أَمَّا السَّفينَةُ فَكانَت لِمَساكينَ يَعمَلونَ فِي البَحرِ فَأَرَدتُ أَن أَعيبَها وَكانَ وَراءَهُم مَلِكٌ يَأخُذُ كُلَّ سَفينَةٍ غَصبًا
As for the boat, it belonged to some poor people who work on the sea. I desired to make it defective, for behind them was a king seizing every ship usurpingly.
EXEGESIS
Masākīn (poor people) originates from sukūn, meaning to stop moving. It is the plural of miskīn, which means a person who is too poor to provide sufficiently for their needs. Indeed someone may be poor (faqīr), yet have enough for their minimal necessities, whereas a miskīn does not have even that. It is generally considered that a miskīn is worse off than a faqīr.
Having said that, miskīn does not mean someone who owns nothing, like some have mistakenly believed. Yes, a ship is an expensive asset, but if a group of people are not able to sufficiently provide for their needs with it, they would still fall into the category of miskīn and be eligible to receive alms. Although some have argued based on this verse that a miskīn is better off than the faqīr, but this is contrary to the general consensus.
Warāʾ (behind). It is said it means here ‘ahead of them’ (amāmihim) like in the verses, Ahead of them (min warāʾihim) is hell (45:10), or, ahead of them is a barrier (23:100). Those who have understood warāʾ as ‘front’ have understood the verse to mean they were travelling in their ship towards the territory of the king who would usurp their ship.
Al-Farrāʾ has said warāʾ in this context is used not for direction, but rather to indicate time, meaning in a time ahead of them, in the future, soon the king’s men would come to confiscate the ship.
EXPOSITION
Khiḍr (a) then begins to explain himself, telling his reason for each of the actions to which Moses (a) objected. As we said, they probably travelled for some time together and Moses (a) may have witnessed Khiḍr (a) do many things. However, he only objected to the three which are the ones mentioned in the surah. It may well be that Khiḍr (a) talked longer with Moses (a) and explained other actions too, and it has been omitted in the Quranic exposition of events, which always simply presents a summary of the highlights.
As for the boat, it belonged to some poor people who work on the sea: working on the sea indicates they were fishermen, who depended on the sea for their livelihood. For them to be merchants is unlikely, as they would not fall into the category of miskīn.
Interestingly, unlike the next two stories, no mention is made that the poor people were faithful, but rather it seems God wished Khiḍr (a) to help them simply because of their poverty.
I desired to make it defective: this is in reply to Moses’ (a) assumption that Khiḍr (a) wished to drown them, saying rather he simply intended to make it defective. It also indicates that when he sabotaged it, he did not scuttle the boat, but rather made it inoperable until it was serviced.
It has been said that the desire to make it defective is mentioned before the fact that it would be seized, because simply the ship being seized is not reason enough for Khiḍr (a) to get involved and make it defective, but rather he did so because it belonged to the poor people.
For behind them was a king seizing every ship usurpingly: apparently, a king was mobilising for war and was taking by force every ship for logistical support. Naturally, in such a situation he would have no use for a ship that was not seaworthy and could not tarry for repairs to be completed. Hence, every ship here should be understood as every seaworthy ship. Also the defect should not have been too simple to fix, otherwise the ship would have been confiscated, but it should not have been too difficult either to make repairs excessively difficult and cause harm to the fishermen.
We can only imagine the anguish of the fishermen followed by their delight. When they discovered that one of their passengers had sabotaged their ship they must have been dismayed. They would have lost precious time from work, which they could little afford, in order to dock the ship and repair it. Then when shortly after the king’s soldiers came to confiscate ships and left their ship because it was inoperable, they must have been overjoyed, realising that that which they thought to be a calamity had in fact been a boon. It is after all far easier to repair a ship with a single hole than to build a new one; a silver lining moment to be sure and an important reminder about relying on God and being satisfied with His decree.
As we discussed in the commentary of verse 74, the commands of God are always aimed at achieving the greatest benefit. In this case the choice for Khiḍr (a) was between two options: either let the ship be taken from the poor fishermen, or sabotage it so that they may keep it. While it is true that the second option entailed a temporary setback, its outcome was of the greatest benefit, and that is why Khiḍr (a) undertook that course of action. This same type of consequentialist reasoning is applied to the following two cases as well. This brings us to some other lessons that can be derived from the story. Firstly, we should always try to bring about the greatest benefit through our actions and avoid harm as much as possible. Secondly, one should not immediately despair because of a setback. Thirdly, sometimes that which seems harmful may actually be beneficial. Fourthly, God’s commands should be followed even if we do not understand their benefit; there is a hidden benefit which will eventually reveal itself.
Finally, we should note again that the actions undertaken by Khiḍr (a) were not something that may be emulated by us, as it was not based on reasoning but direct instruction of God. As Makārim Shīrāzī expresses it, he operated not in the realm of juristic instruction (tashrīʿ) but cosmological order (takwīn). He highlights this with a pertinent example. A doctor may cut off a limb to stop the spread of gangrene, in which case he has weighed the two options and acted based on that, which results in the greatest benefit. We would all agree that this is justified. However, would one be allowed to cut off someone’s limb to, for example, teach them a lesson in patience? Or try them in their faith and thankfulness? Certainly, no jurist would allow such a thing. However, God may very well bring about such events throughout our lives in order to test us in various things. The actions of Khiḍr (a) are best viewed in this light. In this sense, we may view Khiḍr (a) to be a man whose duty was in the realm of takwīn, whereas Moses (a) was a man whose duty was in the realm of tashrīʿ. Since these two realms were separate from each other, Khiḍr (a) then said to Moses (a): This is where you and I shall part (verse 78).
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- According to a report, Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) publicly criticised his beloved companion Zurārah ibn Aʿyan, he then informed Zurārah of his reason for doing so: ‘I have only claimed defects in you because you are a man who has become famous because of his attachment to us and his devotion to us. Due to that you are scorned amongst the people and censured, because of your love for us and your devotion. Therefore, I wished to claim defects in you so that they may praise you in matters of religion rather than criticise you and find flaws in you. Through this I wished to withhold their evil from you. God – mighty and glorious – has said: As for the boat, it belonged to some poor people who work on the sea. I desired to make it defective, for behind them was a king seizing every ship usurpingly. This is the revelation from God, [the ship was] without defect. Nay, by God, he [Khiḍr] did not make it defective except so that it may have been safe from the hands of the king and not fall into his hands, while the ship was actually without any defects, and praise be to God. I hope you understand the metaphor, God bless you. By God, you are of the most beloved of people to me, and the most beloved of the companions of my father – peace be upon him – living or dead. You are the best ship in these difficult and turbulent seas. Behind you is a tyrannical usurper king, following closely every good ship that passes by in the sea of guidance so that he may usurpingly take it and then usurp it and its people.’
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
There are a variety of suggestions for what miskīn means in the verse:
- Miskīn is here referring to the original meaning of weakness and that many of the fishermen were sick or somehow disabled. A similar suggestion is that they were weak in the sense that they could not defend their own rights.
- Miskīn here is referring to the meaning of being in need, and they were in need of their ship.
- Miskīn means one who has no property; therefore they did not own the ship but were renting it.
These are mostly proposed as solutions on the basis of the premise that a miskīn should own nothing at all, which does not seem to be justified.
It is claimed the name of the king was Hadad the son of Bedad, or Minwāh ibn Julundī al-Urdunī, or other variations, but there seems to be no sound basis for these claims. Ibn Kathīr points out that Hadad the son of Bedad appears in the Torah under the progeny of Esau (ʿĪṣ), the son of Isaac (see the next section).
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
- These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites. … Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, reigned in his place, the name of his city being Avith. Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.
Note: According to David Mandel: ‘Hadad, an Edomite of royal blood, was taken as a child to Egypt by the members of his tribe who had survived Joab’s massacre of the Edomite males. The Pharaoh received him warmly, gave him land and a house, and married him to his sister-in-law, Queen Tahpenes’s sister. Hadad’s son Genubath was raised by Queen Tahpenes in the palace, together with her own sons. Years later, Hadad heard that his enemies David and Joab had died and so requested permission from Pharaoh to return to Edom, which Pharaoh reluctantly granted. Back in Edom, he became an adversary to Israel during the reign of King Solomon.’
Based on this he was certainly not living at the time of Moses (a).
[1] Raghib, p. 417.
[2] Tibyan, 7/80.
[3] Raghib, p. 418. There is disagreement about what is the difference between a faqīr and a miskīn; for some of these see Muhammad Hasan Najafī, Jawāhir al-Kalām (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah, 1365 AHS), 15/302-303.
[4] Thalabi, 6/186. See also Nemuneh, 12/501.
[5] See Muhit, 7/212.
[6] Muhit, 7/213.
[7] Tibyan, 7/80-81. See also Tabari, 16/2-3; Alusi, 8/332.
[8] Zamakhshari, 2/741.
[9] See Tibyan, 7/80; Tabari, 16/3. As evidenced by the previous statement, I wanted to make it defective (Mizan, 13/347).
[10] See Razi, 21/490.
[11] Even fixing the wall entailed difficulty, but bearing that difficulty was worth the outcome it would lead to.
[12] Nemuneh, 12/505-509.
[13] Ṭūsī, Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (Rijāl al-Kashshī) (Qum: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt, 1404 AH), 1/349-350.
[14] Alusi, 8/332; Nemuneh, 12/501.
[15] Tantawi, 8/559.
[16] Alusi, 8/332.
[17] Alusi, 8/332. In the last case the li would not mean it belonged to (milk), but rather ‘in their usage’ (ikhtiṣāṣ).
[18] Tabari, 16/3; Bukhari, 5/233. This is attributed to Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, but its attribution has been challenged to be incorrect, see Bidayah, 1/347; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, n.d.), 8/319.
[19] Thalabi, 6/187. Or alternatively al-Ghassānī (Muhit, 7/214), or al-Azdī (Alusi, 8/333).
[20] See for example Baghawi, 3/209.
[21] Ibn Kathir, 5/166.
[22] Genesis 36:31-37.
[23] David Mandel, Who's Who in the Jewish Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2007), p. 133.