وَإِذ قالَ موسىٰ لِفَتاهُ لا أَبرَحُ حَتّىٰ أَبلُغَ مَجمَعَ البَحرَينِ أَو أَمضِيَ حُقُبًا
When Moses said to his lad: ‘I will go on [journeying] until I have reached the confluence of the two seas, or have spent a long time [travelling].’
EXEGESIS
Fatā (lad, pl. fityah) was explained under verse 10 and means a young man. It is also used as a term of praise for someone who is for example brave or righteous. Some have stated that fatā here means servant; this meaning is more plausible here since fatāhu is used as a possessive.
Majmaʿ al-baḥrayn (the confluence of the two seas) apparently refers to a known location described for Moses (a) by inspiration or otherwise. The original meaning of baḥr implies wideness and expansiveness. The sea is called baḥr because of its expanse. Huge rivers could also be called baḥr for the same reason. It is difficult to verify if majmaʿ al-baḥrayn in this verse refers to the confluence of two seas or two rivers.
Ḥuqub (long time) also ḥuqb (pl. aḥqāb) implies any long duration of time, and is said to be things such as an eon (dahr), or a year (sanah), or seventy years, or more popularly eighty years. Perhaps it is also used as a figure of speech for a lifetime. The plural form is used for the unending duration of stay in hell: To reside therein for ages (aḥqāban) (78:23).
EXPOSITION
We are now brought to the third story of this surah. Apparently, like the previous story of the two men, this story is not in reply to any question posed to the Prophet and is rather meant to build upon the concepts present in the main theme of the surah.
As the previous verses discussed argumentation based on limited knowledge, the narrative consequently shifts to the story of Prophet Moses (a) and his travels with the mysterious man, which the Quran leaves unnamed, but who is generally said to be Khiḍr (a). Moses (a) is apparently commanded to go and meet Khiḍr (a) so that he may learn from him. As the story unfolds, we are told that the true lesson that Moses (a) was supposed to learn was how limited man’s knowledge is, and how this limited knowledge leads him to misunderstand and misinterpret things. The story is obviously closely linked to the main theme of the surah: God gives the ‘true account’ of all things. This true account is a full account, meaning it is all the truth, from beginning to end. The limited knowledge of man sees at best only a portion of the truth and because of this limitation his knowledge will never encompass things in their full extent, unlike God who comprehends all things in knowledge (65:12); even if he is someone as knowledgeable as the young Moses (a), the extent of his knowledge will be only as much as God has given him and will always be limited.
There are several other significant lessons that can be derived from the story. The foremost of these that we should mention immediately is the importance of experiential knowledge. Many things can be learned in theory, but in order to be truly understood they must be experienced. The young Moses (a) was certainly a knowledgeable man, who knew in theory how God has a plan for everything and how He encompasses all things in knowledge; yet through his travels with Khiḍr (a), by witnessing it first-hand and experiencing it, that knowledge became deeply engrained in him and his understanding of it matured to a completely different level. This ties into verse 7: Indeed We have made whatever is on the earth an adornment for it that We may test them [to see] which of them is best in conduct. This verse has significant interplay with the surah’s main theme. God is the knower of the ‘true account’, He knows all that was, is, and will be. If that is so why must a person be tested for their conduct? Could the righteous just be sent directly to paradise? However, this is not possible, because to be righteous, one must first live a righteous life. This is because virtues are not things which can simply be claimed. Patience, wisdom, reliance, worship, humility … only find true meaning once they are practiced, and can only be truly realised through acting upon them. Even mistakes and sins, if sincerely repented, can have a constructive effect, once one realises the damage they inflict and understands why God has prohibited them. This is why when God wished to impart wisdom unto Moses (a), He had to teach him through experience. Hence, when He informed Moses (a) that he has been selected for prophethood He declared that he had been thoroughly vetted and tested beforehand: and We tried you with various ordeals. Then you stayed for several years among the people of Midian. Then you turned up as ordained, O Moses! And I disciplined you for Myself (20:40-41).
When Moses said to his lad: there is no solid evidence to suggest at what point of Moses’ (a) life this event took place; what can be surmised is that it should have been at his young age when he was still regarded as a prince; he came out of the palace searching for knowledge by the inspiration of God, while served by his young servant. The content of the story and the desire of Moses (a) to learn from Khiḍr (a) – May I follow you for the purpose that you teach me some of the probity you have been taught? (verse 66) – is all indicative that this was before Moses (a) was appointed to his mission. A distinct possibility is that it happened when he was in Midian, where he fled to after inadvertently killing a man in Egypt (28:22).
I will go on [journeying] until I have reached the confluence of the two seas: Moses (a) said this to the lad probably at the onset of their journey as a declaration of intent. It is also possible that he said it after they had already been traveling for a while, in reply to the lad’s enquiry or objection.
Moses (a) was supposed to meet Khiḍr (a) at the confluence of the two seas, as is the apparent meaning of the next verse. Nevertheless, as that can represent a large area, he was not sure exactly where, only that he would receive some sort of sign when reaching it. When Moses (a) is told that When we took shelter at the rock the fish they had with them for food hopped in the water and swam away, and it made its way into the sea in an amazing manner (verse 63), he realises That is what we were after (verse 64). That was the miracle which he was looking for, So they returned, retracing their footsteps back to that location, presumably to wait for their meeting with Khiḍr (a).
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- According to some reports the story is mentioned here in response to the questioning of the Quraysh who asked the Prophet to tell them of the story of the knowledgeable man that Moses (a) was commanded by God to meet. Rāzī says this story is brought along with the story of the People of the Cave because the Jews instructed the Meccan idolaters to ask the Prophet about it, saying: ‘If he tells you about it he is a prophet, if he does not then he is not.’ As we shall point out below this is highly unlikely as the Jewish scripture does not mention this story and their literature does not ascribe it to Moses (a); this is unless we wish to claim that the Jews contemporary to the Prophet had different sources at their disposal, but such an assertion should require more evidence than simply Rāzī’s claim.
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
Some have claimed that the Moses in this story is not the famous Moses son of Amram (Mūsā ibn ʿImrān), but rather Mūsā ibn Mīshā/Manshā ibn Yūsuf ibn Yaʿqūb, who according to some was a prophet of the Children of Israel, prior to the famous Prophet Moses (Mūsā ibn ʿImrān) (a). Because the Quran mentions Moses over a hundred times, it seems obvious that if the Moses intended in this story was other than the well-known one, it should somehow be clarified. It is like if one were to say ‘Rumi has said …’ and if they intend other than the famous Rumi, they should clarify it.
Probably the reason for claiming that the Moses in the story is other than the famous Moses is because such people thought attributing what occurs in the story to a prophet of God – especially one such as Prophet Moses (a) – is problematic. For example, some have said that after all the miracles that Moses (a) performed and having received the book of God, it is unlikely that he would then be ordered to go and meet Khiḍr (a) to learn from him. For the discussion on this see the commentary on verse 65.
The author of Tafsīr al-Qummī relates that after Moses (a) was given the Torah and the tablets bearing the ten commandments, he thought himself to be the most knowledgeable thing created by God. God then told Gabriel that Moses (a) has destroyed himself and that he should tell him to go meet a man more knowledgeable than him by a rock near the gathering of the two seas. Moses (a) became scared and knew he had made a mistake and told Joshua (a) to accompany him. Naturally, this is problematic in its description of Moses (a), as anyone with true knowledge would know that there is always more that he does not know, above every man of knowledge is One who knows better (12:76). It also needlessly attributes hubris to Moses (a) as well as assumes that this event took place in the late stages of the life of Moses (a), whilst that is unlikely. Also the knowledge of Khiḍr (a) was a different type to that of Moses (a), so comparing their two knowledges is an exercise in futility.
Thaʿlabī gives a slightly different account which he attributes to Ibn Abbas, in which Moses (a) relates to the Children of Israel the blessings of God after they had fled Egypt, as per 14:5, and they then ask him if God has created anyone more knowledgeable than him, to which he replies in the negative, after which God sends Gabriel (a) to him to inform him of the existence of Khiḍr. A similar claim is attributed to Imam al-Ṣādiq (a).
In another variant, Moses (a) supposedly asks God to show him who is more knowledgeable than himself, after which God tells him to go look for Khiḍr (a). A similar thing is attributed to Imam al-Bāqir (a).
A problem with some of the aforementioned narrations is that they claim this happened after Moses (a) moved his people to settle in Egypt, a claim which is historically quite questionable. Moreover, they depict Moses (a) as a man who lacks the most basic qualities of a man of God let alone a great prophet of God.
Perhaps the most important question is: at what point in the life of Moses (a) did this event take place? Was it as the author of Tafsīr al-Qummī and some reports claim towards the end of his life, or was it much earlier? Was it before he was sent back to Egypt by the command of God? Or perhaps it was before he fled Egypt?
The fact that the Jewish literature does not recount the event suggests that it was not known amongst them, meaning it almost certainly happened early in the life of Moses (a) either when he was still in the palace of Pharaoh, or after he left Egypt for Midian.
Some have proposed that the event occurred during the time that the Jews were forced to wander the desert for forty years. If we assume it happened after the exodus from Egypt – and apparently the events of the story took at the very least several days – then Moses (a) going missing for an extended period of time should have been noted by the Children of Israel, and would have had consequences, and he should have named a vicegerent while he was gone, much like the events in 20:83-98 when he left for Mount Sinai and in his absence the people went astray. Again it is to be expected that if all this happened some records would exist of this.
As for the identity of his lad, there are different opinions mentioned. The most common theory is that he was Joshua (Yūshaʿ) ibn Nūn (a), who was apparently the successor (waṣī) of Moses (a), and who is mentioned in the Old Testament in the Book of Joshua, and is so named in Exodus 33:11, and is said to be one of the two men mentioned in 5:23. Although, we may note that the Muslim scholars are unanimous in that Joshua (a) never actually travelled with Khiḍr (a), as that meeting was especially only for Moses (a).
Rāzī relates that Prophet Joseph (a) had two sons: Ephraim (Afrāʾīm) and Mannaseh/Manasses/Menashe (Mīshā/Manshā). From Ephraim came Nūn, who was the father of Joshua (a). According to the Biblical account, Joshua was the seventh or eighth descendant of Beriam or Ephraim. In any case, the genealogies given in the Bible should not be taken too literally and they often omit several generations.
Other claims state the lad was the son of Joshua (a), or his brother, or one of Moses’ (a) servants, or one of his students, or his nephew.
A story similar to the story of Moses (a) and Khiḍr (a) is found in the Jewish midrashim legends, wherein it is attributed to the travels of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi with the Prophet Elijah (a). The portrayal of Elijah (a) in these legends is very much akin to Khiḍr (a) in Islamic legends. They portray Elijah (a) as traveling through the land, usually incognito, and through miraculous actions causing people to learn important lessons about God or morality. Apparently, Joshua’s (a) involvement in the event is somehow related to the inclusion of the rabbi. In Jewish texts, Joshua ben Levi is famous for his close relationship with Prophet Elijah (a).
In one of the stories, Ben Levi wishes to accompany Elijah (a) on his travels to which Elijah (a) agrees, with the condition that the rabbi not question him about anything that he does. They first come across a poor man and his wife who only owned one cow. The couple was hospitable towards them and the next day Elijah (a) prayed for the cow to die, which promptly expired. When the rabbi questioned him about this, he reminded him of their pact. They then came across a rich man, who was most inhospitable towards them. He had a crumbling wall, which Elijah (a) prayed would be fixed, and it was miraculously restored. The rabbi was amazed, but remembering his promise refrained from asking anything. They then came across an ornate synagogue, the people of whom were stingy and inhospitable towards them. Elijah (a) prayed ‘that God might raise them all to be “heads”’. The rabbi once again withheld himself from asking why. They then came to another town where the people were very hospitable towards them and Elijah (a) prayed ‘that God might give them but a single head’. Now the rabbi could no longer withhold himself and demanded explanation. Elijah (a) replied: ‘The poor man’s cow was killed because I knew that on the same day the death of his wife had been ordained in heaven, and I prayed to God to accept the loss of the poor man’s property as a substitute for the poor man’s wife. As for the rich man, there was a treasure hidden under the dilapidated wall, and, if he had rebuilt it, he would have found the gold; hence I set up the wall miraculously in order to deprive the curmudgeon of the valuable find. I wished that the inhospitable people assembled in the synagogue might have many heads, for a place of numerous leaders is bound to be ruined by reason of multiplicity of counsel and disputes. To the inhabitants of our last sojourning place, on the other hand, I wished a single head, for the one to guide a town, success will attend all its undertakings. Know, then, that if thou seest an evildoer prosper, it is not always unto his advantage, and if a righteous man suffers need and distress, think not God is unjust.’ After these words, Elijah and Rabbi Joshua separated from each other, and each went his own way.
This story is far too similar to be coincidental and it seems to be borrowing heavily from the Islamic accounts. The earliest written Jewish source of this legend seems to trace back to the writings of Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin (990-1062 CE), although it is difficult to pinpoint such things with any certainty. Seemingly, Khiḍr (a) has been replaced with Elijah (a) in Jewish legends. In those legends Elijah (a) has a close relationship with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who seems to have replaced Joshua (Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn (a)).
In any case, what we argued earlier is most likely, that the event occurred before the Exodus and hence the lad is not Joshua (a).
There are many theories about where the confluence of the two seas was. According to Ṭūsī, it was located between Persia and Rome. Obviously Ṭūsī is not referring to the geographical borders of the Persian and Roman empires at the time of Moses (a), since these empires did not exist or border each other at that time. Rather, he is referring to the general area that they bordered each other in history, which is Asia Minor and the Levant.
Ṭabrisī and Ṭabarī give the location as between the Baḥr al-Rūm (The Roman Sea, or the Mediterranean), and Baḥr al-Fāris (The Persian Sea, or the Persian Gulf). They also report from Muhammad ibn Kalb that it could be Africa, or alternatively Tangiers, which would intend the confluence of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
Another theory states that it is the place where the two horns of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gulf of Suez, meet. This would be the southern region of the Sinai Peninsula. We could note that it is possible that the area of Midian also extended to the Sinai Peninsula.
Another claim is that it is where the Indian Ocean meets the Red Sea. This would be the Bab al-Mandab Strait. An alternative theory says it is the area between Lake Timsah and the Great Bitter Lake in Northern Egypt. Other options have been mentioned too, like the area between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, or two rivers in Armenia, or Azerbaijan.
However, all these are speculations and are not based on any solid evidence. According to some hadiths, Moses (a) met Khiḍr (a) at the location where the mosque of al-Sahlah was later built in Kufa. Accordingly, the two bodies of water referred to would be the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Finally, some esoteric opinions state that the two seas were Moses (a) and Khiḍr (a), because they were ‘oceans of knowledge’. Ālūsī points out that this is not a viable meaning of I have reached the confluence of the two seas, rather if this was so it should be ‘until the two seas join each other’ or something to that effect. He also relates some other esoteric interpretations of the story in the end of his commentary on the verses, such as the rock upon which they rest is the nafs (the self), the fish is the qalb (heart) which has been salted in the salt of the love for this world (dunyā), the ship which they boarded was the shariah, and the possibility of the people aboard it drowning is people drowning in the darkness of their lower self (al-nafs al-ammārah bil-sūʿ). Similarly, the boy represents the lower self, which is then slaughtered through the practice of mystical exercise (riyāḍah), and … Obviously, such wild guesswork cannot be regarded as anything close to tafsīr.
[1] Razi, 21/478.
[2] Tibyan, 7/66; Tabari, 15/176.
[3] For more on who this stranger was, see the commentary on verse 65.
[4] See also Furqan, 18/138.
[5] See also Exodus 2:15.
[6] Tibyan, 7/65; Tabrisi, 6/741; Razi, 21/479. Another opinion states that they were supposed to meet Khiḍr (a) when they lost their fish (Zamakhshari, 2/732; Baghawi, 3/202).
[7] Some reports include the detail that the fish was salted, as if to emphasise that it was very much dead. See the commentary on the next verse.
[8] Qummi, 2/37.
[9] Razi, 21/477; Tantawi, 8/546.
[10] Or Moses the son of Manasseh/Manasses the son of Joseph the son of Jacob.
[11] Tabrisi, 6/741; Baghawi, 3/202. They both relate this opinion, but reject it. In fact, the claim is not accepted by any of the major exegetes. The claim is alluded to in narrations in which Saʿīd ibn Jubayr tells Ibn Abbas that Nawf al-Bakālī claims the Moses who travelled with Khiḍr (a) was not the famous Prophet Moses (a). Ibn Abbas then strongly rejects this and relates the story of Prophet Moses (a) meeting with Khiḍr (a) (Bukhari, 1/38-39, 4/127-128; Muslim, 7/103-104; Tirmidhi, 4/371-372).
[12] Razi, 21/477; Mizan, 13/338.
[13] Nemuneh, 12/480.
[14] Razi, 21/477-478; Alusi, 8/292.
[15] Qummi, 2/37. See also Ayyashi, 2/332.
[16] Razi, 21/478.
[17] Thalabi, 6/180; Baghawi, 3/202-203; Bukhari, 1/38-39, 4/127-128.
[18] Ayyashi, 2/332. In this story it is explicitly mentioned that they supposedly travelled to Azerbaijan to meet Khiḍr (a).
[19] Zamakhshari, 2/731-732.
[20] Ayyashi, 2/334; Nur, 3/275. The exact same hadith is found word-for-word reported from Imam al-Ṣādiq (a), from Prophet Muhammad (s), through a chain of narration in Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ, 6/221-213.
[21] Andulusi, 3/527; Alusi, 8/295.
[22] This is the view adopted in Munyah, 17/62.
[23] Although some have said it is possible that Moses’ (a) travel was miraculous in nature and he was not actually missing for any significant amount of time (Alusi, 8/293).
[24] Qummi, 2/40; Tibyan, 7/65; Thalabi, 6/180-181; Qurtubi, 11/9; Alusi, 8/293; Mizan, 13/338; Nemuneh, 12/480; Tantawi, 8/546; Mudarrisi, 6/446. This opinion is also attributed to Imam al-Bāqir (a) (Ayyashi, 2/330; Nur, 2/272) and Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) (Ilal, p. 60).
[25] Basair, pp. 119-121, 161, 489; Kafi, 1/293, 457, 8/117; Fayḍ Kāshānī, al-Wāfī, 2/287.
[26] Razi, 21/477. See also Muhit, 7/198. According to Numbers 26:35, Ephraim had three sons, Shuthelah, Becher, and Tahan. 1 Chronicles 7 gives them as Shuthelah, Ezer, Elead, and perhaps Rephah, and Resheph.
[27] 1 Chronicles 7:25-27. See Ellicot’s Commentary for English Readers. Accessed at: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_chronicles/7-25.htm.
[28] See for example the genealogy given for Moses (a) as being ‘son of Amram, son of Kohath, son of Levi’, which is seemingly omitting several generations.
[29] Tibyan, 7/65.
[30] Thalabi, 6/180.
[31] Thalabi, 6/180. Many of the exegetes quote a narration in this regard where Prophet Muhammad (s) instructs Muslims not to call their servants ʿabd, but rather use the term fatā.
[32] Zamakhshari, 2/731.
[33] Qurtubi, 11/11. The son of his sister, to be exact.
[34] See the commentary on verse 65.
[35] Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 4:7:69. Accessed at: https://www.sefaria.org/Legends_of_the_Jews.4.7.69?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en. See also Nemuneh, 12/510-512.
[36] Makārim Shīrāzī dates these stories to the eleventh century CE (Nemuneh, 12/510), but he does not mention what he bases this on. Louis Ginzberg mentions several of his sources. The earliest of these is the Hibbur Yafeh (the full title of which is Sefer Ma'asiyyot ha-Hakhamim wehu Ḥibbur Yafeh meha-Yeshu'ah), which is referring to Rabbenu Nissim Gaon, a collection of Jewish legends written by the Tunisian scholar Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin. It is a collection of legends inspired by Talmudic and Midrash accounts. Apparently, Nissim should be quoting earlier sources which he is compiling, however if such works were extant or traceable, we should have expected Ginzberg to refer to those. As it stands this is the earliest written source available. The other sources Ginzberg refers to are even later ones, such as the writings of Petrus Venerabilis (1092-1156). Although Ginzberg himself believes that the Quran is borrowing from Jewish legends of Prophet Elijah (a), but as we said there is no written evidence of this, and it looks to be the other way round.
[37] See the commentary on verse 65 for more. It should be noted that according to Jewish legend, Elijah (a) is a living prophet, much like Khiḍr (a). In fact these Isrāʾīliyyāt about Elijah (a) have seeped into many a Muslim account as well.
[38] Tibyan, 7/66.
[39] Tabrisi, 6/741; Tabari, 15/176. This opinion is mentioned also by Thalabi, 6/180; Baghawi, 3/203; Razi, 21/479; Mizan, 13/339.
[40] Tabrisi, 6/741. Tabari, 15/176; Thalabi, 6/180; Zamakhshari, 2/731; Baghawi, 3/203.
[41] Nemuneh, 12/480-481; Tantawi, 8/547; Mudarrisi, 6/446.
[42] Nemuneh, 12/481.
[43] Qutb, 4/2278.
[44] Qurtubi, 11/9.
[45] Mizan, 13/355.
[46] Kafi, 3/494; Faqih, 1/232, h. 679; Tahdhib, 3/252, in these it is also mentioned that it was the house of Abraham (a) and David (a) and that from a rock therein the clay from which all prophets were created was taken. In Kamil, p. 75 and Tahdhib, 6/38, it is also said it was the house of Idrīs (a), and that the Night of Ascension happened from there.
[47] Alusi, 8/294.
[48] Alusi, 8/345.