The Ocean of the Quran

A verse by verse explanation of The Ultimate Scripture

Al-Kahf – Verse 82

وَأَمَّا الجِدارُ فَكانَ لِغُلامَينِ يَتيمَينِ فِي المَدينَةِ وَكانَ تَحتَهُ كَنزٌ لَهُما وَكانَ أَبوهُما صالِحًا فَأَرادَ رَبُّكَ أَن يَبلُغا أَشُدَّهُما وَيَستَخرِجا كَنزَهُما رَحمَةً مِن رَبِّكَ ۚ وَما فَعَلتُهُ عَن أَمري ۚ ذٰلِكَ تَأويلُ ما لَم تَسطِع عَلَيهِ صَبرًا

As for the wall, it belonged to two boy orphans in the city. Under it there was a treasure belonging to them. Their father had been a righteous man. So your Lord desired that they should come of age and take out their treasure – as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do that out of my own accord. This is the interpretation of that over which you could not maintain patience.’

EXEGESIS

Kanz (treasure) refers to any hidden treasure, whether gold or silver or other than that.‎[1] It is claimed to come from storing dates in a container, and by extension it means to place wealth on top of each other in a safe place.‎[2] However, what is more correct is that it originates from the Middle Persian word ganj, which means a buried treasure.‎[3]

Ashudd (of age) is from shaddah meaning power and strength. Ashudd could be translated as reaching one’s peak as in 12:22 and 28:14. It means here physical and mental maturity.‎[4] Different specifications have been suggested for this, such as sexual maturity, or the peak of physical fitness of age 18-30.‎[5] However, there is no basis or need for such specifications, and the verse can be understood that it should be until such a time that the two orphans were capable of looking after their own interests and no one would deny them their rightful inheritance.

According to this, we can understand that the two orphan boys were still young and had not reached the age of maturity. This is supported by the fact that one is not generally called an orphan after reaching maturity and adulthood.‎[6]

For taʾwīl (interpretation) see the commentary on verse 78.

Tasṭiʿ (maintain) has the same meaning as tastaṭīʿ (verses 67 and 72) and tastaṭiʿ (verse 78) used earlier, and it means to be able to do something.‎[7] It is said that as Khiḍr (a) begins to explain the events it becomes easier to maintain patience and thus the ‘lighter’ version of the verb is used in verse 78, until in this verse the form tasṭiʿ is used as it has already been explained and the heaviness has been removed.‎[8]

EXPOSITION

Khiḍr (a) now explains the reason for his third and final act.

As for the wall, it belonged to two boy orphans in the city: interestingly, in all three explanations Khiḍr (a) begins by referring not to his actions – which are what Moses (a) objected to – but rather to the objects of his actions: the ship, the boy, the wall. In all cases he then points out the relationship that thing or person had with others. This highlights how little information the objections were based on, as Moses (a) did not possess anything but exoteric knowledge about those things. Sabotaging a ship may very well be acceptable for a myriad of reasons.

Under it there was a treasure belonging to them: the expression belonging to them could be taken to indicate the treasure was buried there for them by their father and was their rightful inheritance.‎[9] Although it is possible that it may have been gifted to them and their father or mother or brother had buried it for them. Or it could have been an inheritance from someone other than their father, and so on and so forth. The fact that their father was righteous does not necessarily mean that they inherited it from their father. However, the father is the only one of these referenced in the verse and it makes sense that it was because of him that the children deserved such a favour from God.

Their father had been a righteous man: father in Arabic can also mean forefather (see the next section), but the apparent meaning is that it means their direct father.

Like in the previous story, it is emphasised that God’s kindness was due to the faith of the father. The event also has been taken as evidence that the blessings of righteous parents extend to their children.‎[10] We find this in other stories of the Quran too, when God passes the blessing of prophethood to the children of Prophet Abraham (a) (2:124, 14:40), the wife of ʿImrān who gave birth to Lady Mary (3:35), who in turn gave birth to Prophet Jesus (a) (66:12).‎[11]

So your Lord desired: the exegetes have noted that in each of the three stories Khiḍr (a) uses a different pronoun when talking about the events. When speaking of sabotaging the ship he said I desired; when recounting the killing of the boy he said We desired; and now he says your Lord desired.

As an explanation, it has been said: I desired because sabotaging the ship was about inflicting harm. Khiḍr (a) did not attribute this to God, out of respect, like Prophet Abraham (a) when he said, And when I get sick, it is He who cures me (26:80), where he attributes getting sick to himself, but getting cured to God.‎[12] Of course, everything comes from God and no action is possible without His will or power, but it is the tradition of the believers not to attribute things which involve loss or deficiency to God when speaking, out of respect for Him.

We desired since the incident involved the action of Khiḍr (a) killing the boy as well as the desire of God to give them a better son in exchange, so the first person plural is used.

Your Lord desired because giving a better son in exchange was something which related solely to the decree of God and His lordship over His kingdom, hence Khiḍr (a) attributes it to God.‎[13]     

Some other suggestions have been given about this as well, which are either quite similar or not as satisfactory.

That they should come of age: this means the age where they would be able to distinguish what is good for their own selves and look out for their own interests.‎[14] Apparently, whoever they were living with was not someone who actually had their best interests at heart.‎[15] Perhaps if that treasure had been discovered then, he would have taken it all for himself. Yes, their guardian would be allowed in some cases to take some of that wealth in order to spend it on taking care of the orphans (see the commentary on 4:2 and 4:6), but it seems in this case the guardian would not have acted with sincerity and justice.

And take out their treasure: a question arises: if the orphans were unaware of the treasure, how would they know to dig it out later? The answer seems that probably the wall would crumble at a later time and that would somehow lead to the discovery of the treasure in their adulthood, and that this is something that God was aware of. As pure speculation we may say that perhaps they would at some point decide to rebuild the wall or something new there and when digging for the foundations would come across the treasure.

As a mercy from your Lord: in this regard, all the previous statements about the boys being orphans, about their father being righteous, and about the treasure belonging to them, is meant to lay the groundwork for the reason why God wished to direct His mercy towards them.‎[16]

I did not do that out of my own accord: this refers to all three occasions, possibly the previous statement also is not specific to the case of the orphans but all three cases. This statement is meant to emphasise that none of this was based on Khiḍr’s (a) own reasoning, but rather the knowledge given to him by God, as mentioned in verse 65.‎[17] It certainly would not be permissible for anyone to sabotage, kill, or interfere in the property of others simply based on their own reasoning.

This is the interpretation of that over which you could not maintain patience: that is, this was the thing which was difficult for Moses (a) to witness and remain silent about.‎[18] He now understood that the reality of what he had witnessed was not that which he had initially assumed. The ship was not sabotaged to drown its people, nor the boy killed without reason, nor the wall rebuilt without good cause.‎[19] This is the main lesson of the story and it should be clear how it relates to the main theme of the ‘true account’.‎[20] God knows the hidden aspects of things and their final manifestation, which is beyond our limited knowledge. In other words, God perceives the big picture of events while we only see a small glimpse of them.

In this sense the realisation that Moses (a) – and the audience of the Quran – reaches when the journey ends is very much like the realisations of the two preceding stories, when the People of the Cave awoke from their sleep to see a Christian Roman empire, and when the owner of the two gardens awoke to see his gardens destroyed. Once the final manifestation and the true account has been revealed, understanding is reached and veils have been removed.

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

  1. From Zurārah and Ḥumrān ibn Aʿyan, that Imam al-Bāqir (a) and Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) said: ‘Children are cared for by the actions of their parents, just like God cared for the two young boys because of the goodness of their father.’‎[21]
  2. In a report attributed to Imam al-Ṣādiq (a), and others such as Ibn Abbas and Hasan al-Baṣrī, it is said that the treasure was a golden tablet upon which was written: ‘It is strange indeed how one who believes in the [final] accounting should then become heedless. Strange indeed is the one who has witnessed the world and how it changes hands should then place his hopes in it.’‎[22]
  3. In another report attributed to Imam al-Ṣādiq (a), it is said the father spoken of in the verse was actually their ancestor from seven generations ago. It is also added that God will show kindness to a person’s offspring for multiple generations if he is faithful.‎[23] Other reports say he was the actual father.‎[24]
  4. Zamakhsharī reports that Imam al-Husayn (a) asked some of the Kharijites, in a debate with them, why God helped the two orphan boys. They replied it was because of the goodness in their father. He then said that his own father and grandfather were better than the man (mention in Sūrat al-Kahf). He then said: ‘God has informed us that you are a contentious lot.’‎[25]

Note: This same argument is reported from Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn as well.‎[26] The hadith related by Zamakhsharī does not give any context; however, ʿAyyāshī gives a more detailed account of what was reportedly said:

  1. From Yazīd ibn Ruʾyān, that Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq entered Masjid al-Ḥarām where al-Husayn ibn Ali (a) was sitting in a corner accompanied by ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Abbas. Nāfiʿ sat down with them, then he said: ‘O Ibn Abbas, describe to me your God whom you worship.’ Ibn Abbas was silent for a long time and did not respond, and then Imam al-Husayn (a) said to him: ‘[Come] to me, O son of al-Azraq, caught up [as you are] in misguidance and ensnared in ignorance, I will answer what you asked me.’ Nāfiʿ retorted: ‘I did not ask you, that you should answer me.’ Ibn Abbas said: ‘Be gentle with the son of the Messenger of God, for he is from the household of prophethood, and he carries with him the repositories of knowledge.’ Nāfiʿ then said: ‘Describe Him to me.’

The Imam said: ‘I will describe Him as He described Himself, and I will acquaint you with Him as He acquainted Himself. He cannot be perceived by the senses, nor can He be compared to any human. He is near without being attached, and He is far without being separated. He is one, not divided into parts. There is no god but Him, He is the great, the most exalted.’ Then Nāfiʿ began to cry intensely. The Imam asked him: ‘What makes you cry?’ He said: ‘I cried because of the beauty of your description.’ The Imam said: ‘O son of al-Azraq, I have been informed that you declare my father and my brother as disbelievers and you declare me as one too.’ Nāfiʿ said to him: ‘If you mean that you and your likes were the rulers and the signposts of Islam [in our eyes], but when you changed, we changed [our opinion] of you.’ The Imam said to him: ‘O son of al-Azraq, I shall ask you about a matter, answer me regarding what God has said …’ [he then proceeded to quote this verse from Sūrat al-Kahf] … ‘Who, in your opinion, is more virtuous: their parents or the Messenger of Allah and Fatimah?’ Nāfiʿ replied: ‘Certainly the Messenger of Allah and Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah.’ The Imam then said: ‘What is God looking after them [compared] to Him separating us [the holy household] from disbelief?’ He then stood up, brushed off his garment, and said: ‘Indeed, Allah has informed us about you, O people of Quraysh, that you are a disputing people.’‎[27]

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

Regarding the changing verb pronouns it has also been suggested that Khiḍr (a) says We desired because having a good and faithful child is a desire that is shared by all good and faithful parents.‎[28] As such, this could include the parents, who may have seen the dark nature of the boy and wished for a better one, or maybe in general wished for a good son. As for saying your Lord desired, this is likely because the issue is one that is far-off in the future and hidden, and thus is best attributed to God, even though Khiḍr (a) wanted that as well.‎[29] It should be noted that a believer should never have far-off hopes because they do not know if they will be alive or what the future holds for them. In other words, Khiḍr (a) cannot guarantee that they will reach maturity, only God knows that and can bring that about.‎[30]

In some esoteric interpretations it has been said that initially Khiḍr (a) attributed his actions to himself, so he said I desired. Then he realised that nothing happens without the leave of God and he is not independent of Him and so he said We desired. Then he finally understood that God is in reality the only one who wills and brings about, so he said your Lord desired. This is the position of annihilation (fanāʾ) of the self in God. This could be criticised by saying that it makes no sense to claim that Khiḍr (a) came to such realisations mid-speech, especially as a person who had been given such great knowledge by God. To this they might say that he meant to convey it to Moses (a), however one such as Moses (a) would not be unaware of such things. They might say it is God who is expressing it in this way so that the audience of the Quran may benefit, and this has been criticised that God would not put words into the mouths of others if it was not actually something uttered by them.‎[31] In any case, while the concept might sound nice, it does not make much sense in the context of what is being said.

There exist various proposals for what the treasure buried for the two boys was:

  1. From Ibn Abbas and others, that it was books of knowledge.‎[32]
  2. From Hasan al-Baṣrī, that it was a golden tablet with wise words written upon it.‎[33]
  3. From Qatādah and others, that it was wealth (money).‎[34] This is also attributed to the Holy Prophet in a report.‎[35]

The first narration quoted above would seemingly combine these opinions, as it is both wealth and knowledge.‎[36] Although some scholars have preferred the opinion that it was simply wealth.‎[37]

Some have said that a believer would not leave a buried treasure because of the verse, Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not spend it in the way of Allah, inform them of a painful punishment (9:34),‎[38] but that does not seem to be the intended meaning of the quoted verse, which instead should be referring to hoarding wealth that is needed in society, not leaving a small sum in a secure place for inheritance.‎[39] In fact, this verse has been considered as evidence by some that it is permissible to bury wealth.‎[40]

Tabatabai says there are several other possibilities to consider as well. For example, it is possible that someone else had buried that treasure for the boys, or that the buried treasure was not actually money (as mentioned in a narration earlier), or that he had some good reason and justification for burying it.‎[41]

Many exegetes also mention various names for the boy and the parents, but such pointless details are not worth repeating.

It has been said that the town in which the wall was found was different to the city which refused them food, otherwise Khiḍr (a) would not have needed to clarify that under the wall was a treasure belonging to orphans in the city. It seems what is meant is that the town was close to the city and the orphans lived in the city and the treasure belonged to them. This understanding seems like an unnecessary complication of the narrative though, and makes the storytelling needlessly convoluted; and God knows best.‎[42]

Makārim Shīrāzī summarises the lessons that may be learned from the story of Khiḍr (a) and Moses (a) into ten points, of which we may briefly mention the headlines as a sort of conclusion to the story:

  1. The importance of having a knowledgeable teacher and seeking such a person out (I will go on).
  2. The importance of respecting scholars and one’s teacher.
  3. Divine knowledge is linked to servitude to God and being His bondsman (they found one of Our servants).
  4. Knowledge should be learned for the sake of betterment, not just gaining information (teach me some of the probity you have been taught).
  5. The importance of patience and not being hasty.
  6. Things have apparent and hidden meanings and we should not judge things and events superficially only.
  7. If one makes mistakes, one should own up to them.
  8. The faith and righteousness of parents may bring blessings to their offspring.
  9. Troubling one’s parents may result in the shortening of a person’s lifespan.
  10. People often hate and dislike that which they do not understand.‎[43]

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

  1. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.‎[44]
  2. Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.‎[45]
  3. Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in His holy habitation.‎[46]
  4. Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.‎[47] 
[1] Tibyan, 7/82-83.
[2] Raghib, p. 727, k-n-z; Alusi, 8/335.
[3] Arthur Jeffries, Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran (Leiden: Brill, 2007), p. 251.
[4] Tibyan, 7/83.
[5] Alusi, 8/336.
[6] Muhit, 7/215. Abū Ḥayyān quotes a prophetic hadith in this regard as well.
[7] Thalabi, 2/741.
[8] See Ibn Kathir, 5/169.
[9] Alusi, 8/335.
[10] Ibn Kathir, 5/168.
[11] See also Mudarrisi, 6/467.
[12] Andulusi, 3/537; Razi, 21/493; Muhit, 7/212; Qurtubi, 11/39; Mizan, 13/350. This is also what is mentioned in a hadith attributed to Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) in Ilal, 1/61.
[13] Mizan, 13/350.
[14] Tabrisi, 6/754.
[15] Tabrisi, 6/754.
[16] Mizan, 13/348.
[17] Mizan, 13/349.
[18] Tabrisi, 6/75; Tabari, 16/7.
[19] Mizan, 13/349-350.
[20] See the Introduction.
[21] Ayyashi, 2/338.
[22] Tabrisi, 6/754; Ilal, 1/61-62; with some variations: Tibyan, 7/83; Tabari, 16/5-6; Thalabi, 6/188. In some variants it is added at the end: ‘There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God.’ Some of these reports attribute it to the Prophet, see for example Qurtubi, 11/38.
[23] Tabrisi, 6/754; Ilal, 1/62; Zamakhshari, 2/742, Razi, 21/492; Qurtubi, 11/38. Thaʿlabī also proposes this but does not attribute it to anyone. The added second portion he reports from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir (Thalabi, 6/188).
[24] Ayyashi, 2/339; Mizan, 13/356.
[25] Zamakhshari, 2/742.
[26] Amali.S, p. 730.
[27] Ayyashi, 2/337-338.
[28] Andulusi, 3/537.
[29] Andulusi, 3/537; Alusi, 8/337.
[30] Ibn Kathir, 5/168; Mizan, 13/350.
[31] Alusi, 8/338.
[32] Tibyan, 7/82; Tabari, 16/5-6.
[33] Tibyan, 7/82; Tabari, 16/5-6.
[34] Tibyan, 7/82; Tabari, 16/6.
[35] Thalabi, 6/188.
[36] Tabrisi, 6/754.
[37] See for example Zamakhshari, 2/742; Razi, 21/492; Qurtubi, 11/38; Muhit, 7/215; Ibn Kathir, 5/167; Alusi, 8/335.
[38] This opinion is attributed to Qatādah (Zamakhshari, 2/742). See also Razi, 21/492.
[39] Nemuneh, 12/516-517. Makārim Shīrāzī also notes it is possible that the father buried the treasure, intending to leave it there for a short time but then passed away.
[40] See for example Alusi, 8/344.
[41] Mizan, 13/349.
[42] Mizan, 13/348.
[43] Nemuneh, 12/517-522.
[44] John 14:18.
[45] Isaiah 1:17.
[46] Psalms 68:5.
[47] Psalms 82:3.