Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:79-83

Surah Al-Kahf (The Cave): Verses 79–83

There are three main issues (Qissas) discussed here.

The First Issue (The Underlying Principle): All three matters share one fundamental principle: the rulings concerning the Prophets (peace be upon them) are based on outward appearances, as the Prophet (PBUH) said: "We judge by what is apparent, and Allah entrusts the secrets."

However, the judgments in this story were not based on the apparent state of affairs, but rather on the true, underlying causes in reality.

1. Damaging property (the ship) without an apparent justification is forbidden.
2. Killing a soul (the boy) without an apparent justification is forbidden.
3. Undertaking effort and hardship (repairing the wall) without an apparent justification is forbidden.

In these three instances, the judgment of the knowledgeable man was not based on known outward causes, but on causes valid in the reality of the matter itself. This indicates that Allah had granted that man an intellectual power enabling him to perceive the inner realities of matters and the true nature of things.

Thus, Moses's (AS) rank in knowledge was based on judging by outward appearances, while this man's rank was based on grasping the inner realities, the truths of matters, and their hidden secrets. This shows that his rank in knowledge was superior to that of Moses (AS).

The Governing Rule: The three issues are built upon one core principle: When two harms conflict, the lesser harm must be endured to avert the greater harm. This is the established foundation for all three cases.

• Regarding the Ship (First Issue): The knowledgeable man knew that if he did not damage the ship by holing it, the king would seize it entirely, and its benefits would be completely lost to its owners. The conflict was between:
  1. Damaging it slightly, yet keeping it in the possession of its owners.
  2. Not damaging it, resulting in the king seizing it entirely. The first harm (slight damage) is clearly less than the second (total loss), so enduring the lesser harm was necessary to repel the greater one.

• Regarding the Boy (Second Issue): The continued existence of the boy would have been a source of corruption (Fasad) for his parents in both their religion and worldly life. He likely knew through revelation that the harms resulting from the boy's survival were less severe than the harms resulting from the parents falling into sin due to him. Hence, he proceeded to kill him.

• Regarding the Wall (Third Issue): The hardship incurred by repairing the leaning wall was a lesser harm than the harm of its collapse, which would have resulted in the loss of the orphans' wealth—a severe harm.

In summary, the knowledgeable man was uniquely favored with insight into the inner realities of things as they truly are, and he was authorized to base true rulings upon these inner states. Moses (AS), however, based his rulings on outward appearances, hence the difference in their knowledge.

Addressing a Potential Objection: If someone argues: "The essence of the matter is that Allah informed him of the inner realities, a type of knowledge that cannot be learned. Moses (AS) traveled to him to learn, so the knowledgeable man should have revealed knowledge that Moses could acquire. These three issues are not learnable knowledge; what is the benefit of mentioning them?"

The Reply: Knowledge of outward appearances can be acquired through knowledge of apparent religious laws (Sharia). Knowledge of inner realities, however, can only be acquired by purifying the inner self, refining the soul, and cleansing the heart from bodily attachments. This is why Allah stated regarding the knowledgeable man's knowledge: "And We had taught him knowledge from Us" (18:65).

When Moses (AS) completed his rank in the knowledge of the Sharia, Allah sent him to this man so that Moses might learn that the ultimate degree of perfection is transitioning from the sciences of the Sharia (based on appearances) to the sciences of the inner self (based on insight into inner realities).

The knowledgeable man answered regarding the first matter (the ship) by saying: "As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working at sea, and I intended to cause a defect in it, for behind them was a king who seized every ship by force." (18:79) This contains several benefits:

Benefit 1: The ship belonged to needy people who earned their living from the sea. Allah described them as masakin (poor/needy).

• Imam Al-Shafi'i used this verse as evidence that the state of faqir (one in dire need) is more severe than the state of miskin (one who is needy), because Allah described them as masakin even though they owned that ship.

Benefit 2: The knowledgeable man's intention in damaging the ship was not to sink its occupants, but to prevent the unjust king from seizing it, as the king only seized sound ships. Damaging it was a lesser harm than the total loss incurred by the seizure.

• Objection: Is it permissible for a stranger to interfere with another's property for such a purpose?
• Reply: This varies according to the laws of different eras. Perhaps this was permissible under that previous law. Even in our law, such a ruling is not far-fetched. If we know that robbers will take all of a person's wealth, but if we give some of it to the robber, the rest is saved, then it is good for us to give a portion of the owner's wealth to the robber to save the remainder. This act would be considered kindness toward the owner.

Benefit 3: The damage inflicted had to be such that the ship was not completely destroyed. If it were destroyed entirely, the harm of destruction would be equal to or greater than the harm of seizure, making the damaging impermissible.

Benefit 4: Regarding the word "behind them" (wara'ahum): There are two opinions:

1. Al-Farra' said it means "in front of them." He cites Allah's saying: "And indeed, Hell is before them" (45:10), meaning in front of them. Also, "and they leave behind them a weighty Day" (76:27). The justification is that anything hidden from you is wara' (behind) you, and you are hidden from it. Thus, anything hidden from you is wara' you, and the front/fore of a thing is also wara' if it is hidden from view.
2. It is possible the king was positioned behind the place where the owner embarked, and the ship would eventually return toward him.

The knowledgeable man answered regarding the killing of the boy by saying: "As for the boy, his parents were believers." (18:80)

• It is suggested that the boy was already an adult who committed highway robbery and engaged in reprehensible acts. His parents would have been compelled to defend him and deny accusations against him, leading them into sin (fisq), which might eventually lead to disbelief (kufr).
• Alternatively, he was a child, but Allah knew that upon reaching maturity, he would commit these corrupting acts.
• Allah's statement: "so We feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief" (yurhiqahuma means to oppress or burden). Allah permitted him to kill anyone from whom such corruption was strongly anticipated.
• Regarding "overburden them by transgression" (ṭughyānan):
  1. It means the boy would compel his parents toward transgression and disbelief, similar to the verse: "and do not burden me with difficulty" (18:73). This is because, out of love for their son, the parents would need to defend him and might even agree with his reprehensible actions.
  2. Alternatively, it means the boy would associate with them in the manner of transgressors and disbelievers.
• Objection: Is it permissible to kill a person based on such a presumption?
• Reply: Yes, if that presumption is confirmed by divine revelation, it is permissible.

Allah then said: "So We intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity..." (18:81).

• This means Allah intended to grant them a child better than this one in terms of piety (zakātan).
• Some interpret zakātan here as a direct response to Moses's objection: "Have you killed a pure soul (nafsan zakiyyah)?" (18:74). The knowledgeable man replied: Allah intended to grant them a replacement better than this son in zakāh (purity/piety).
• If Moses meant the boy was pure because he hadn't reached puberty, the knowledgeable man countered: Although this soul was currently pure, Allah knew it would commit transgression and disbelief upon maturity. Therefore, Allah intended to give them a child of greater purity, one whom Allah knew would not commit these forbidden acts upon reaching adulthood.
• Those who hold the boy was an adult interpret zakiyyah as meaning no outward act justifying his killing had yet appeared.

"...and nearer in mercy." (aqrab raḥman): This substitute would be closer in affection and mercy to his parents, being more dutiful and compassionate toward them. Rahm means mercy and compassion.

• It is narrated that they were given a daughter who married a Prophet, and through her, a great nation was guided by Allah.

Recitations (Qira'at): Two points regarding recitation remain in this verse:

1. Yubaddilahuma: Nafi' and Abu 'Amr recite it with a fath (A) on the bā' and a shaddah (doubling) on the dāl (i.e., yubaddiluhuma). The rest recite it with a sukūn (stillness) on the bā' and a light dāl (i.e., yabdiluhuma). Both are valid linguistic forms (Abl/Yubdil vs. Baddala/Yubaddil).
2. Raḥman: Ibn 'Amir, and one narration from Abu 'Amr, recite it with a ḍamm (U) on the ḥā'. The rest recite it with a sukūn (stillness) on the ḥā'. Both are valid linguistic forms (like nakara vs. nakara).

The knowledgeable man answered regarding the third issue (the wall) by stating that the reason for repairing it was that beneath the wall was a treasure belonging to two orphan boys in that town, whose father had been righteous. (18:82) Since the wall was on the verge of collapse, and its fall would have meant the loss of that treasure, he was commanded to repair it to preserve the treasure for the orphans, honoring their right and the right of their righteous father.

This verse contains several benefits:

Benefit 1: Allah referred to the location as both a qaryah (village) in the preceding verse ("when they came to the people of a town...") and a madīnah (city) here ("in the city").

Benefit 2: There is disagreement about the nature of this treasure:

1. It was wealth (Māl): This is considered correct for two reasons:
   • The term kanz (treasure) generally implies wealth.
   • The phrase "and they wished to bring out their treasure" (18:82) indicates it was material wealth.
2. It was knowledge ('Ilm): This is suggested by the statement: "and their father had been righteous." A righteous man's treasure is knowledge, not wealth, as hoarding wealth is contrary to righteousness, evidenced by: "And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah—give them tidings of a painful punishment" (9:34).
3. It was a golden tablet: Inscribed with: "I wonder at one who believes in destiny yet grieves; I wonder at one who believes in provision yet tires; I wonder at one who believes in death yet rejoices; I wonder at one who believes in accountability yet is heedless; I wonder at one who knows the world and its turning over of people, yet finds comfort in it. There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

Benefit 3: The statement "and their father had been righteous" indicates that the righteousness of fathers benefits the affairs of their children.

• It is narrated from Ja'far ibn Muhammad that there were seven generations between the two boys and the righteous father.
• Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali once told a Kharijite during a debate: "By what did Allah preserve the wealth of the two boys?" The Kharijite replied: "By the righteousness of their father." Al-Hasan responded: "Is my father and grandfather better than him?" The Kharijite replied: "Allah has informed us that you are a contentious people."
• It is also mentioned that this righteous father was one to whom people entrusted their deposits (wada'i), and he would return them safely.

Addressing a Potential Objection: Did the orphans know about the treasure beneath the wall?

• If they knew, they would not have allowed the wall to collapse.
• If they did not know, how could they extract and benefit from the treasure upon reaching maturity?
• Reply: Perhaps the orphans were unaware, but their guardian (waṣī) knew. That guardian was absent when the wall neared collapse, and the knowledgeable man was commanded to repair it in his absence.

When the knowledgeable man concluded these explanations, he said: "This is a mercy from your Lord." (18:82). Meaning, I did these acts to manifest the mercy of Allah, as they all revert to the single principle: enduring the lesser harm to repel the greater harm, as established earlier.

Then he said: "And I did not do it of my own accord." (18:82). Meaning, I did not act based on my own judgment, opinion, or discretion. I acted only by the command and revelation of Allah, because interfering with people's property or shedding their blood is not permissible except by clear divine command and explicit text.

A Final Question on Attribution of Will (Irādah): Why did the attribution of "will/intention" vary in the three instances?

1. "I intended to cause a defect in it" (18:79) – Attributed to himself (singular).
2. "So We intended that their Lord should substitute for them..." (18:81) – Attributed to "We" (plural).
3. "...and your Lord intended that they reach maturity..." (18:82) – Attributed to the Lord.

The Reply:

1. When mentioning the damage (to the ship), he attributed the intention to himself (singular I), as it was a minor act of self-directed effort.
2. When mentioning the killing (of the boy), he used the plural form ("We intended"), indicating he was a great figure in the sciences of wisdom, and this killing was only undertaken for a high wisdom.
3. When mentioning the preservation of the orphans' interests due to their father's righteousness, he attributed it to Allah, because only Allah is the ultimate caretaker of children in deference to the rights of their fathers.