فَلَمّا بَلَغا مَجمَعَ بَينِهِما نَسِيا حوتَهُما فَاتَّخَذَ سَبيلَهُ فِي البَحرِ سَرَبًا
So when they reached the confluence between them, they forgot their fish, which found its way into the sea, sneaking away.
EXEGESIS
Sarab means to travel and set forth, like in the verse marches (sārib) in daytime (13:10). Hence in this verse it means literally: it made its way in the sea, moving on its way. The usage of saraban would then be akin to saying yadhhabu (it went) dhihāban (going), which has no direct English equivalent.
Other meanings have also been mentioned for the word. Ṭūsī says it is to travel, but a short distance, without incurring any difficulty. Ṭabrisī says it originally means a hole in the ground from which there is no escape. Rāghib explains that it is an inclination like a hill, or is to travel behind such an incline.
These meanings help us understand the imagery being utilised in the verse; the way the fish moved in the water was as if it had disappeared down some hidden path. This is fitting with the tone of mystery in the story.
Because sarab can refer to a literal path, some have claimed that the fish miraculously made a path in the water (see the forthcoming sections).
EXPOSITION
This verse introduces us to several important topics regarding the story and the events preceding the meeting with Khiḍr (a) which are meant to act as a preamble, preparing us for the lessons therein.
So when they reached the confluence between them: unbeknownst to them, Moses (a) and his young companion reached the appointed place. It seems they found a nice rock near which they decided to set up temporary camp and rest.
They forgot their fish: suddenly their smoked fish fell into the water, and the young man accompanying Moses (a) saw it swim away, a surprising event. Apparently, they were distracted by their other needs and the fish was forgotten. The young man, perhaps intending to mention what had happened to the fish, got distracted by these other things and forgot to mention anything.
Which found its way into the sea, sneaking away: there is some disagreement about the nature of the fish and how it swam away. It has been said that the fish they had was salted, or even barbequed, or even partially eaten over several meals, and that it came to life, possibly when the young man was washing it. Although some have said that it was fresh.
One may ask: why is this even mentioned and what is its significance to the story? Why are we informed of them forgetting the fish and going back to it? All of this plays an educational role in the story. The knowledge of Moses (a) regarding where the meeting is supposed to take place is ambivalent and inconclusive. Furthermore, even armed with such knowledge, he fails to apply it. They knew they should be looking for a sign, yet despite their knowledge they failed to act on it due to forgetfulness. Since the main purpose of the journey is to impart how limited man’s knowledge is, the fish event acts as a prelude to what is to come. Man’s knowledge is limited and imperfect, and so is his ability to utilise it.
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
It is said that nasiyā (they forgot) in this verse has the meaning of taʾkhīr (‘to leave behind’), but this is a linguistically difficult interpretation. This claim is based on the desire of wishing to negate Moses (a) as having forgotten something. Also it would make no sense to say they left their fish behind on purpose. For more, see the Topical Article under this verse. Many often baseless details are related by some exegetes in their works and attributed to the Prophet or the other Infallibles in narrations. It is said that the young man, Joshua (a), was performing ritual ablutions from that spring when some droplets sprinkled unto the fish, which then came to life, hopped into the water, and began to swim. In another version (attributed to the Prophet) they laid down to sleep, when the fish rolled out of their basket and fell into the water. Other accounts claim things such as the young man saw the fish swim away, and thought to himself that he will inform Moses (a) when he wakes up, but then forgot to tell him; or that a spring gushed forth from the ground at where the fish was; or that at night the coolness and dampness of the water gave life to the fish while it was in the basket; or that it then began to dig its way through the ground, even cleaving apart a rock in its way, making its path towards the water.
Another group of claims relate to the word sarab. It is said with each stroke of the fish’s tail the water behind it turned solid, or to stone. According to a report attributed to the Prophet, the water parted behind the fish, making a path of dry land. They intend that Moses (a) was then able to walk along that path to an island where he then met Khiḍr (a). Other reports indicate Khiḍr (a) was sitting on top of the water in the middle of the ocean.
Keep in mind though the more miraculous the descriptions of the event, the more difficult it becomes to believe that the young man would have forgotten to mention it to Moses (a), especially considering that as is apparent from the next verse they packed up their camp and moved on for some time before Moses (a) then asked for the fish.
Some have claimed that the young man forgetting was also a miraculous event.
Finally, we may note that Tabatabai argues the fish was in fact only lost to the sea by falling into the water or being washed away by a wave, and the only reason this was significant was because Moses (a) had been informed that the sign for the meeting place is him losing his fish. This does not fit in very well with the later description of the fish making its way into the sea in an amazing manner (verse 63), as there is nothing amazing about being washed away by a wave.
TOPICAL ARTICLES
Can infallibles forget?
An important discussion brought up by the verse is the issue of prophets, their successors (awṣiyāʾ), and the saints (awliyāʾ) being able to forget.
As we noted in the Introduction, it has been reported that when the Quraysh asked the Prophet to answer their three questions, he said that he would do so tomorrow. However, Gabriel tarried and did not come with the revelation. This is because the Prophet did not do istithnāʾ and say ‘I will tell you tomorrow, if God wills it’. When Gabriel finally came he also brought the verse, We do not descend except by the command of your Lord (19:64).
The scholars are divided over the authenticity of this report. Some have accepted it, while others have rejected it. Ṭūsī rejects the report, because he says this would have meant the Prophet had lied when he said he would inform them tomorrow, and it is not possible for him to say anything which is not true.
Although we may for good reason say that verses 23-24 are not addressed to Prophet Muhammad (s), there are other verses of the Quran that seemingly attribute forgetfulness to prophets. For example, we are told about Prophet Adam (a): Certainly We had enjoined Adam earlier; but he forgot (nasiya), and We did not find any resoluteness in him (20:115).
Then there is this verse, which quite clearly and explicitly includes both Moses (a) and his companion as the subjects of they forgot, meaning they both forgot about the fish. The young man forgot to tell Moses (a) about it swimming away, and Moses (a) forgot all about it.
Later again the issue of forgetting is raised: He said: ‘Did you see?! When we took shelter at the rock, indeed I forgot (nasītu) about the fish – and none but Satan made me forget (ansānī) to mention it!’ (verse 63). And in the encounter with the sage, Moses (a) admitted that he forgot his promise: He said: ‘Do not take me to task for my forgetting (nasītu), and do not be hard upon me’ (verse 73).
Regardless, some have wished to deny the possibility of this, so they have suggested different explanations. One claim is that only the lad forgot the fish, but the forgetfulness is attributed to both of them, like saying ‘the people forgot their supplies’, meaning some of them. This makes no sense though as the verb being used is a dual, which really has no reason except to emphasise that both of them forgot. In any case, in verse 73 Moses (a) unequivocally ascribes forgetting to himself, so it is pointless to try and argue that he is not capable of forgetting.
Another claim is that forgetting here has the meaning of setting aside and ignoring, like when God attributes forgetfulness to Himself (45:34, 32:14). This too makes no sense here, as why would the lad intentionally set it aside, then later say Satan made him forget?
What is best is to say that the forgetfulness described in the verse is completely human and harmless. It has no bearing on prophetic infallibility (ʿiṣmah), which states that the prophets may not forget things related to their role as messengers. As for forgetting things like where you placed something, or what you ate for breakfast three years ago, there is absolutely no reason to deny the possibility of this, and to deny that is to deny the humanity of these holy people. Yes, God will protect His Messenger from forgetting any part of the revelation, but no such impetus exists for forgetting mundane things. Some might argue that if prophets were witnessed forgetting something that would cause people to doubt their memory with regards to the revelation. This is not a valid argument though, since if God should have changed the nature of things simply to accommodate the doubts of the doubters, then thousands of things should not have been the way they are, as there is no satisfying such people, those who say things such as: Why have no bracelets of gold been cast upon him, nor have the angels come with him as escorts? (43:53); And they say: ‘What sort of apostle is this who eats food and walks in the marketplaces? Why has not an angel been sent down to him so as to be a warner along with him?’ Or: ‘[Why is not] a treasure thrown to him, or [why does] he [not] have a garden from which he may eat?’ (25:7-8).
While the scholars may differ and argue about the scope and details of what it means to forget and in what cases it is or is not possible, what is apparent from the verses of the Quran is that at least to some extent it is possible for even prophets and Imams to forget some mundane things. What is important to keep in mind is that this should not lead to disobedience of God (maʿṣiyah), nor to ruining their reputations, as both would fall under the definite scope of infallibility (ʿiṣmah). However, there seems to be nothing wrong with saying that a prophet might forget about some daily mundane affairs. The reader may refer to various theological works for more on this topic.
Khiḍr (a), Dhū al-Qarnayn, and the Alexander Romance
It has been pointed out that this event bears similarity to some recensions of the largely fictional Alexander Romance in which Alexander of Macedon travels with his companion in search of the spring of life with his cook, Andreas. During their journey Andreas washes a salted fish they had with them in a spring and it miraculously comes to life and swims away. He then proceeds to jump after it, becoming immortal himself. He then later tells Alexander of what happened, but they fail to find the spring again. It was Wensick who popularised the theory that the stories of Sūrat al-Kahf were based on the Alexander Romance and the epic of Gilgamesh.
As for the Alexander Romance, the author of this ancient Greek tale is unknown and is often referred to as ‘Pseudo-Callisthenes’ since the supposed author Callisthenes died before Alexander’s death, while the story describes Alexander’s death. Considering the huge variety of different stories to which the Alexander Romance title may be applied, it is best described as a collection of various folklore tales that have been then applied to a fictional Alexander.
It is good to keep in mind that there are many recensions and versions in other languages of the Alexander Romance which vary widely. Especially the ones in Arabic, Farsi, and Ethiopic all seem to be produced in the post-Islamic period and heavily influenced by the Islamic accounts, which is why they bear similarity to the stories of Sūrat al-Kahf, as opposed to their counterparts in earlier recensions. The very earliest recensions of the story that bear resemblance to the Quranic account of Moses (a) and Khiḍr (a) are the Syriac versions, which have been dated from anywhere between the sixth to tenth centuries. The earliest of these is claimed to be the sermon on Alexander by Jacob of Serugh (d. 521). However, the attribution to him is not unproblematic. There is a Greek recension that is hard to date, but it also tells of Alexander’s cook washing a salted fish in some water which then comes to life. Others have dated the earliest Syriac versions to the seventh century CE.
At first glance this could be thought of as being connected to the Quranic story. Based on this one might suggest that the story of Moses’ (a) travel was known and somehow mixed up with the legends of Alexander. The more realistic option is that the similarity is merely coincidental, since a dead fish coming to life and swimming away is not necessarily a unique enough of a story element to establish a link between the two stories, especially as they share no other similarities. More importantly, as we pointed out, the Quranic account does not actually say the fish was dead. We must not forget that the ‘fountain of youth’ is not actually a part of the story of Moses (a) in the Quranic account, and its inclusion in narrations is dubious at best. In this sense, the more real possibility is that the story of the Alexander Romance found its way into Muslim circles and the details about the fountain of youth was introduced into the stories of Sūrat al-Kahf by the storytellers (qaṣṣāṣīn) and from there made its way into exegetical works.
A problem with views such as that of Wensick is that they conflate between the Quranic account and one interpretation cherry picked from amongst the tafsīr literature. In this case, one opinion from amongst many has been chosen to represent the ‘orthodox Muslim view’ which is then correlated with the Alexander Romance, to provide so-called evidence that the Quran has been borrowing from the aforementioned tale. Scholars such as Wheeler have also pointed this out, and he adds that Ṭabarī for example gives many other views which he attributes to Ibn Abbas, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, and the Prophet: that the fish came to life and swam through an underwater passage, or that the water turned to rock where it swam, or that it made its way through dry land up until reaching water. None of these bear any resemblance to any version of the Alexander Romance. Furthermore, as we already pointed out, the Quranic account itself does not even mention the fish being dead or coming to life, nor anything related to life-giving and miraculous waters. In this sense, the connection made by Wensick and those who have adopted his view is not actually a connection to the Quranic account, but to the accounts of dubious reports, which almost certainly have originated with storytellers.
The stories of the Alexander Romance have also been linked to later verses in this surah about Dhū al-Qarnayn. For example, according to some post-Islamic versions of the Alexander Romance, Alexander the Macedonian built a wall (often known as the Gates of Alexander) in the Caucasus, to keep out the barbarians of the north. They have detailed descriptions of Alexander doing those things which the Quran describes Dhū al-Qarnayn as having done. As we have already discussed, these are only found in post-Islamic versions of the Alexander Romance, which have taken inspiration from Sūrat al-Kahf. The oldest Greek, Latin, Armenian, and Syriac versions of the text do not make mention of Alexander building a wall. In fact, the earliest Armenian versions dated to the latter half of the fifth century CE also do not speak of gates or Gog and Magog. As these were based on early Greek versions, it suggests that those early Greek versions did not contain such elements either. It seems that the stories of Sūrat al-Kahf were incorporated into the folklores of the Alexander Romance, and this may very well be the reason why the view that Dhū al-Qarnayn was Alexander became so popularised.
It should be noted that even the similarities in rabbinic literature of the stories of Alexander, Gog and Magog, and the Alexander Gate are all said to be the result of the incorporation of the Alexander Romance into their traditions. This has probably happened in the Muslim narrations too. For example, a narration in Kamāl al-Dīn states that Khiḍr (a) travelled with Dhū al-Qarnayn seeking the spring of life, the former found it and drank from it but the latter did not. This is an example of the seeping in of the storytellers’ accounts into hadith literature, which was of course a very real phenomenon.
There is a tradition with a very broken chain in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī that relates Dhū al-Qarnayn having learned about the description of the fountain of life and when he came to the place described to him, he found 360 springs of water there.[45] He then commanded his men to each take a salted fish and place it in the water. Khiḍr (a) was one of his men[46] and when he washed the fish it came to life and he fell into the spring trying to grab it and drank from it, becoming immortal in the process. When he reported back to Dhū al-Qarnayn, they tried to find the spring again, but could not locate it anymore.[47] As the reader will have noticed this is very similar to the stories and legends surrounding the earlier verses discussing Moses (a) and Khiḍr (a) and such fanciful tales should not be given much credit.
For some more discussion on the Alexander Romance and Dhū al-Qarnayn see the commentary on verse 83.
[1] Lisan, 1/462.
[2] Lisan, 1/465; Raghib, p. 405.
[3] Tibyan, 7/66.
[4] Tabrisi, 6/740.
[5] Raghib, p. 405.
[6] Mizan, 13/340.
[7] Lisan, 1/464.
[8] Tibyan, 7/67; Tabrisi, 6/742.
[9] Baydawi, 3/286; Alusi, 8/297; Mizan, 13/339.
[10] Baghawi, 3/205.
[11] Tibyan, 7/66.
[12] Razi, 21/480.
[13] Tabrisi, 6/742.
[14] Qurtubi, 11/13.
[15] Tabrisi, 6/742; Zamakhshari, 2/732; Baghawi, 3/204; Muhit, 7/200. In another variant Moses (a) is the one performing the ablutions (Qurtubi, 11/15).
[16] Thalabi, 6/181; Muhit, 7/200: Alusi, 8/296.
[17] Qurtubi, 11/13; this opinion has been attributed to Prophet Muhammad (s) in the hadith of Ubayy (Bukhari, 5/232).
[18] Razi, 21/480.
[19] Zamakhshari, 2/732; Muhit, 7/200.
[20] Muhit, 7/201.
[21] Tabrisi, 6/742; Tabari, 15/177.
[22] Tabrisi, 6/742; Tabari, 15/177; Thalabi, 6/181; Baghawi, 3/204.
[23] Qurtubi, 11/12. The idea of the island is probably due to the fact that the meeting place was supposed to be at the confluence of the two seas (verse 60), so it was claimed that Khiḍr (a) was in the middle of the ocean. The parting of the water of course also calls to mind the miracle of Moses (a) when parting the Red Sea.
[24] Mizan, 13/355.
[25] Razi, 21/480.
[26] Mizan, 13/340. Many early exegetes mention that losing the fish was the sign appointed to Moses (a); see Tibyan, 7/66; Tabari, 15/178.
[27] There are those who viewed verse 24 as being addressed to the Holy Prophet, and thus for them this topic is a return to an earlier theme.
[28] See for example Tibyan, 7/30; Suyuti, 4/217; Faqih, pp. 362-363, h. 4284; Ayyashi, 2/324.
[29] Such as Tabrisi, 6/711-712; Tabari, 15/151; Zamakhshari, 2/715; Razi, 21/450; Muhit, 7/162; Alusi, 8/235; Nemuneh, 12/385.
[30] Mufīd has a short book rejecting the possibility of the Holy Prophet forgetting anything, titled ʿAdam Sahw al-Nabī.
[31] For example Tibyan, 7/30.
[32] Tabrisi, 6/741-742; Baydawi, 3/286; Jalalayn, p. 303; Tantawi, 8/548; Mizan, 13/339-340. See also Muhit, 7/200; Alusi, 8/296.
[33] Tibyan, 7/66; Thalabi, 6/181; Baghawi, 3/204. This opinion is also related in Tabari, 15/177.
[34] Nemuneh, 12/484; Fadlallah, 14/360-361. See also the discussion on 87:6-7.
[35] He connects to the epic of Gilgamesh based on the tale of Gilgamesh searching for immortality by seeking out a plant at the bottom of the sea. This only bears a loose similarity to the story of the Alexander Romance, and its connection to the Quranic account is non-existent as we shall explain.
[36] Brannon M. Wheeler, ‘Moses or Alexander? Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65’ in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 1998), pp. 191-215. The earliest versions of the Alexander Romance have been dated to the fourth century CE (Latin) and fifth century CE (Armenian). See Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 17-18.
[37] For more on Jacob of Serugh see the commentary on verse 9.
[38] Brannon M. Wheeler, ‘Moses or Alexander? Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65’ in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 1998), pp. 191-215. Nöldeke asserted the origins of the Syriac and Arabic stories lie in Pahlavi versions (EQ2, ‘Iskandar Nāma’), but this is unlikely and his dating of the literature has been called into question.
[39] Van Donzel and Schmidt claim the earliest version is by an unknown author, and written in 629-630 CE to be precise. See Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 17-21. Interestingly this version also mentions that God had caused iron horns to grow from Alexander’s head. It also very closely follows the Quranic account of Dhū al-Qarnayn in many other regards, including Alexander travelling to the west to a ‘stinking sea’ and the east where ‘people hide in holes in order not to be burned’ by the rising sun. This version is, according to those authors, the earliest that bears such similarities.
[40] Brannon M. Wheeler, ‘Moses or Alexander? Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65’ in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 1998), pp. 191-215. Wheeler also points out that some versions of the Alexander Romance have borrowed from other prophetic stories. In one version Alexander descends under water in a diving bell and is then swallowed by a fish, only then to be spat out on the shore. This of course is reminiscent of the story of Prophet Jonah (a).
[41] See for example the lengthy tradition attributed to Imam al-Bāqir (a), who supposedly reports it from Imam al-Sajjād (a), which gives a fantastic account of Dhū al-Qarnayn very similar to the stories of the Alexander Romance (Suyuti, 4/245-246).
[42] Brannon M. Wheeler, ‘Moses or Alexander? Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65’ in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 1998), pp. 191-215. Wheeler correctly points out that only in later tafsīr literature do we see interpretations bearing much closer resemblance to the Alexander Romance. As such, the Alexander Romance, the epic of Gilgamesh, and so on, should not be seen as ‘the sources for the Qurʾān, but the sources to which the commentaries make allusions in their interpretations of the Qurʾān’. Wheeler also adds that the connection of Alexander to the surah was later reinforced by the interpretations that suggested Dhū al-Qarnayn was Alexander. For more on this see the commentary on verse 83.
[43] See Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 17, 37-38.
[44] Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2009), p. 9.