhir) for which Moses was responsible, and the laws based on the hidden (bāṭin) for which Khiḍr was responsible, Fakhr Rāzī raises the issue of “conflicting harms” (taʿāruḍ ḍarar) and writes that the main axis of the three issues (the three aspects of the story of these two noble figures) is one thing: the necessity of bearing minor harm when faced with two conflicting harms. This principle is valid in all three issues. He then explains the three issues and the minimal nature of the harm that Khiḍr chose, noting that preferring minor harm over major harm is common between apparent and hidden laws.(480)

Although this point is correct in terms of meaning, it is incomplete in terms of technical terminology, because the term “conflict” (taʿāruḍ) is used for evidences, while the term “competing priorities” (tazāḥum) is used for criteria. The matter of minor and major harm falls under the category of criteria, not evidence, unlike what occurs between explicit and apparent text, or between more apparent and apparent text, or between widely-accepted and anomalous opinions, which are of the nature of evidence. Of course, sometimes this technical terminology might not be observed, and therefore it would be considered imprecise.

5) The Hidden Nature of Divine Laws’ Criteria and Wisdom

Divine laws and wisdom have hidden criteria that only God is aware of, and He wisely formulates laws based on them. The Supreme God announces this comprehensive and general principle to His servants in some verses and stories of the Qur’an, stating: “And God knows and you do not know.”(481) For example:

Regarding jihad, He briefly states that some things you love are not in your best interest, while others that are in your interest are not beloved to you: “Fighting has been prescribed for you while it is disliked by you. But perhaps you dislike a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And God knows, while you know not.”(482)

Regarding family matters and dealing with spouses, He states: “O you who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit women by force, and do not constrain them in order to take away part of what you have given them, unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them—perhaps you dislike a thing and God has placed much good in it.”(483)

Regarding the distribution of inheritance and explaining the shares of heirs, He reminds that inheritance should be distributed according to the shares that the Divine Being has established, and not to increase or decrease them according to your wishes or prioritize one over another, for you are unaware of the future and do not know which of them will act in your benefit and be more beneficial for you: “God instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females… You know not which of them is nearest to you in benefit… [This is] an obligation [imposed] by God. Indeed, God is ever Knowing and Wise.”(484)

Therefore, human attraction and repulsion, inclination and aversion, and knowledge and ignorance are not the criteria. Divine laws have criteria, secrets, and wisdom that are beyond human reach, and the aforementioned verses are comprehensive statements and among the concise yet profound expressions of the Qur’an.

The Supreme God taught parts of these secrets and the knowledge of esoteric meaning (taʾwīl) to Khiḍr in the story of Moses and Khiḍr, and commanded him to teach it to Moses. All three of Khiḍr’s actions were based on criteria, and according to some traditions, if Moses had been patient, more wonders and secrets would have been revealed to him.(485) From this story, it becomes clear that behind every divine ruling lies a real criterion, and Moses and Khiḍr designed this story by God’s command to explain a glimpse of the esoteric meaning (taʾwīl)—that is, divine secrets and wisdom—for humanity.

6) Lessons from the Story of Moses and Khiḍr

The story of Moses and Khiḍr contains educational and moral lessons, some of which are mentioned here:

a) Encouragement to Seek Knowledge

Humans should benefit from divine knowledge as long as they live and should not be content with what they already know. According to some religious teachings, the first day of a person’s ignorance is when they say their period of acquiring knowledge has ended. Ali (a.s.) said: “Whoever abandons saying ‘I don’t know’ will meet his demise.”(486) Al-Ghazālī, based on a tradition, divides knowledge into three categories: “the speaking book,” “the established tradition,” and “I don’t know.” As stated in the tradition: “Knowledge is of three types: a speaking book, an established tradition, and ‘I don’t know’.”(487)

From the story of Moses and Khiḍr, it becomes clear that seeking beneficial knowledge is necessary, even if it involves a long and tiring journey, and even if the seeker of knowledge is of the rank of Moses the Interlocutor (Kalīm). According to this story, in addition to outward knowledge, humans should, if capable, seek out those who possess divine mercy (raḥmat ʿind Allāhī) and divine knowledge (ʿilm ladunī).(488)

Moses learning from Khiḍr demonstrates that God may grant knowledge to one prophet or saint (walī) that He has not given to another prophet, and command the latter to learn it from the former.

b) Observing Proper Etiquette in Speech

Observing proper etiquette in speech while acquiring knowledge is another educational lesson from this story. This narrative teaches that a student should be humble before their teacher and observe proper etiquette in speech, asking about what they do not know. Furthermore, questions should be asked with the intention of learning and understanding, not to cause difficulty and hardship for others. As Imam Ṣādiq (a.s.) said to a man who had asked about the taste of water: “Ask to gain understanding, not to cause difficulty. The taste of water is the taste of life” (saʾl tafaqquhan wa-lā tasʾal taʿannutan ṭaʿm al-māʾ ṭaʿm al-ḥayāt).(489) One must know when to ask, how to ask, and how much to ask; otherwise, the question will not bear fruit.

c) Khiḍr’s Monotheistic Etiquette

Khiḍr attributes deficiencies to himself and perfections to God, just as Abraham attributed illness to himself and healing and cure to God: “And when I am ill, it is He who cures me.”(490) Although humans do not seek illness, events and occurrences overcome them and make them sick, yet Abraham attributed illness to himself.

In the tripartite story of Moses and Khiḍr, there are three expressions:

First, when Moses the Interlocutor called Khiḍr’s action of damaging the ship “grievous” (imran) and the killing of the youth “dreadful” (nukran), Khiḍr attributed the act of damaging to himself in response to Moses: “So I intended to damage it” and did not say God wanted to damage the ship, and did not attribute the dreadful and grievous acts to God.

Second, in the case that is shared between deficiency and perfection, such as the fear in killing the youth: “So we feared that he would overwhelm them with transgression and disbelief.”(491) Khiḍr first attributes this action to himself and God: “So we intended”; but when he wants to branch into the good aspect (giving them a righteous and kind child who would not have transgression and disbelief), he attributes it only to God: “So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity.”(492)

Third, regarding the wall which is purely good, he used the singular pronoun and attributed it to God the Exalted: “So your Lord intended.”(493) These three types of expression demonstrate Khiḍr’s monotheistic etiquette.

7) The Difference Between the Missions of Moses and Khiḍr

Moses and Khiḍr had two different types of divine missions: Moses was a bearer of religious law (sharīʿa) and his mission, like all prophets before and after him, was of the nature of implementing the laws of religion, which is a matter between guidance and truth. Even after becoming aware of the secrets of Khiḍr’s actions, he did not act based on esoteric knowledge, because prophets who bring religious law are not commanded to act upon the knowledge of inner meanings (taʾwīl). Rather, all prophets in the legislative system were duty-bound to govern people and society based on apparent knowledge, clear evidence, and oaths. The Prophet (s.a.w.) also said: “I only judge between you based on clear evidence and oaths”(494) so that people would choose the path of virtue by their own free will, and if they went astray, they would have no excuse on the Day of Resurrection, which is the day when people’s inner nature is revealed. For if they were compelled, there would be no merit in being forced not to sin. Commanding good and forbidding evil is also meant to prevent society from moving toward corruption; otherwise, no one is permitted to enter another’s private domain, and people must be free to choose their path, so that it becomes known who, through good choice, inclines toward truth and becomes perfect, and who, through poor choice, moves toward falsehood and remains imperfect.

In any case, Khiḍr’s mission was based on the system of creation, of the nature of acting upon inner meanings (taʾwīl): “I will inform you of the inner meaning (taʾwīl) of that about which you could not have patience.”(495)

Other prophets and infallible Imams only acted upon inner meanings (taʾwīl) when necessary. Yes! Sometimes out of necessity and urgency, for example to complete the proof, they would resort to miracles, divine grace, and divine authority, like when Imam al-Ṣādiq (a.s.) criticized Zurāra to protect his life from the Abbasid caliph’s spies—as discussed in the narrative section of verse 79—where the Imam, in explaining the secret of his action to Zurāra’s son, cited the story of Moses and Khiḍr and told him to tell his father that just as Khiḍr damaged a sound and flawless ship slightly to save it from usurpers, he too criticized him in the presence of Abbasid spies and agents so they would not harass him and would think he was not among their special companions, thus protecting him through this action: “I only criticize you to defend you, for people and enemies hasten to harm anyone we bring close and elevate… I criticize you because you are known to be associated with us… so I wanted to criticize you… and thereby defend you from their evil, as God—Mighty and Majestic—says: ‘As for the ship…’”(496)(497)

Another example is the inner meaning (taʾwīl) of the verse “and whoever we find our belongings with”(498), about which the Imam said that every good deed and virtuous act of our opponents is recorded in the book of deeds of our followers, because it is our property.(499)

8) The Existence of Two Divine Proofs in One Era

The simultaneous presence of two divine proofs in one era is not problematic; like a prophet and a successor, or a prophet and one of God’s saints; also like two prophets where one is a prophet of firm resolve (ulū l-ʿazm) and bearer of religious law while the other is an ordinary prophet following the religious law of the prophet of firm resolve. Each proof has his territory, and the territory of each proof is subject to his existence. Moses and Khiḍr are also like this.

9) The Gradual Learning of Prophets in the Arc of Ascent

The Glorious God created souls before bodies: “God created souls before He created bodies.”(500) Therefore, the souls of prophets existed in another realm before this existence and in the arc of descent, they know what they need to know. However, in the arc of ascent, where they are perfected through worship and based on “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”(501) and “My Lord, expand my chest”(502), they progress and develop. At the beginning, they do not know all matters. Therefore, the Glorious God informs them of divine knowledge through various means, and one of the ways Moses the Speaker learned the inner meaning of certain actions was through his meeting with Khiḍr. There is no issue with learning some knowledge from one of God’s saints.

10) The Similarity Between the Imam of the Age and Khiḍr in Acting Upon Esoteric Knowledge

Knowledge of the unseen has never been, and is not, a basis for jurisprudential rulings, unlike during the time of the appearance of Imam Mahdī (a.s.). The blessed existence of the Guardian of the Age, like Khiḍr, can in some cases act based on inner, unseen, and celestial knowledge. Before that, even in the time of the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.), judgment was based on the rulings of religious law. The Qur’an explicitly states that God and His Messenger see all your deeds: “Act, for God and His Messenger will see your deeds”(503), and the matter of presenting deeds is also mentioned in numerous traditions.(504) The Noble Prophet (s.a.w.) is witness to the deeds of all people, and the Commander of the Faithful described him saying: “…and Your witness on the Day of Judgment….”(505) Nevertheless, he explicitly stated that in the court of justice, he judges based on “faith” and “evidence”: “I only judge between you based on evidence and oaths”(506), meaning we do not act based on knowledge of the unseen, and our transcendental and celestial knowledge is not a basis for jurisprudential rulings.

Yes! When humanity wants to reach absolute justice and the Imam of the Age appears, he may in some cases act according to celestial knowledge.