وَأَمَّا الغُلامُ فَكانَ أَبَواهُ مُؤمِنَينِ فَخَشينا أَن يُرهِقَهُما طُغيانًا وَكُفرًا
As for the boy, his parents were faithful [persons], and we feared he would overwhelm them with rebellion and unfaith.
EXEGESIS
Khashīnā (we feared); this is said by Khiḍr (a) and he intends himself. There is no problem with Khiḍr (a) intending himself even though we is used. This is a common enough expression in Arabic and prevalent in the Quran as well.
Fear should not be understood here to mean fear in the sense of terror, as the prophets of God and their like fear no one except Allah (33:39). Rather it is worry brought about by a sense of duty. The knowledge that Khiḍr (a) was given of future events led him to worry about this eventuality for the faithful parents.
Yurhiqa (overwhelm) was explained under verse 73 to mean ‘to overcome with force’.
EXPOSITION
Khiḍr (a) now explains why he killed the young boy.
As for the boy, his parents were faithful [persons]: the qualification of the parents as faithful is critical here, and shows that the event was not in fact any sort of punishment, but rather a mercy from God towards the two faithful parents. This is further clarified in the next verse.
And we feared he would overwhelm them with rebellion and unfaith: the boy would have grown up to be an evil man, and his parents – out of their affection for him – would undertake actions to protect him which would cause them to fall into disobedience and kufr, or follow him into disbelief. In other words, if the boy would have lived, he would have been the cause for his parents to lose their faith and because of that God destined him to be killed, as would have been the case if He had caused him to die by some other natural means. As for the parents, their love and affection for him would have blinded them to what he was and did, and they would have followed him down an irredeemable path.
It has also been suggested that overwhelm here does not mean that he would mislead them, but rather that he would cause them trouble and heartache by his disbelief and rebellion; but the first option is more appropriate as it carries more weight than simply heartache and trouble.
We may note three important lessons that may be derived from this part of the story. Firstly, that one should not let their love for their family blind them to the truth and it may be that sometimes family members are a trial: O you who have faith! Indeed among your spouses and children you have enemies; so beware of them (64:14). Secondly, that nothing is more important than faith and good deeds. Everything else pales in comparison and it is better to lose one’s child than to lose one’s faith. Thirdly, trials and tribulations should not be seen as automatically being a sign of God’s displeasure. Indeed, such tribulations may be a blessing in disguise.
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
Qurṭubī relates an opinion that we in the phrase we feared refers to Khiḍr (a) and this means he was allowed to perform ijtihād (independent reasoning) when deciding whom to kill. This understanding is contrary to his later statement, I did not do that out of my own accord (verse 82), which indicates his actions were undertaken according to the direct command of God. Furthermore, it is an extremely dangerous and unwarranted opinion, since it allows for killing at will and putting the future of people at the mercy of the ijtihād of others. Qurṭubī himself concludes that we feared is used figuratively and intends the audience of the Quran and any person who, if they knew the nature of the boy, would find such a fear in themselves.
Others have suggested that we feared intends God, in which case it should have the meaning of ‘We knew’ (ʿalimnā), or alternatively ‘We hated that’ (karihnā). This is because it is unsuitable to attribute fear to God. If this is the case then Khiḍr (a) would be speaking on behalf of God, like in the verse, I am only a messenger of your Lord that I may give you a pure son (19:19). Accordingly, the meaning of we feared would be something akin to how it is used in Sūrat al-Baqarah: So if you fear they would not maintain Allah’s bounds (2:229), where it is said to mean ‘to know’.
Ṭabrisī asks: why did God cause the boy to die in such a violent way when He could have made his death painless? He offers two answers to this. The first one is that He knew the parents would not remain in faith except by the violent death of their child. The second that even if someone were to feel pain through death he would be rewarded for that pain a manifold reward so much so that it is as if the person who had suffered had not actually suffered at all in comparison. Of these two the first is more fitting an answer for an innocent child, whose reward would in any case be guaranteed. Also it may be distasteful to say God causes suffering to a child in exchange for giving them greater reward.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
- But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
- Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
TOPICAL ARTICLE
Would God punish based on His foreknowledge?
This verse raises some questions, most significantly, the very important question about the nature of God’s judgement. If God knows beforehand what choices a person makes, would it be justifiable for Him to reward or punish them based on that, before they have actually realised those actions? Theologically such a probability cannot be entertained. The reward and punishment of God should always be understood as the natural consequences of those actions: That is because of what your hands have sent ahead, and because Allah is not tyrannical to the servants (3:182). The punishment of hell is simply the final manifestation of removing oneself from the mercy of God. As such if the actions that result in that consequence have not been manifested, then certainly their consequences would not manifest either.
Having established that principle, it then begs the question as to why God in this case commanded the killing of the boy for crimes not yet committed? The answer is that he was not killed as a punishment for a crime, but rather as a blessing and guidance for the parents who would have been misled by the boy and as a consequence would have lost their hereafter. Losing a child is difficult, but it is insignificant compared to damning oneself to hell. It is better to lose a child than one’s hereafter. This can also be seen as a trial for the parents, who did not lose their faith because of the loss of their child, which only further strengthened their faith instead and thus elevated their station, which is yet another blessing. It can also be seen as the act of God guiding the faithful: As for those who are [rightly] guided, He enhances their guidance (47:17); see also verse 13 of this surah.
Yet, if God knew they would become faithless, should He not have afforded them the chance of making that choice? If rebellion and unfaith was waiting inside them, surely God should have allowed that to manifest itself. Otherwise, why should he afford some the opportunity to choose disbelief, while saving others from it? In this case we should keep in mind that God does not demand the very highest levels of faith and obedience from all His servants and does not test them beyond their capacity (2:286). Those who damn themselves to hell are the ones who have been given every chance to repent and every warning, sign, and guidance has come to them and they have repeatedly rejected it. As is in the hadith of Imam al-Sajjād (a): ‘What is surprising is not the one who is saved, how he manages to be saved; rather what is surprising is the one who is lost to perdition, how he manages to be lost to perdition.’
But what about the boy? Was he not robbed of his chance of higher ranks in heaven by being killed before he grew up?
It is related that Abū al-Hasan al-Ashʿarī challenged his Mutazilite teacher, Abū Ali Jubbāʾī, by asking him what would be the fate of three brothers, one a righteous believer, one a wicked disbeliever, and another who had died as a child? Jubbāʾī replied that the believer would be in heaven, the disbeliever in hell, and the child would be saved – meaning he is in heaven, but not as one of the honoured believers there, but rather a child. He was then asked if the one who had died as child could reach the station of a believer in heaven, to which he replied that is not possible, since the believer had earned that station through his actions. Jubbāʾī was then asked, what if the child questions God saying that it was not his fault, and he was robbed of the choice, since his life was taken away from him before he could attain the proper rank in paradise? Jubbāʾī answered that God would inform the child that if he had stayed alive, he would have chosen the path of disobedience and it was a mercy from Him to end his life before he ended up on such a path. At this moment Ashʿarī then pressed Jubbāʾī saying that if the disbeliever who was at that moment suffering in hell overheard this exchange and then cried out as to why he was not given such a mercy while God knew where he too would end up, what should God then say? To that, it is said Jubbāʾī had no reply.
We should not be as hasty as Jubbāʾī though and immediately assume we know the reason why God would cause the death of a child. There could be a myriad of reasons for that. It could be a mercy to the parents, like in the verse in question. Or it could a be a trial for the parents. Or a punishment for their sins. Or a by-product of allowing people to have free will, in which case God would not interfere with someone who wishes to murder a child. Or a consequence of someone’s negligence. Or … Simply put, we cannot know with any certainty what the reason may be. Importantly, none of the examples we mentioned necessitate us to say it had anything to do with the child itself. It simply was not in God’s decree that he should live to adulthood, like many other children who die before that age, due to whatever causes.
As for whether this robs a person of their chance at heaven – because dying young they would not get the same rank in heaven as a good believer – then we must point out that there is no logical necessity for everyone being given the same potential in creation. That is like saying a cat might get upset it was not created as a dog, or as a human being. If God decrees one to be a cat, another a dog, another an angel, another a jinn, another a human, another a child, another a woman, another a man, another to be born at this time, and another in that place and situation, another living to adulthood, another dying as a child, that is His prerogative and wisdom and not something that may be dictated by the one being created. What is important is that no one is treated unjustly or unfairly and everyone who is taken to task for their choices and actions is recompensed fairly and fully based on what they chose and did.
[1] Tibyan, 7/81; Zamakhshari, 2/741; Muhit, 7/214; Mizan, 13/347; Nemuneh, 12/502-503.
[2] Mizan, 13/347.
[3] Nemuneh, 12/502-503.
[4] Tabrisi, 6/752.
[5] Thalabi, 6/187.
[6] Tibyan, 7/81.
[7] See Mizan, 13/347.
[8] Nemuneh, 12/502.
[9] Qurtubi, 11/36.
[10] Qurtubi, 11/37.
[11] Tibyan, 7/81, 83; Tabrisi, 6/752; Tabari, 16/3; Thalabi, 6/187; Nemuneh, 12/503.
[12] Tabari, 16/4.
[13] Tabrisi, 6/752.
[14] Zamakhshari, 2/741.
[15] See Qurtubi, 11/36.
[16] Tabrisi, 6/753.
[17] Matthew 19:14.
[18] Exodus 21:15.
[19] Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 1/113.
[20] Dhahabī, Taʾrīkh al-Islām (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī, 1987), 24/157.