Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:69

(He [Moses, peace be upon him] said: "You will find me, if Allah wills, patient" — meaning, not objecting to you — "and I will not disobey you in any command.")

"And I will not disobey" is a conjunction to "patient." A verb may be conjoined to a derived noun (an adjective), as in the saying of the Almighty: [Birds] spreading [their wings] and holding them [in check], by interpreting one of the two as the other. What is preferable in this context is to interpret the conjoined part; that is: "You will find me patient and not disobedient." In the promise of this state of being, there is an emphasis not found in the promise of patience and the cessation of disobedience alone.

Alternatively, it is conjoined to "You will find me." In the first case, the sentence is in the accusative case because it is joined to the second object of "find." In the second case, it has no grammatical position (i.e., it is a new sentence), as stated in al-Kashshaf. This has been objected to, as the apparent meaning is that its position is also the accusative due to the precedence of "said." It has been answered that the "said" is the sum of the conjunction and the conjoined element; therefore, its parts have no grammatical position based on the original.

It is said that al-Zamakhshari’s intent was to explain the state of conjunction in the speech narrated from Moses, peace be upon him. It is also said his intent was that it is not interpreted as a single noun, unlike the first case. It is also said it is based on the idea that what is "said" is deleted, and this sentence serves to explain it. The most apparent answer is the first.

The first of the two interpretations regarding the conjunction is preferable, as you have learned, and because of the evident dependence of the conjoined element upon the exception (the "if Allah wills"). If the mention of the Will (if Allah wills) is for the purpose of suspension (conditional), then there is no difficulty in the non-realization of what was promised. It is not said that he, peace be upon him, broke his promise. If it were for the sake of seeking blessing (tabarruk), then if we say that a promise is like a threat—an initiation that does not admit of truth or falsehood—or that it is constrained by a condition known from the context of the situation (such as "if I am able" or "if no legal or other impediment prevents it"), then likewise, there is no difficulty.

If we say that it is an informative statement (khabar) and not intended as a constraint, the difficulty appears clearly, for breaking a promise is then a lie, and that is not befitting the station of Prophethood, as it contradicts infallibility. It has been answered that what transpired from him, peace be upon him, on the last two occasions was forgetfulness, as in the first instance, and such a failure does not harm the station of Prophethood because forgetfulness is an excuse.

This is countered by the argument that we do not concede forgetfulness occurred on the last two occasions. In al-Bukhari and its commentary by Ibn Hajar, it is stated: "The first was forgetfulness, the second was a condition, and the third was deliberate." In another narration, "The second was deliberate and the third was a parting." Some have said: "You may say that nothing occurred from him, peace be upon him, that would disturb his station, because the failure in the first instance was pardoned, and where it occurred later, the last two were not failures." There is room for reflection in this.

al-Qushayri said: "Moses, peace be upon him, promised two things from himself: patience, which he linked to the Will, so he was patient regarding what al-Khidr, peace be upon him, did; and that he would not disobey him, which he made absolute and did not link to the Will, so he disobeyed him where he said: 'Do not hold me accountable,' for he kept holding him accountable. Thus, regarding what he linked to the exception, he did not fail; and regarding what he left absolute, the failure occurred." This is based on the conjunction being linked to "You will find me," but you have already learned that this is contrary to what is preferable.

Furthermore, the intended meaning of "patience" is steadfastness and acquiescence to the action without objection, as indicated by the coming dialogue, and that was not realized from him, peace be upon him. Also, the problem regarding the failure remains, as is not hidden. You know that it is far from the state of Moses, peace be upon him, to be certain of patience and not disobeying after al-Khidr, peace be upon him, pointed out to him that actions would emerge from him which were disapproved and contrary to the principles of his Sharia. Therefore, it is not unlikely that he considered the condition (the "if Allah wills") for both sentences, even if he did not bring it after the two of them; rather, he placed it between the two objects of "finding" in the first sentence for the sake of extra care for the matter. With this, the difficulty is resolved without need for debate.

There is evidence in this that the actions of the servant are by the Will of the Almighty, for if some voluntary actions occur by His Will, it necessitates that all occur by it, as there is no one who claims a difference. The Mu'tazila chose that the mention of the Will was for seeking blessing, but that does not point to what was mentioned. Some researchers said that the argument is valid even upon the possibility of seeking blessing, because there is no basis for seeking blessing with something that has no reality. The Imam has also pointed to this, so understand.

The verse has been used as evidence that a command implies obligation, but there is a view on this. Furthermore, it is apparent that he did not intend by "command" the opposite of prohibition; rather, it is intended as a request in the absolute sense. The essence of the verse is the denial that he would disobey him in whatever he requested of him.