Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:79

"As for the ship, it belonged to poor people..."

(As for the ship)—which he scuttled—(it belonged to poor people): [meaning] weak individuals unable to defend themselves against oppressors. "Maskin" (poor person) is derived from the root indicating weakness and incapacity. This term encompasses those whose incapacity stems from either their own psyche or their body. From this, it is said they were called "maskin" due to their infirmity. It is reported that they were ten in number, five of whom were infirm; thus, applying the term "maskin" to them is a case of taghlib (dominant usage). This meaning of maskin differs from the differentiation made by jurists between the maskin (destitute) and the faqir (needy). Consequently, this verse cannot be used as an argument by those who claim that a maskin is one who possesses some wealth but it does not suffice him, because this meaning [in the verse] is completely independent of the presence or absence of wealth.

It may be interpreted as "the needy," in which case the verse would be explicit in supporting the claim of the aforementioned proponent. However, those who argue that a maskin is one who possesses absolutely nothing—and who [coincides with] the faqir according to the first group—claimed that the ship did not actually belong to them, but that they were merely laborers on it. Others said it was loaned to them, and the [genitive] "lam" (in li-masakin) denotes specialization, not ownership. It is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning and cannot be accepted without proof. Others said they were treated as if they had nothing at all, and the term "maskin" was applied to them out of mercy.

Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—read it as "limassakin" with a doubled sin, as a sound plural of massak. It is said the meaning is "mariners" (mallahin), and it is said the massak is one who holds the rope of the ship, and they would take turns doing so. Others said the massakun are the curriers of musuk, which are hides (singular: misk). Perhaps intending "mariners" is more manifest.

(Working at sea): meaning they earn their living by it while at sea, and survive on what they acquire from it. Attributing the work to the whole [group], according to the view that some were infirm, is by way of taghlib, or because the work of the agents is equivalent to the work of the principals.

(So I intended to damage it): meaning I made it defective by the hole. I did not intend to drown those on board as you surmised. The use of "intended" (irada) to convey this meaning—rather than saying "I damaged it" (fa-‘ibtuha)—was employed [for this distinction]. This makes it clear that the lam in the objection is for causative purposes; carrying it [to mean] the final outcome here requires committing to an interpretation contrary to the apparent meaning, as is not hidden to the contemplator.

(And behind them was a king): meaning in front of them. Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jubayr, Qatada, Abu Ubayd, Ibn al-Sikkit, and al-Zajjaj read it thus. From this comes the saying of Labid: "Is it not behind me, if my life span lingers, the reliance on a staff upon which the fingers bend?" And the saying of Sawwar ibn al-Mudarrab al-Sa'di: "Do the sons of Marwan hope for my hearing and obedience, while my people are Tamim and the vast desert is behind me?" And the saying of another: "Is it not behind me to crawl on a staff, so my enemies feel safe and my family tires of me?" There are many such instances in the Qur'an as well. There is no disagreement among linguists that wara’a can mean "in front," the disagreement is only regarding other [usages]. Most of them maintain that it is a literal meaning that is valid to intend in any position. They said it is among the addad (words with opposite meanings). The apparent speech of some suggests it has a single meaning that encompasses both opposites. Ibn al-Kamal, reporting from al-Zamakhshari, said: It is a noun for the direction that a person covers, whether from behind or from in front. Al-Baydawi said—the essence of which is: It is originally a verbal noun wara-yar’i like qada-yaqdi. If it is attributed to the subject, the object is intended—that is, the hidden [thing], which is what is behind. If it is attributed to the object, the subject is intended—that is, the covering [thing], which is what is in front. This was countered by the verse: "Return behind you" (irji‘u wara’akum), for wara’a was added to the object, yet what is intended is "behind."

Al-Farra' said: It is not permissible to say to a man "in front of you" as "behind you," and so it is with all physical objects; this is only permissible regarding times, nights, and days. Abu Ali said: The usage of wara’a to mean "in front" is permissible by extension (ittisa’), because it is a direction opposite to a direction, so each of the two directions is "behind" the other if the meaning of confrontation is not intended. This is permissible for objects that have no "face," like two stones facing each other, each is "behind" the other. It is also said it means "behind them," as is famous in the meaning of wara’a. This was objected to by saying that if it were behind them, they would have been safe from him. It was answered that it means he is behind them, catching up to them and passing them. His name, as they claim, was Hudad ibn Budad, and he was a disbeliever. It is said he was Julundi ibn Kar-Kar, the king of Ghassan; others say Mufwad ibn al-Julund ibn Sa‘id al-Azdi, and he was on the island of al-Andalus.

(Seizing every ship): meaning [every] seaworthy [ship]. Ubayy ibn Ka‘b read it as such. Had the generality been left to its apparent [meaning], there would have been no benefit in the damaging.

(By force): from its owners. It is in the accusative case as a noun defining the type of seizure. It is apparent that he used to seize ships from their owners and then not return them. Others said he would commandeer them and then return them. The fa in "so I intended" (fa-aradtu) indicates deduction, implying that the reason for intending the damage was that the ships belonged to poor, incapacitated people. Yet, since the relevance of this cause to the effect was hidden, he clarified it by mentioning the king's habit of seizing ships. The meaning boils down to: As for the ship, it belonged to poor, incapacitated people who earn their living by it, so I intended by what I did to assist them against what they fear and are unable to repel—the seizure of a king behind them whose habit is seizing seaworthy ships. Some mentioned that the cause is a combination of both matters: poverty and the [king's] seizure. However, he placed the deduction between the two matters, whereas the apparent [structure] would have been to delay it [to the end] to emphasize it, given that this action was the [perceived] transgression that required explanation of its interpretation, and to signal that the first matter is stronger in its causality. For this reason, he did not care to save the ships of other people, even though the latter part of the cause was present. Also, because delaying it would have caused a separation between the ship and its pronoun, with the assumption of its returning to the closer [antecedent].

The apparent meaning of the verse is that Moses (peace be upon him) did not know the interpretation of this action beforehand. This is challenged by what has come from al-Rabi‘: that al-Khidr (peace be upon him), after scuttling the ship and it was saved from the oppressive king, turned to its owners and said, "I only intended what is better for you." They praised his opinion, and he repaired it for them as it was. This is apparent in that he (peace be upon him) informed them of the reality of the matter. It is apparent that Moses (peace be upon him) was present and heard this. It may be said: this report is not relied upon, and the possibility of its truth, while Moses (peace be upon him) did not hear it, is something not to be regarded.