Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:63

(He said: "Did you see when...")

(He said): Meaning his attendant. The discourse is a break in narrative style, as if it were said: "What did the attendant do when Moses, peace be upon him, said to him what he said?" It is replied: He said, ("Did you see when we took refuge in the rock"), meaning we sought shelter at it and stayed there. It has come in some authentic narrations that when Moses, peace be upon him, said to his attendant, (We have certainly met with fatigue in this journey of ours), he replied: "Allah has removed the fatigue from you." Accordingly, it is possible that after saying that, he said "Did you see..." and so on.

Shaykh al-Islam said: "They mentioned taking refuge in the rock—despite the previous mention of reaching the junction of the two seas—to further specify the location of the incident; for the junction is a vast area, and the intended meaning cannot be verified by attributing the incident to it generally. Also, it serves to pave the way for an excuse, for taking shelter there and sleeping by it is something that usually leads to forgetting." (End quote). This latter point only holds true according to some narrations stating they slept by the rock. It is mentioned that this rock is near the River of Olive Oil (Nahr al-Zayt), a specific river near which are many olive trees.

Regarding ("Did you see"), it is said to mean "Inform me." Abu Hayyan countered this, stating that if it were so, it would require two conditions: the existence of the noun being inquired about, and the necessity of the following sentence. Both are missing here. He and Nazir al-Jaysh, in Sharh al-Tashil, reported from Abu al-Hasan al-Akhfash that he holds that when "Did you see" (ara’ayta) is followed by neither an accusative nor an interrogative, but rather a sentence beginning with the fa—as is the case here—it is moved from its standard usage and contains the meaning of "pay attention" (tanabbah). The fa is thus the response to the "paying attention," not the response to "when" (idh), because "when" does not function as a conditional unless accompanied by what is not disputed. Thus, the meaning is: "Pay attention when we took refuge in the rock—for I forgot the fish."

Shaykh al-Islam said: "The 'seeing' (ru’ya) is a metaphor for complete knowledge and perfect observation. By this interrogation, he intends to respond to Moses, peace be upon him, regarding the forgetfulness that befell him there, despite the fact that what he had witnessed were momentous events that are not easily forgotten. He made the loss of the fish a sign of finding the sought-after goal. This is a common idiom among people; one says to his companion when a misfortune strikes him: 'Did you see what has befallen me?' desiring by it to highlight its horror and express astonishment to his companion that such a thing is unprecedented, not to inquire about it." It is said that the object is omitted, relying on what is indicated by his words, for I forgot the fish. This adds emphasis to the astonishment and heightens the gravity of the forgotten item. (End quote). This view has its shortcomings.

Al-Zamakhshari took it as an inquiry, saying: "When Moses, peace be upon him, asked him for lunch, Yusha' (Joshua), peace be upon him, recalled what he saw of the fish and the forgetfulness that had overtaken him until that moment. He was stunned and began asking about the cause of that, as if he said: 'Did you see what befell me when we took refuge in the rock? For I forgot the fish.' He omitted that." There is an indication here that the object of ara’ayta is omitted—either an interrogative clause (if 'what' in 'befell me' is for inquiry) or the 'what' itself (if it is relative)—and that idh (when) is an adverb related to 'befell me,' and that it is the cause for what follows the fa in for I forgot, making it causal. A parallel to this is His saying: (And when they are not guided by it, they will say: "This is an ancient falsehood")—the estimation being: "And when they were not guided by it, their stubbornness became apparent, so they will say..."

This is the assertion that ara’ayta means "inform me." You have heard the criticism against it. In the second possibility, there is the issue of omitting the relative noun with part of the relative clause, based on the assumption that for I forgot the fish is a completion of it. At any rate, the intended meaning of the inquiry is not its literal sense, but rather the horror of the matter.

Furthermore, it is not hidden that if ra’a is visual or means "to know," it requires one object. According to some researchers, the estimation is: "Did you see or did you know my state when we took refuge..." This reduces the amount of omission, and its elegance is apparent. If it is cognitive, it requires two objects. Based on this, Abu Hayyan said: "It is possible that it is of those where both objects are omitted for brevity. The estimation is: 'Did you see our affair when we took refuge, what its outcome is?'"

Attributing the forgetting to the name of the fish rather than the pronoun of the lunch—despite it being the thing he was commanded to bring—is said to be to alert [him] from the beginning that it is not of the nature of forgetting his provisions at home, and that what he witnessed is not of the nature of affairs related to lunch as lunch or food, but as a fish like other fish, with added significance. Others say it is to state clearly that the loss of it brings joy to Moses, peace be upon him, upon receiving the answer, for a narration preceded that he said to him: "I only task you with informing me as soon as the fish leaves you." The obvious interpretation is that the forgetting is literal, and it is not related to the essence of the fish, but to the mentioning of it.

It is permitted that it be a metaphor for loss, thus relating to the fish itself. The majority lean toward the first interpretation: I forgot to mention to you the matter of the fish and what I witnessed of its wondrous affair.

("And none made me forget it except Satan"). Perhaps he occupied him with whispers regarding family and separation from the homeland; this was the cause of the forgetting, by the decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. Otherwise, that state is of the kind that is not forgotten. Some said: Yusha' had witnessed many overwhelming miracles from Moses, peace be upon him, so this miracle did not leave a deep impression that would preclude whispering, and so he forgot.

The Imam said: When Moses, peace be upon him, magnified his own knowledge, Allah the Exalted removed this intuitive knowledge from the heart of his companion, as a warning to Moses that knowledge is not attained except through the teaching of Allah and His protection of the heart and mind. You know that if Allah had made the witness who forgot to be Moses himself, it would have been more complete as a warning. It is also said: he was made to forget as a disciplinary measure, based on the fact that when Moses said to him, "I only task you..." he replied, "You have not tasked me with much," as he underestimated the matter and did not manifest reliance on Allah by saying, "I will inform you, if Allah wills." There is a rebuke for Moses in this, as he relied upon him regarding the knowledge due to the loss of the fish, and so he did not obtain it until he grew weary. This whispering does not harm the rank of Yusha', even if we say he was a prophet at the time of this story.

Some researchers said: Perhaps he forgot that because he was so absorbed in insight, with his entire being drawn toward the Divine Presence due to the dazzling signs he witnessed. He attributed it to Satan, even though the true actor is Allah and the metaphorical actor is the aforementioned absorption, out of humility—attributing that absorption and attraction which distracted him from being alert to the appointment set by Allah as akin to whispers. This is a figurative use, borrowing "Satan" for the absolute distractor. As in the Hadith: "Indeed, a veil is cast over my heart, so I seek Allah's forgiveness seventy times a day." Or because the lack of capacity of the human side to hold both [the divine and the worldly] and its preoccupation with one over the other is considered a deficiency in its possessor, and his abandonment of spiritual striving and purification. Thus, it is used metaphorically for the deficiency, as it is its cause. Hafs read the ha in ansanihi with a damma, which is said to be rare in such a construction, [given] the forgetting in such an event. The majority read it with a kasra, and al-Kisa'i gave the fatha of the sin an imalah.

His saying: ("to mention it") is a substitution of inclusion for the ha, meaning: "None made me forget mentioning it to you except Satan." It is said that attaching the action to the pronoun of the fish first, and then to the mentioning of it secondly by way of substitution—signifying the displacement of that which was substituted—is an indication that the object of the forgetting is not the fish itself, but the mentioning of its affair. In the codex of Abdullah, the reading is (to mention it to you). In preferring the an with the verb over the verbal noun, there is a type of hyperbole that is not hidden.

("And it took its way into the sea in a wondrous way"). The apparent meaning, which most exegetes hold, is that it is a continuation of Yusha''s speech and follows his words, for I forgot the fish. It contains information about another part of its affair. What lies between them is an interjection placed before it for the sake of care in apologizing, as if it were said: "It struggled and tumbled and fell into the sea and took its way into it in a wondrous way." Sabilahu (its way) is the first object of ittakhadha (took), fi al-bahri (in the sea) is a circumstantial qualifier of it, and ajaban (wondrously) is the second object. The mention of the "way," then its annexation to the pronoun of the fish, then making the prepositional phrase a circumstantial qualifier of the annexed item is a general alert that the second object is of the category of strange things. In the longing for the second object and the repetition—it is beneficial for the emphasis befitting the situation. This construction, in conveying the intended meaning or in terms of rhetoric, is better than saying "And it took a wondrous way in the sea."

It is permitted that fi al-bahri be a circumstantial qualifier of ajaban, or related to ittakhadha, or be the second object, while ajaban is an adjective for an omitted verbal noun: "a wondrous taking." Meaning it is as a tunnel and a gallery. It is also permitted, under the assumption that the prepositional phrase is the second object, that ajaban be in the accusative by an implied verb, meaning "I wonder at it wonderingly." This is also from the speech of Yusha', peace be upon him; he wondered at the affair of the fish after informing about it.

It is said that the speech of Yusha', peace be upon him, finished at the sea, and the saying "I wonder wonderingly" is the speech of Moses, peace be upon him—as if it were said: "And Moses said: 'I wonder wonderingly at that state which you informed me of.'" You know that if this were the case, the following sentence would have been brought with the connective waw to this implied [verb].

It is said: It is possible that the whole is the speech of Him, the Exalted. In that case, two possibilities exist: one, that it is information from Him, the Exalted, about the fish, that it took its way into the sea, wondrous to the people. Second, that it is information from Him, the Exalted, about Moses, peace be upon him, that he took the way of the fish in the sea as a wonder, and he wondered at it. Ajaban in this case is a second object. There is no awkwardness in delaying the qala (he said) that follows it in this view, because it is a break in narrative to clarify what transpired from him, peace be upon him, afterward. Supporting it being the speech of Yusha', peace be upon him, is the reading of Abu Haywa: wa ittikhadhan (and a taking) in the accusative, as a conjunction to the accusative in an adhkurahu (to mention it).