Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:74

"Then they both proceeded": The fa (ف) is fasiha (eloquent), meaning: so he excused him, and they exited the ship. Then they continued walking on the shore, as is mentioned in the Sahih (authentic collections). In one narration, it states that they passed by a village.

"Until when they met a boy": They claim—as Bukhari said—that his name was Jaisur (with a jim), though it is also narrated with a ha (Haisur), and it is said his name was Janabtur, and other things were said as well. It is authenticated that he was playing with other boys, and it is said there were ten of them, and that there was none among them better-looking or cleaner than him.

"He killed him": Bukhari narrated in one report that he, peace be upon him, took the boy's head from the top and plucked it off with his hand. In another report, it says he took him, laid him down, and slaughtered him with a knife. It is also said he struck his head against a wall until he killed him, and it is said he crushed him with a stone, or kicked him to death, or inserted his finger into his navel and pulled it out, so he died.

The three first narrations can be reconciled by saying he first struck his head against the wall, then laid him down and slaughtered him, and then tore off his head. It is possible to reconcile all of them, though in both reconciliations there is remoteness. The apparent meaning is that the boy had not reached puberty, because the term ghulam (boy/youth) in common usage generally implies this. The majority have held this view. It is also said he was an adult young man; Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Sa’id ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz that he was twenty years old. The Arabs often apply the term ghulam to a young man, such as the statement of Layla al-Akhyaliyya regarding al-Hajjaj: "He healed her from the ailment that had afflicted her; a ghulam (youth) who, when he shakes the spear, quenches her thirst." And her statement: "Speak to the blade of the sword for me, for I am a ghulam (youth) when I am stirred, I am not a poet."

It is said that it is literally used for one who has reached puberty because its root is ightilam (the intensity of lust), which only occurs in one who has reached the age of maturity, and its application to a small child is metaphorical—of the type where a thing is named after what it will become. The opinion of the former group is supported by the Almighty’s saying: "He said, 'Have you killed a pure (zakiyya) soul?'" That is, purified from sins; for the adult rarely remains pure from sins. It has come in a hadith from Ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas as marfu’ (attributed to the Prophet) that zakiyya is interpreted as "young" (child), and this is an interpretation based on necessary implication. As for those who say he was an adult, they state that he, peace be upon him, described him as such because he did not see him commit any sin; it is a description born of a good opinion (husn al-zann).

Evidence for him being an adult is derived from the Almighty’s saying: "without [the killing of] a soul," meaning without the right of qisas (retaliation) upon him, for there is no qisas upon a child. Al-Nawawi and al-Kirmani responded that the intent is to alert that he killed him without right, specifically mentioning the right of qisas as it is most appropriate for the context of killing, or that their law mandated qisas upon a child. Hadith scholars like al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Ma’rifah reported that this was also the case in our law before the Hijrah. Al-Subki said it was before [the time of the Prophet], then abrogated. Abu al-Baqa’ said the prepositional phrase (bi-ghayri nafs) is attached to qatalta (killed), as if it were said: "You killed a soul without right." It is also permitted that it is attached to an elided term (i.e., "killed without a soul"), or in the place of a state (hal), meaning: "You killed him while he was oppressed" or "you were an oppressor."

Ibn ‘Abbas, al-A’raj, Abu Ja’far, Shaybah, Ibn Muhaysin, Humayd, al-Zuhri, Nafi’, al-Yazidi, Ibn Muslim, Ibn Bukayr (from Ya’qub), Ruways (from him), Abu ‘Ubayd, Ibn Jubayr al-Antaki, Ibn Kathir, and Abu ‘Amr read it as zakiyah (with a light ya and an alif after the za). Others read it as zakiyyah (with stress/tashdid and no alif), as read by Zayd ibn ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Jahdari, Ibn ‘Amir, and the Kufans. This is more expressive because it is an intensive adjective indicating constancy, while the form fa’il turned into fa’il (as Abu Hayyan said) indicates hyperbole. Abu ‘Amr distinguished between zakiyah and zakiyyah by saying that zakiyah (with the alif) is one who has never sinned at all, and zakiyyah (without the alif) is one who sinned and was then forgiven.

This was contested by stating that this is not an obvious distinction, because the root of zakah is growth and increase. Thus, it arrived for spiritual increase and was applied to purification from sins, even if it is by nature or origin, as in the Almighty’s saying: "To grant you a zakiyya (pure) boy." So where did this specific denotation come from? It was then reasoned that perhaps zakiyah (with the alif) comes from the intransitive zaka, which implies it is not the act of another and is fixed in itself; while zakiyyah means "purified" (muzakkah), for the pattern fa’il can come from other than the triliteral root (like radi’ meaning murdi’—nursing). The purification of another from sins only happens through forgiveness. This was understood from the speech of the Arabs, for he is an imam of Arabic and language. In this view, zakiyah with the alif is more expressive and appropriate for the context, based on his view that the boy had not reached puberty. Therefore, he chose that reading, even though both readings are mutawatir (mass-transmitted) from the Prophet. This, as they say, does not contradict the claim that zakiyyah without the alif is more expressive, as it indicates being raised, which is stronger than being pushed. So understand this. In any case, describing the soul as such is to increase the heinousness of what was done.

Ibn Marduyah recorded from Ubayy ibn Ka’b that when al-Khidr, peace be upon him, killed the boy, Musa, peace be upon him, was struck with severe terror and said, "Have you killed a pure soul without [the killing of] a soul? Truly you have done a nukran (heinous) thing." The Imam said munkar is that which the intellects reject and souls recoil from, and it is more expressive in condemning a thing than the term amr. Others said the opposite. Al-Raghib said munkar is calamity and the difficult matter that is not known. Because of this expressiveness, some said the intended meaning is "something more heinous than the first." Al-Tayyibi chose the view that it is less severe, saying that the structure of the discourse requires that he mentioned the most severe thing first, then descended to the lighter one; for the killing of a soul is lighter than the sinking of the boat (due to the destruction of a group of people) and more severe than building a wall without payment. In al-Kashf it is said: "The apparent meaning is the expressiveness of nukr." As for the phrasing, it is evident; do you not see how the poet interpreted it in his saying: "Truly the peers encountered from me a nukran—a great, overwhelming calamity, a difficult, severe affair." He made nukr a calamity with such-and-such descriptions, and made amr one of its descriptions. As for the reality, the sinking of the boat caused destruction, while this [killing] was a direct action, even if the former was not the cause that led [to death]. The argument of those who said it was a descent [in intensity], arguing that building a wall is easier than killing, is invalid because it was narrated in the order of existence, not in descent or ascent.

The connection with the fa (consecutive) is to indicate that the killing occurred immediately after meeting, without delay, as the objection suggests. For if time had passed between the meeting and the killing, it would have been possible for al-Khidr to have perceived, through hidden means, things about the boy's state that Musa, peace be upon him, did not perceive, and thus [Musa] would not have raised this objection. The claim that the sinking was also like this does not harm, because the purpose is to justify the choice of fa rather than waw or thumma after justifying the choice of the primary connection. The outcome is that since the objection in the second story was of great concern and importance, it was made the jaza’ (consequent) for the conditional idha. Once it was determined to be the consequent, it was necessary to make the killing part of the condition through conjunction, and the fa was chosen among the letters to signify sequence. Since the objection in the first story was not like that of the second, it was treated as a new beginning and the sinking was made the consequent.