Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:66

(Said to him Musa): This is a resumption [of the narrative], constructed upon a question that arose from the context, as if it were said: "What transpired between them in terms of speech?" It was thus said: Musa—peace be upon him—said to him, (“May I follow you so that you teach me”): This is a request for permission from him—peace be upon him—to follow him on the condition of instruction. This is understood from the word ‘ala (on/upon). The scholars of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence (Usul) have stated that ‘ala is sometimes used in a sense from which it is understood that what follows it is a condition for what precedes it, such as His saying, "They swear allegiance to you on the condition that they will not associate anything with Allah"—meaning, on the condition of non-association. That it serves as a condition is akin to a certainty among the jurists, as stated in al-Talwih, because its primary linguistic setting is for obligation and the reward necessitated by a condition. This is also hinted at in the words of al-Fanari in Bada'i' al-Usul, and it is apparent that it is not literal in [denoting] a condition. Al-Sarakhsi mentioned that this is a literal meaning for it, although the grammarians did not address it. Al-Subki wavered regarding its occurrence in the speech of the Arabs, but the truth is that it is a correct usage witnessed by the Book [the Quran], whether it be literal or metaphorical. The fact that the particle attaches to the verb preceding it does not contradict the implication of conditionality, as they said regarding the aforementioned verse, just as it is not contradicted by its attachment to an omitted element acting as a state (hal), as has been suggested here. Thus, the meaning is: "May I follow you, offering that you teach me (from what you have been taught, [a] guidance)?"

(Guidance): That is, knowledge containing guidance, which is the attainment of good. Abu ‘Amr, al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, Abu Bahriyya, Ibn Muhaysin, Ibn Manadhir, Ya‘qub, Abu ‘Ubayd, and al-Yazidi read it as rushadan (with two fathas), while the majority of the seven read it with a damma and a sukun (rushdan). These are two dialects, like bukhl and bukhl. Its accusative case is originally based on it being an adjective for the second object of tu‘allimani, and it is described as such for the sake of hyperbole, but it was elevated to its place after the [original object] was omitted. The second object of ‘ullimta is the pronoun referring to the relative pronoun ma—that is: "from that which you were taught." Both verbs are derived from ‘alama, which is transitive to one object. It is also permitted that (mimma ‘ullimta) is the second object of tu‘allimani, and rushdan is a substitute for it, though this is contrary to what is apparent. It is also possible that rushdan is a verbal noun for the sake of which (maf’ul lahu) the action atba‘uka is performed—meaning: "May I follow you in order to attain the realization of good?" In which case, it is necessary that the second object of tu‘allimani be (mimma ‘ullimta), by interpreting it as "some of what you were taught" or "knowledge from what you were taught," or that it is a verbal noun with an implied verb, meaning: "May I be guided with a guidance." The sentence is a resumption, and the second object is also (mimma ‘ullimta).

The request for instruction by Musa—peace be upon him—has been considered problematic on the grounds that he is a messenger from among the Ulu al-‘Azm (the Messengers of Determination), so how could he learn from someone other than himself, when a messenger must be the most learned of the people of his time? From this, Nawf and others like him said: "This Musa is not the son of ‘Imran," even though the literal implication of the wording suggests that it is indeed him. The answer to this is that what is required of a messenger is to be the most learned in matters of faith and what pertains to his own Law (Shari'a), not absolutely in everything. Hence, our Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said, "You are more knowledgeable in the affairs of your worldly life." Therefore, it does not harm his status to learn, from someone else, esoteric sciences and hidden mysteries that have no relation to that [legal mandate], especially when that other person is also a prophet or a messenger, as has been said regarding al-Khidr—peace be upon him. The likeness of what has been mentioned is the way a learned jurist (mujtahid), such as Abu Hanifah or al-Shafi‘i—may Allah be pleased with them—would learn the science of Jafr, for example, from someone beneath him; this does not diminish his standing, and denying this is mere obstinacy.

It does not refute this that knowledge of the unseen is not "guidance," meaning the attainment of good; for Musa—peace be upon him—was in the process of seeking knowledge by which he would attain good, based on His saying, "Say, 'If I knew the unseen, I would have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me.'" Some have said: "What is required is for the messenger to be more learned than his own nation, and al-Khidr—peace be upon him—was a prophet who was not sent to them [Musa's people], nor was he commanded to follow his Law; therefore, it is not rejected that he possesses unique knowledge that others do not know." It is not hidden that, according to this, al-Khidr—peace be upon him—is not from the Children of Israel, because the apparent meaning is that Musa—peace be upon him—was sent to them all. This is what was said.

Then, what I am inclined toward is that Musa—peace be upon him—possesses knowledge of the science of Reality, called the inward science and Ladunni (divine/inspired) knowledge, except that al-Khidr is more learned in it than him. And al-Khidr—peace be upon him—whether he was a prophet or a messenger, possesses knowledge of the science of the Law, called the outward science, except that Musa—peace be upon him—is more learned in it than him. Each of them is more learned than the other from a certain perspective. The description of al-Khidr—peace be upon him—in the aforementioned traditions as being "more learned than Musa" is not in the sense that he is more learned than him in every respect, but rather in some aspects and in some sciences. However, because the speech was cast in the form of admonition and discipline, it was brought forth in a manner whose appearance suggests generality. The likeness of this is found in the verses of warning, which, as it is said, are qualified by [the phrase] "if He wills," but they are not mentioned for the sake of added intimidation. Even if the superlative form (af'al al-tafdil) is for increasing the reality of the action, it is in such a way that it encompasses the increase in an individual aspect of it. Evidence for this is the validity of qualification by a specific category, as when you say, "Zayd is more learned than ‘Amr in medicine, and ‘Amr is more learned than him in agriculture." If its meaning were an increase in absolute knowledge, then your saying "Zayd is more learned than ‘Amr" would necessitate that ‘Amr not be more learned than him in any science; thus, it would not be valid to prefer ‘Amr over him in the science of agriculture. Denying the truth of the "absolute more learned" while the qualified [superlative] is true is a commitment to the truth of the qualified without the absolute. The usage of the superlative form intending preference from one perspective has appeared, as mentioned by Sheikh Ibn al-Hajib in his Amali al-Qur'an among the ways of resolving the well-known problem in His saying, "And We do not show them any sign but it is greater than its sister," meaning it is greater than its sister from one perspective. He then said: "It may be that two things are such that each of them is better than the other from a certain perspective." Our master Jalal al-Din al-Dawani has thoroughly discussed this matter in his writings on the new commentary of al-Tajrid and verified it with what cannot be added to.

Evidence that Musa—peace be upon him—possesses knowledge not possessed by al-Khidr is what al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa'i recorded from the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas as a prophetic report (marfu'), that al-Khidr—peace be upon him—said: "O Musa, I am in possession of knowledge from Allah’s knowledge that He taught me, which you do not know, and you are in possession of knowledge from Allah’s knowledge that Allah taught you, which I do not know." You know that if the saying of Allah—the Exalted—to Musa—peace be upon him—mentioned in the previous traditions, "I have a servant at the confluence of the two seas who is more learned than you," were meant in the sense of being more learned in all sciences, it would be difficult to reconcile it with what we mentioned of the words of al-Khidr—peace be upon him. Based on what we have mentioned, it should be intended that the knowledge which al-Khidr mentioned he knows and Musa does not is some of the knowledge of Reality, and the knowledge which he mentioned Musa knows and he does not is some of the knowledge of the Law. Thus, both Musa and al-Khidr—peace be upon them—have knowledge of the Law and Reality, except that Musa—peace be upon him—is more versed in the science of the Law, and al-Khidr—peace be upon him—is more versed in the science of Reality, viewed in the present state, as you will know the manner of this, God willing. The lack of knowledge of one regarding some of what is with the other does not harm his status.

The statement of those who said, like al-Jalal al-Suyuti, that "Reality and the Law were only combined for our Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and the [other] prophets only possessed one of them," should be understood as meaning they were not combined in the most perfect manner except for him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and they did not possess them in that manner except for one of them. Understanding it as meaning that they were never combined in the way of the obligation to convey [to the public] except for our Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—for he—peace and blessings be upon him—was commanded to convey the Reality just as he was commanded to convey the Law, though for those prepared for that, he is not devoid of anything. It is understood from the words of some of the great masters that the knowledge of Reality is one of the sciences of sainthood (wilayah), and in that case, every prophet must have a share of it, and equality in its sciences is not required.

In al-Jawahir wa al-Durar, I said to al-Khawwas—may Allah have mercy on him: "Do the messengers differ in knowledge?" He said: "Knowledge is dependent on the message, for there is not with every messenger more knowledge than what his nation needs." I said to him: "This is from the perspective of their being messengers, so is their condition from the perspective of their being saints likewise?" He said: "No, one of them might possess from the sciences of sainthood that which is more than the sciences of sainthood of the Ulu al-‘Azm messengers who are higher than them." I see that what they obtain of the knowledge of Reality, based on the statement that it is from the sciences of sainthood, is more than what is obtained by the saints who are not prophets. You will not see me preferring a saint who is not a prophet in the science of Reality over a saint who is a prophet, nor do I argue for the sainthood of al-Khidr—peace be upon him—without his prophethood. Those who say that are ostensibly forced to say that the knowledge of Reality he possesses—despite being a saint—is more than what Musa—peace be upon him—possesses, if they affirm that he—peace be upon him—has any of that despite being a prophet. However, they do not see in that a degradation of the status of Musa—peace be upon him. The apparent words of some suggest that he—peace be upon him—was not given any knowledge of Reality at all, and despite this, his status is not lowered from the status of al-Khidr—peace be upon them, as he possesses other aspects of superiority. We shall, God willing, arrive at the verification of what those who advocate for his [al-Khidr's] sainthood say.

Furthermore, what I hold—and to Allah be praise—is further removed from the statement reported from some Sufis that sainthood is absolutely superior to prophethood, even if a saint does not reach the rank of a prophet; this is rejected by the verifiers without hesitation. Yes, there may be wavering regarding a prophet's prophethood and his sainthood, which of them is superior? Some say his prophethood is superior to his sainthood, and some say his sainthood is superior to his prophethood. Some gnostics chose the latter, arguing that the prophethood of legislation relates to the interest of the time, while sainthood has no relation to one time over another, and in a prophet, it is at the height of perfection. The chosen view for me is the former. The Karramiyya went astray in this matter, claiming that a saint might reach the degree of a prophet, or even higher, and the refutation of this is apparent. The reasoning for it using this story, based on the claim of al-Khidr's sainthood—peace be upon him—is nothing, as is not hidden.

It is not hidden to anyone who has the slightest taste for the styles of speech the extent of the extreme humility and the height of politeness that Musa—peace be upon him—observed in the phrasing of his speech, despite his exalted station, with al-Khidr—peace be upon him. The Imam counted many types of this, reaching twelve types. If you desire them, refer to his commentary. What this verse points to in listing all that the verses of the story indicate—from what is mentioned in the books of hadith and others—will come, God willing, the Almighty.