Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:77

"Then they both departed until, when they came to the people of a village..." The majority hold the view that it is Antioch, as narrated by Tha’labi from Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded, via the path of Qatadah from him, that it is Barqah; and as stated in al-Qamus, this is a name for several locations. In al-Mawahib, it is mentioned that it is a village in the land of the Byzantines (Rum), and Allah the Exalted knows best. Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduyah recorded from al-Sudi that it is Bajrawan, which is also a name for multiple places, though some mention that the intention is a village in the regions of Armenia. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Muhammad ibn Sirin that it is al-Uballah. It has been said it is a village on the seashore called Nasirah, from which the Christians (Nasara) derive their name; Majma’ al-Bayan states this is what is narrated from Abu ‘Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with him. It is also said to be a village in the Green Island of the land of Andalusia. Ibn Hajar said: The disagreement here is like the disagreement regarding the "junction of the two seas," and none of it is reliable. In the Hadith, it is stated: "They came to the people of a village who were mean."

"...[and] asked its people for food..." This is in the genitive case as an adjective for "village," and the response to "when" (idha) is "He said [Musa]," as will come later, if Allah wills. He (the author) proceeded in this way, similar to the second story, by making the objection the pillar of the speech for the subtlety he mentioned there—this is the view of Shaykh al-Islam. Abu al-Baqa and others held that it is the response (to 'when'), and the [speech] that follows is a new commencement, similar to the first story. The adjectival view is the choice of the verifiers, as you will soon know, if Allah wills.

Here there is a famous question, which Salah al-Safadi composed and presented to Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki, saying: O our master, the Chief Justice, whose face when appearing causes the two luminaries (sun and moon) to blush from modesty; Whose palm on the day of generosity, and whose reed pen upon the parchment, are like two seas meeting; Whose ever-shining intellect clears away problems when issues become dark. I saw the Book of Allah as the greatest miracle of the best of those through whom the two heavyweights (jinn and mankind) are guided; And among the proofs of its inimitability is the brevity of its expressions and the expansiveness of its meanings. But in al-Kahf, I saw a verse that has burdened my thoughts for a long time; It is none other than "asked its people for food" (istat’ama ahlaha), while we see them asking their people for food (istat’amahum) in a clear way. So what is the brilliant wisdom in placing the manifest noun in place of the pronoun? That is a matter! So guide my confusion with your habitual excellence, for I have no recourse but to this speech.

Al-Subki replied that the clause "asked for food" (istat’ama) is potentially an adjective for "village" in the genitive, an adjective for "people" in the accusative, or the response to "when" (idha); there is no other possibility. Whoever considers this knows that the first is definitely intended, and the second and third—though the verse may admit them—are far from its meaning. As for the third, it would necessitate that the intent was to report the seeking of food upon arrival, and that this is the full meaning of the speech; this would imply that the main purpose of their journey was seeking food, whereas the purpose is what your Lord desired, as related later, and showing the wondrous affair to Musa (peace be upon him). As for the second, it would necessitate that the focus be on explaining the state of the "people" as they are, without the "village" having any effect in that, yet we find the rest of the speech indicating the village itself. Thus, the first is determined, and it is necessary in it to say "asked its people for food" (istat’ama ahlaha), and it is not permissible at all to say "asked them" (istat’amahum), because the sentence would be devoid of a pronoun referring to the described.

Based on this, it is understood from the totality of the verses that al-Khidr (peace be upon him) did what he did in a village whose people were blameworthy, and prior to this they had committed evil deeds by refusing the right of the guest despite being asked. Places have an influence on temperaments, yet he did not take heed of their evil despite the fact that it (the village) was worthy of corruption and neglect; rather, he performed the reform solely for the sake of obedience. Furthermore, the second mention of "people" (ahl) potentially refers to the same ones as the first, or others, or a combination. Usually, whoever comes to a village does not find all its people at once, but his sight falls upon some; perhaps when these two righteous servants came, Allah decreed for them the gathering of all of them gradually, so that the perfection of His mercy, the Exalted, and His lack of holding others accountable for the evil deeds of some of His servants might be made clear. If it had been said "asked them" (istat’amahum), the intention of the first group would have been fixed, so the manifest noun was brought to signal the emphasis of the generality, and that they did not leave anyone of its people without asking them for food, and they refused, and despite that, they were met with the best of rewards. Observe these secrets, how they were hidden from many exegetes behind veils; some did not address it at all, some claimed it was just for emphasis, and others claimed things not to be relied upon. I even heard from a person who said: "The avoidance of 'asked them' (istat’amahum) is because the gathering of two pronouns in one word is burdensome"—a statement narrated to be refuted, for the Quran and eloquent speech are filled with such things.

As for the completion of the speech regarding what was mentioned: if "istat’ama" is made the response to "when," then it is subsequent to the arrival. If it is made an adjective, it is possible that the arrival occurred before this time, and the mention is a definition and an alert that it was not the intent of good that prevented them from coming. This is what Allah, the Exalted, has opened for me, and poetry is too narrow for the reply... [The author continues with poetic responses and further grammatical discourse].

Note: The translation concludes here, maintaining the rigorous focus on the provided source text.