The Qur’anic story of al-Khidr and Moses (peace be upon them) is one of the most challenging stories to fully comprehend, as it appears to conflict with conventional rational and moral principles.
The Qur’an introduces al-Khidr, saying, “And they found a servant from among Our servants to whom We had given mercy from Us and had taught him from Us a [special] knowledge” (18:65). This verse highlights that al-Khidr was endowed with a unique form of knowledge and a special role. If this knowledge were accessible to Moses, he would not have reacted with such objections to the three actions al-Khidr performed.
The second of these actions—the killing of a young man (ghulaam) as described in 18:74—provoked an objection from Moses. The verse states, “And so they went on, till they met a youth and he [al-Khidr] slew him…” Moses responded: “Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly, you have done an evil thing” (18:74).
Some interpret the act as analogous to the Angel of Death taking a life under God’s authority, but this analogy is flawed. If the term qatl in this verse simply referred to ending a life without direct slaying, Moses, being aware of this phenomenon, would not have objected. Instead, the Qur’an states the reason behind the youth’s death in 18:80: “As for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should make impropriety and disbelief come upon them.” After explaining his actions, al-Khidr clarifies, “I did not do it of my own accord” (18:82), indicating he acted under God’s command.
The question often arises as to why God would end the life of this youth before he had actually committed the wrongdoings al-Khidr foresaw. However, this assumes, mistakenly, that God’s actions are bound by the same temporal cause-and-effect framework applied to humans.
Another commentator suggests that al-Khidr might have been an angel, arguing that God refers to him as “a servant from among Our servants” without explicitly stating he is human. This commentator proposes that al-Khidr acted similarly to the Angel of Death, carrying out God’s will.
However, this explanation faces similar challenges: if al-Khidr were an angel, Moses would likely not have objected to the killing. Moreover, numerous Sunni and Shia traditions confirm that al-Khidr was a human servant of God. While some identify him as a waliyy, others regard him as a prophet and messenger of God.
One exegete offers an insightful perspective, suggesting that the three actions of al-Khidr mirror events in Moses’ own life. Moses, as an infant, was placed in the Nile to save him, not to drown him; he once killed an Egyptian by accident, who did not deserve to die; and he assisted the daughters of Prophet Shuayb without expecting any reward. Perhaps God was showing Moses that his own life had contained similarly puzzling or controversial actions, encouraging him to reflect on al-Khidr’s role.
Al-Mizan also provides an interesting analysis of al-Khidr’s speech, noting his careful language when attributing actions. Al-Khidr takes personal responsibility for actions that may seem problematic, saying, “I wished that I should damage it,” whereas actions with positive or shared outcomes are ascribed to both himself and God, such as, “So we desired” and “we feared.” Finally, he attributes actions solely to God when emphasizing His absolute Lordship and divine management, saying, “Your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity.”
Conclusion
This story requires us to reconsider our typical understanding and not to impose everyday reasoning onto events involving divine wisdom. Instead, we should approach this narrative with an open mind, aware of the limitations of our own perspective.
Reference: al-Mizan, Eng. Vol. 26 (pub. by Tawheed Institute, 2014)
