Questions and Answers

The Story of Musa and Khidr · Compiled by Tawheed Institute Australia from Tafsīr al-Tasnīm

The story of Mūsā and Khiḍr in Sūrat al-Kahf (18:60–82) follows their journey and Khiḍr’s three puzzling acts, and al-Tasnim’s commentary on it is long. This page gathers the questions readers most often ask, in the order of the story, each with a short answer drawn from what Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī says. Each answer links to the passage in al-Tasnim, so you can read more.

0 questions

Mūsā sets out for the meeting of the two seas (18:60)

Why does the Qur’an tell the story of Mūsā and Khiḍr?

It is the third story of Sūrah al-Kahf, and through it God reveals to Mūsā the secrets behind some of His rulings. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī cites ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s view that it is a reminder to the Prophet, who had been told to be patient in conveying his message.

The lesson is that the worldly success of those who seek this world is only on the surface. Events that seem to go the way worldly people want have an inner reality (taʾwīl) that will become clear in its proper setting, such as the Day of Resurrection.

Is the Mūsā in this story the famous prophet Mūsā son of ʿImrān?

Yes, say most exegetes and both Sunni and Shiʿi narrations. Some suggested another Mūsā, a descendant of Yūsuf, because the Israelites never reported such a journey, and a resolute prophet should not become anyone’s student.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī rejects both points. In the wilderness Mūsā could be away unnoticed, and he had no command to tell anyone. And every other mention of Mūsā in the Qur’an is the son of ʿImrān, so another person would need some sign in the verse. He thinks the journey probably came after Mūsā’s prophethood, outside Egypt, but calls this only a likely guess.

Did Mūsā go looking for Khiḍr because he thought no one knew more than him?

Some narrations say so: after receiving the Torah, Mūsā thought, or said in a sermon, that God had created no one more knowledgeable than him, so God sent him to Khiḍr to cure his pride.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī does not accept this picture. Such reports clash with the clear verses of the Qur’an and with the character of the resolute prophets, of whom Mūsā was one, so even if their chains were sound, they would need explanation. Mūsā, he says, would never make such a claim. He sought Khiḍr by God’s command, for the sake of growth.

Who was Mūsā’s young companion?

There are two possibilities. Narrations say he was Mūsā’s successor, Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn (Joshua), called a “youth” (fatā) because he was always with Mūsā, at home and on the road, and served him. Or he may have been a righteous servant, since fatā can also mean a servant.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī notes that the Prophet told owners to say “my youth” and “my young woman” instead of “my slave.” He sees this as a cultural reform that gave slaves dignity and gradually prepared the ground for their freedom.

Did Khiḍr drink from the water of life and become immortal?

No. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī calls the reports that Khiḍr drank the water of life in the darkness with Dhū al-Qarnayn false, and the water of life itself a myth. The Qur’an says We did not grant immortality to any human being before you and every soul shall taste death: death is God’s decree for every human, though some live long and others short lives.

The water of life is real only in the sense of divine knowledge and faith. In Imam ʿAlī’s words, the scholars remain as long as time remains.

The forgotten fish (18:61–64)

What was the fish for?

It was a sign, not their lunch. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that God had not fixed an exact place for the meeting; He gave only a sign: wherever the fish fell into the water, there they would meet Khiḍr. In that empty wilderness there was no other landmark, so if they had eaten the fish, they would have had no sign.

He admits there is no definite proof of this, but finds it supported by Mūsā’s words That is what we were seeking.

Did the fish come back to life?

The verse does not say so outright. It says the fish took its way into the sea in a strange manner, which does not rule out that it came alive and swam off. Narrations say it did: water from a spring of life touched the salted fish and it leapt into the sea.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī notes that these reports have weak chains and differ in content. Reviving the dead by God’s permission is possible, as with Ibrāhīm and ʿĪsā, but a water that makes anything immune to death is a myth.

How could a great prophet like Mūsā forget?

The verse says they forgot their fish, but the two forgot different things. Yūshaʿ saw the fish fall into the sea and forgot to tell Mūsā. Mūsā forgot to ask about it.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that any new undertaking can bring some oversight, and this is no defect in someone who is learning. Revelation reaches a prophet’s heart without any forgetting. But in outward actions with no prior instruction from God, forgetting can happen. Mūsā’s was in a minor matter that was neither a religious ruling nor connected to one.

Yūshaʿ said Satan made him forget. Can Satan affect prophets?

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that prophets are protected from whatever leads to disobeying God, not from every kind of harassment by Satan. The Qur’an itself quotes Ayyūb: Satan has afflicted me with hardship and torment. Harming an infallible person’s body, or making him ill, is possible.

Here Satan did not affect Mūsā at all. He affected only his companion, and in a matter that broke no law. Satan and unbelieving jinn may harm a prophet’s body, but they have no influence on his spirit or on the channel of revelation.

What did Mūsā mean by “That is what we were seeking”?

When Yūshaʿ told him about the fish falling into the sea at the rock, Mūsā realised that this was the very place they had been looking for: the sign had come true. So the two retraced their steps exactly to the rock.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains qaṣaṣan as following footprints carefully, the same word Mūsā’s mother used when she told his sister to follow the basket on the Nile. In a narration, they found Khiḍr there at prayer, and Mūsā waited until he had finished before greeting him.

The servant of God (18:65)

Who was Khiḍr?

The Qur’an never names him. It calls him only one of Our servants, given mercy and knowledge by God. The name comes from narrations and commentaries: one gives his name as Balyā ibn Malkān. He was called Khiḍr (“the green one”) because wherever he prayed or sat on dry wood or bare white ground, it turned green.

The narrations differ about his rank. In one from Imam al-Ṣādiq he was a messenger sent to his people. Others say he was not a prophet but a scholar, like Dhū al-Qarnayn, to whom God gave knowledge of the inner nature of things.

What were the “mercy from Us” and “knowledge from Our presence” given to Khiḍr?

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī distinguishes three kinds of divine mercy: the mercy that covers all things, the special mercy for the God-fearing, and the most special mercy of prophethood, imamate and wilāyah. Khiḍr’s mercy from Us was this special kind, showing his high rank.

His knowledge is described as from Our presence (ladun), a word that conveys more nearness than “with” (ʿind), so it stands even higher than that mercy. Mercy comes first because God first shapes a person, his lineage and his surroundings, so that he can receive such knowledge.

What is “knowledge from God’s presence” (ʿilm ladunnī)?

It is knowledge in which the learner is God’s direct student. It is not a separate subject that competes with jurisprudence or exegesis: any knowledge, religious or not, that comes straight from God is ladunnī.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī lists its features. It is pure truth, free of error and forgetting, unlike knowledge passed through others, which mixes with their opinions. It is witnessed, not conceptual. And it shows not only what is allowed or forbidden but why, and how those deeds will appear on the Day of Resurrection.

Is Khiḍr still alive, and is he a prophet today?

A narration tells of a man in white who visited Imam ʿAlī in the mosque of Kufa and named the twelve Imams. ʿAlī said, “This is my brother Khiḍr.” Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī comments that if the narration is not allegorical, it shows Khiḍr was alive and long-lived. But a long life is not eternal life.

If he is alive, he is certainly not a prophet now, since the Prophet Muḥammad is the Seal of the Prophets. He may be one of God’s friends (awliyāʾ), under the guardianship of the Imam of the Age.

“May I follow you?” (18:66–70)

How could a prophet like Mūsā learn from someone else?

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that divine knowledge has an outward side and an inner side. Through the Torah, Mūsā had been taught all the outward laws of religion. What he learned from Khiḍr was not religious law but the inner meaning (taʾwīl) of events.

No resolute prophet learns his religious law from anyone, but, as Shaykh al-Mufīd says, being a prophet does not mean knowing every science or the inner side of every outward thing. In the narrations, Mūsā was more knowledgeable than Khiḍr in religious law, so being his student did not make Khiḍr superior to him.

Was Khiḍr more knowledgeable than Mūsā?

Neither was superior across the board. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī distinguishes one-sided superiority, as when some prophets are ranked above others, from two-sided distinction, where each excels in a different field. Mūsā excelled in religious law, Khiḍr in inner interpretation (taʾwīl). Like ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī, he sees this as reconciling the narrations that seem to contradict each other.

In one narration Khiḍr tells Mūsā: “I have been entrusted with a matter you cannot bear, and you have been entrusted with a matter I cannot bear.” Another says simply: “Moses was more knowledgeable than the one he followed.”

What does Mūsā’s request teach about how a student should treat a teacher?

Mūsā asked May I follow you? rather than demanding, and asked to be taught some of what Khiḍr knew, not everything. He also said from what you have been taught, not “what you know.” Some exegetes count twelve courtesies in his words.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī contrasts this with Qārūn, who claimed his wealth came from his own knowledge. He adds that Khiḍr returned the courtesy: he did not refuse Mūsā outright, and did not order him to follow but said If you follow me.

Why did Khiḍr say Mūsā would not be able to be patient with him?

Not because Mūsā could not bear Khiḍr’s knowledge, but because he could not bear his method of teaching. Mūsā had been charged with the outward law, and Khiḍr knew that what he was about to do would clash with it. As Khiḍr said, how can you have patience with that which you have not encompassed in knowledge?

With ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī notes that Mūsā did not react when Khiḍr later explained his actions, only on seeing the acts themselves, just as he grew angry on seeing the calf, though God had already told him of it.

Does “you will never be able to be patient” mean Mūsā had no choice?

The Ashʿarīs, followed by Fakhr al-Rāzī, argued from this verse that a person has no capability before he acts: if Mūsā had been able to be patient beforehand, God’s word would be false.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī rejects this. In ordinary speech, “he cannot bear it” often means something is hard for him, not impossible. Following Sayyid Murtaḍā, he says the verse denies patience, not the capability for it, like a sick person who can fast but finds it exhausting. That is why Mūsā answered you will find me patient, not “capable.”

Why did Mūsā say “if God wills” when he promised patience?

Because he knew in general that Khiḍr’s work would not be of the nature of religious law, and that bearing actions that look contrary to the law is not easy, especially for one responsible for people’s religion. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī says that by tying his patience to God’s will, Mūsā placed himself in “the fortress of divine unity” and removed any illusion that he acted independently.

His promise I will not disobey you in anything was a commitment made knowingly. It does not cover forgetfulness or compulsion, since breaking a promise in those states is not disobedience.

Why does Khiḍr speak of “mentioning” (dhikr) rather than teaching?

Khiḍr said until I mention to you something about it, using the word for reminding. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that his three acts reminded Mūsā of three events in his own life. As a baby who could not swim, Mūsā was put in a chest on the river and God kept him safe, so God could keep a holed boat afloat. He had once killed a man of Pharaoh’s people. And in Madyan, tired and hungry, he watered Shuʿayb’s daughters’ flock and asked for nothing in return.

The boat holed (18:71–73)

What happened on the boat, and why did Mūsā object?

The two set out and boarded a ship, and once it was moving, Khiḍr made a hole in it. Mūsā forgot his promise and asked: Did you make a hole in it to drown its people? You have certainly done a grave thing.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that he spoke from religious law and zeal, which required him to protect people’s lives and property and to command good and forbid evil. He was warning about the act, not accusing Khiḍr. And he said its people, not “we will drown”: divine leaders put society before themselves.

Did Khiḍr mean to sink the boat?

No. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that he removed some non-essential planks from the ship’s side, not from its floor, so the boat would not sink. Some water might come in with the waves, but the passengers could bail it out. The aim was to make the boat look damaged so that the king seizing sound ships would leave it alone.

The li in to drown marks the likely result of the act, not Khiḍr’s purpose, as ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī also explains. Khiḍr certainly did not intend it.

Was Mūsā wrong to be impatient?

No. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī calls his impatience a virtue. Khiḍr’s act outwardly broke the law Mūsā was charged with preserving, so he had to ask about its secret and should not have stayed silent. Someone who does not know the secret behind an act is allowed to object.

It came from Mūsā’s great religious zeal, the same zeal that made him throw down the tablets and seize his brother’s head when he found his people worshipping the calf.

What did Mūsā mean by “do not blame me for what I forgot”?

He had truly forgotten his promise to stay silent. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī calls this a praiseworthy forgetting. It came from zeal to protect God’s religion and law, so it is not like forgetting a religious ruling, and it gives no one reason to stop trusting a prophet.

He does not accept that “forgot” here means “deliberately abandoned.” That would mean Mūsā broke his commitment on purpose, which is unethical. Do not be hard on me asks Khiḍr to be lenient and keep him as a companion.

The boy killed (18:74–76)

What happened with the boy, and why was Mūsā so shocked?

After leaving the ship they met a boy, and Khiḍr killed him without any warning. Mūsā again forgot his promise and protested more strongly: Have you killed a pure soul, not in retaliation for a soul? You have certainly done a reprehensible thing.

By religious law, killing anyone except for murder or corruption in the land is like killing all mankind, so neither reason nor scripture could accept the act. Nukr (“reprehensible”) is stronger than the imr (“grave thing”) he had said about the boat, because here a life was actually taken.

The wall and the parting (18:77–78)

Was rebuilding the wall a miracle?

Narrations say Khiḍr put his hand on the wall and said “Stand by God’s permission,” and it stood. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī reads the verse as an ordinary act of building. Mūsā’s words you could have taken payment for it show this, since payment is not taken for miracles. The talk of payment also suggests that some villagers saw or knew of the work.

He adds that if reliable narrations establish that it was miraculous, this would be fully acceptable once their chains are verified.

Can a wall really “want” to fall down?

The verse says literally that the wall wanted to collapse. Some, such as al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, took this as a figure of speech. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī takes it literally. Many verses say that everything in the heavens and earth glorifies and prostrates to God, so all things have some awareness, and the Qur’an has its own language.

He does not deny metaphor in the Qur’an: it is a literary beauty. But a verse should be read as metaphor only where there is no rational or textual evidence for the literal meaning.

Why did Mūsā mention payment for the wall?

This third question was the mildest. Rebuilding the wall was plainly a kind and wise act, so Mūsā did not call it grave or reprehensible. But the villagers had refused even to host them, so he suggested that if Khiḍr had taken a wage, they could have bought food and eased their hunger.

The wall was not against the law. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that it raised a question because it was a kindness to a people who lacked generosity, and so it looked unwise.

Why did Khiḍr and Mūsā part ways?

After the boy, Mūsā had promised: if I ask you about anything after this, do not keep me with you. When he asked about the wall, Khiḍr said, This is the parting between me and you, and promised to explain what Mūsā could not bear.

One account says that of all Mūsā’s hardships, this parting was among the hardest. The Prophet said: “May God’s mercy be upon us and upon Moses: had he stayed with his companion, he would have seen wonders.”

What does taʾwīl mean in “I will tell you the interpretation”?

Taʾwīl comes from a root meaning “to return.” Here it is the reality that each scene goes back to: the ultimate purpose of an event. In Qur’anic usage, it is the reality on which a thing’s existence rests and to which it returns.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that it is not the meaning of a word or a concept, but the “wisdom, mystery and cause” of an outward event that was hidden. To reach it, one must go beyond words and outward actions.

Khiḍr explains the boat (18:79)

Why did Khiḍr damage the boat?

The boat belonged to poor people who earned their living at sea, carrying cargo or passengers. A tyrant king in that region was seizing every sound ship by force, and the owners did not know it. Khiḍr damaged their boat so the king would not want it, and they would keep their livelihood. Some exegetes say the owners were ten brothers, five unable to work and five working at sea.

So the verse means every sound ship. If the king took damaged ships too, the damage would have achieved nothing.

How did Imam al-Ṣādiq use the boat to protect Zurārah?

Imam al-Ṣādiq openly criticised his close companion Zurārah ibn Aʿyan. He then sent word through Zurārah’s son that he did this only to protect him, because enemies harm anyone the Imams praise. He cited the boat: Khiḍr damaged a sound ship to save it from a usurping king. Zurārah was “the finest ship” in the sea of guidance, and the Imam had damaged him outwardly to keep him safe.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī sees here a principle shared by outward and inner rulings: choosing the lesser harm over the greater.

Khiḍr explains the boy (18:80–81)

Why was the boy killed?

Khiḍr explained that the boy’s parents were believers, but the boy himself was an unbeliever. Through divine revelation, Khiḍr knew that if he lived, he would lead his parents into transgression and disbelief, or harm them through his own. God was not pleased for believing parents to be led astray by their son.

In a narration from Imam al-Ṣādiq, Khiḍr says God commanded him to kill the boy, intending to bring the parents to a place of honour in the end.

Couldn’t God simply have reformed the boy instead?

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī answers that reforming someone by force is neither wise nor beneficial. The best moral order rests on a person’s own effort. Turning unbelief into faith without it, by an unearned act of grace, would not fit that order. Exceptional cases, he adds, should not be taken as the general rule.

Does this story allow anyone to kill on the basis of hidden knowledge?

No. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī says the killing cannot be justified within religious law, hence Mūsā’s question. Under religious obligation, no one may kill on such grounds. Only one with divine authority (wilāyah) and a mission from God could: I did not do it of my own accord.

Prophets who bring a law are not commanded to act on inner knowledge. The Prophet said, “I only judge between you based on evidence and oaths,” and unseen knowledge has never been a basis for legal rulings, though the Imam of the Age, at his appearance, may in some cases act on it.

How can God be said to “fear” (“so we feared…”)?

Fear as an emotion cannot belong to God’s essence. Sayyid Murtaḍā held that the fear was Khiḍr’s, and offered meanings such as knowledge or dislike.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī gives his own answer. Khashyah here is not a feeling but avoiding an unwanted outcome: God did not want the believing parents to be led astray by their son. Said of God’s action, not His essence, the word is literal, in a meaning that suits Him. In we desired, the plural means Khiḍr and God, with Khiḍr as God’s instrument.

What child did the parents receive in place of the boy?

Khiḍr said God would give them one better in purity and closer in affection: righteous and faithful, kind to his parents and supportive of their faith. Narrations from Imam al-Ṣādiq say they were given a girl, who became the mother of a prophet, or of seventy prophets.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī cautions that the details of this child cannot easily be confirmed without checking the chain. He also notes another narration that calls the claim of many prophets unlikely, since the woman was not of that tribe.

Khiḍr explains the wall (18:82)

Why did Khiḍr rebuild the wall?

The wall belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and beneath it lay a treasure for them. Their father had been righteous, so God, in His mercy, willed that the treasure stay hidden until the boys came of age and could look after it. Khiḍr rebuilt the wall by God’s command to protect it.

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī draws the lesson that the effects of good deeds never disappear. Until they reach maturity refers to economic maturity: being able to use wealth properly.

What was the treasure under the wall?

Three views exist: wealth; knowledge; or a golden tablet inscribed with wisdom. Several narrations describe such a tablet: “I am God, there is no god but Me, and Muḥammad is My messenger. I am amazed at one who is certain of death, how can his heart be joyful?”

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī rejects the argument that a righteous man would never store wealth. It is not known that the treasure was large or that its owner had to spend it. His orphans needed capital for when they grew up. And the verse does not say their father buried it.

Do parents’ deeds affect their children?

Yes. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī draws from the wall the general truth that a righteous person’s good deeds never perish but reach their children. The reverse also holds: whoever wrongs other people’s orphans should fear for his own. Narrations say God protects a believer’s children for his sake, and that seven hundred years separated the two orphans from their righteous father.

Families are like one person in good and evil, he says, yet each individual still answers for his own deeds.

What does Khiḍr mean by “I did not do it of my own accord”?

That everything he did was by God’s command: no authority had been handed over to him. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that this covers the boat, the boy, the wall and, less directly, the warning of parting.

Khiḍr’s commands came through a revelation of ruling and knowledge, not the inspiration given to Mūsā’s mother, who was moved to act without a command. And it was wise to say this only at the end: said at the start, it would have left no questions, and the method of gaining knowledge would not have been taught.

Why does Khiḍr say “I”, then “we”, then “your Lord”?

Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī sees in this Khiḍr’s “monotheistic etiquette”: he attributes faults to himself and perfections to God, as Ibrāhīm said, when I am ill, it is He who cures me. Damaging the boat he calls his own act: I wanted to damage it. The boy’s case mixes harm and good, so he says we feared and we wanted, but the gift of a better child he gives to God alone: that their Lord should give them. The wall is purely good, so he says your Lord willed.

The lessons of the story (18:60–82)

Should we follow the outward law or inner knowledge?

The outward law. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī explains that divine laws have inner secrets, but no one is commanded to follow inner rulings: believers must act on the outward law. Khiḍr was commanded to act on the inner side, Mūsā on the outer, and Khiḍr himself apparently followed Mūsā’s law.

This does not mean the law is opposed to the spiritual path, or that people of the path can ignore the law. Keeping the law is the only road to inner knowledge. It is necessary, though not enough by itself.

What principle ties Khiḍr’s three actions together?

Putting the more important before the important. Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī calls it a rational principle shared by religious law and inner interpretation, and the common ground that made it meaningful for Mūsā to travel with Khiḍr. A small damage saved the boat, as a limb is amputated to save a life. The boy’s death spared him and his parents from disbelief and punishment. And the orphans’ future mattered more than the villagers’ lack of hospitality.

Questions and Answers ​

Mūsā sets out for the meeting of the two seas (18:60) ​

Why does the Qur’an tell the story of Mūsā and Khiḍr? ​

Is the Mūsā in this story the famous prophet Mūsā son of ʿImrān? ​

Did Mūsā go looking for Khiḍr because he thought no one knew more than him? ​

Who was Mūsā’s young companion? ​

Did Khiḍr drink from the water of life and become immortal? ​

The forgotten fish (18:61–64) ​

What was the fish for? ​

Did the fish come back to life? ​

How could a great prophet like Mūsā forget? ​

Yūshaʿ said Satan made him forget. Can Satan affect prophets? ​

What did Mūsā mean by “That is what we were seeking”? ​

The servant of God (18:65) ​

Who was Khiḍr? ​

What were the “mercy from Us” and “knowledge from Our presence” given to Khiḍr? ​

What is “knowledge from God’s presence” (ʿilm ladunnī)? ​

Is Khiḍr still alive, and is he a prophet today? ​

“May I follow you?” (18:66–70) ​

How could a prophet like Mūsā learn from someone else? ​

Was Khiḍr more knowledgeable than Mūsā? ​

What does Mūsā’s request teach about how a student should treat a teacher? ​

Why did Khiḍr say Mūsā would not be able to be patient with him? ​

Does “you will never be able to be patient” mean Mūsā had no choice? ​

Why did Mūsā say “if God wills” when he promised patience? ​

Why does Khiḍr speak of “mentioning” (dhikr) rather than teaching? ​

The boat holed (18:71–73) ​

What happened on the boat, and why did Mūsā object? ​

Did Khiḍr mean to sink the boat? ​

Was Mūsā wrong to be impatient? ​

What did Mūsā mean by “do not blame me for what I forgot”? ​

The boy killed (18:74–76) ​

What happened with the boy, and why was Mūsā so shocked? ​

The wall and the parting (18:77–78) ​

Was rebuilding the wall a miracle? ​

Can a wall really “want” to fall down? ​

Why did Mūsā mention payment for the wall? ​

Why did Khiḍr and Mūsā part ways? ​

What does taʾwīl mean in “I will tell you the interpretation”? ​

Khiḍr explains the boat (18:79) ​

Why did Khiḍr damage the boat? ​

How did Imam al-Ṣādiq use the boat to protect Zurārah? ​

Khiḍr explains the boy (18:80–81) ​

Why was the boy killed? ​

Couldn’t God simply have reformed the boy instead? ​

Does this story allow anyone to kill on the basis of hidden knowledge? ​

How can God be said to “fear” (“so we feared…”)? ​

What child did the parents receive in place of the boy? ​

Khiḍr explains the wall (18:82) ​

Why did Khiḍr rebuild the wall? ​

What was the treasure under the wall? ​

Do parents’ deeds affect their children? ​

What does Khiḍr mean by “I did not do it of my own accord”? ​

Why does Khiḍr say “I”, then “we”, then “your Lord”? ​

The lessons of the story (18:60–82) ​

Should we follow the outward law or inner knowledge? ​

What principle ties Khiḍr’s three actions together? ​