Tirmidhi

Explanation:
1:
And ahead of them was a king who would seize every (sound and intact) boat by force (al-Kahf: 79). In the present-day copies of the Qur’an, the word “salihah” (sound/intact) is not present.

2:
And that boy was a disbeliever, as is in the Qur’an:
﴿وَأَمَّا الْغُلَامُ فَكَانَ أَبَوَاهُ مُؤْمِنَيْنِ فَخَشِينَا أَن يُرْهِقَهُمَا طُغْيَانًا وَكُفْرًا﴾ (al-Kahf: 80)
And as for the boy, his parents were believers, so we feared that he would overwhelm them with rebellion and disbelief.
Thus, we feared that if this boy grew up, he might lead his parents into mischief, rebellion, and disbelief.

Hadith Commentary:
In the Noble Qur’an, Surah al-Kahf mentions in detail the meeting between Khidr and Musa (alayhimas-salam).
By studying it there, it becomes apparent that many outward matters may seem objectionable, but upon understanding their reality, one is compelled to acknowledge their correctness.
Therefore, in issuing a legal verdict (fatwa), it is necessary to consider every aspect carefully.
May Allah, the Exalted, grant all scholars and jurists sound understanding, so that they may gain insight from the incident of Khidr and Musa (alayhimas-salam).
Amin.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
The disagreement between Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) and Har bin Qais was regarding the identity of the person whom Musa (alayhis salam) asked Allah, the Exalted, to meet, and for whose sake he undertook a sea journey.
He established from a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that this person was Khidr (alayhis salam).
He also mentioned the background of this matter.

➋
In reality, in Surah Al-Kahf of the Noble Qur’an, there is a detailed mention of the meeting between Khidr (alayhis salam) and Musa (alayhis salam).
Upon studying it, many apparent and seemingly objectionable matters are observed, but upon understanding their reality, one is compelled to accept their truth.
We should gain insight from these events.
There are many lessons for us in this incident.

➌
Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) also had a disagreement with Nauf Bakkali.
The nature of this was that, according to Nauf Bakkali, the Musa (alayhis salam) who met Khidr (alayhis salam) was not the Prophet of Bani Israel, but some other Musa (alayhis salam). The details of this disagreement will be mentioned in the next hadith.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Once, Musa (alayhis salam) was delivering an admonition to his people. His speech was so impactful that those present were overcome with emotion and tears began to flow from their eyes.
A person, being affected, asked: “Is there anyone more knowledgeable than you?” Musa (alayhis salam) should have entrusted the matter to Allah Ta’ala, but he said:
“There is no one here more knowledgeable than me.”
Allah Ta’ala did not like this manner and informed him that Khidr (alayhis salam) is such a servant of Mine who possesses more knowledge than you.
On this basis, Musa (alayhis salam) undertook the hardship of a sea journey.
The details of this incident are in the Noble Qur’an: first, a hole was made in the boat, then an innocent child was killed, and finally, a collapsing wall was supported without any payment.

➋
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has narrated this hadith here with extreme brevity, and the point of inference (mahal al-istishhad) is also not mentioned.
He has alluded to that narration in which the following noble verse is mentioned:
“Musa (alayhis salam) said:
‘You will find me, insha’Allah, patient, and I will not disobey you in any matter.’” (al-Kahf 69)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has transmitted this incident in detail in the Book of Tafsir.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Tafsir, Hadith: 4725)
Musa (alayhis salam), during his companionship with Khidr (alayhis salam), made his patience conditional upon the will of Allah Ta’ala and was fully determined to implement his plan, but the will of Allah Ta’ala was not subordinate to the desire of Musa (alayhis salam) such that it would be fulfilled; rather, the will of Allah Ta’ala prevails over all matters, for He does whatever He wills, and none can overpower Him. Therefore, despite his utmost effort, Musa (alayhis salam) could not bring his plan to completion.
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam also expressed regret over this in these words:
“If only Musa (alayhis salam) had remained patient, so that the wonders of Allah Ta’ala’s power would have been manifested before us.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Tafsir, Hadith: 4727)

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Nauf Bikali was a great scholar and a preacher-type person. He held the view that the companion of Khidr was not Musa ibn Imran, but rather Musa ibn Misha. However, the correct opinion is that he was Musa ibn Imran, who was sent to the Children of Israel. The objections of Musa (alayhis salam) to the actions of Khidr (alayhis salam) were based on apparent circumstances.

➋
When Khidr (alayhis salam) unveiled the realities, Musa (alayhis salam) had no choice but to accept them. Further details can be found in the books of tafsir.

➌
Most Sufis and people of esoteric knowledge believe that Khidr (alayhis salam) is alive and rules over the seas. However, the position of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) and other leading scholars of the ummah is that he has passed away and is no longer present. We had published a pamphlet on this subject under the title "Haqiqat Hayat Khidr" ("The Reality of the Life of Khidr"). Regrettably, despite much searching, it could not be found. It was intended that some excerpts from it would be quoted here. Masha Allah, what He wills happens, and what He does not will does not happen.

Hadith Commentary:
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has brought this lengthy hadith of Musa and Khidr alayhima as-salam here solely because it mentions the meeting of Musa and Khidr alayhima as-salam at the confluence of the two rivers, just as it has been stated in the aforementioned verse.

Hadith Commentary:
1.
From this incident, misguided Sufis have derived the issue that Khidr (alayhis salam) was not invested with the office of prophethood, but rather, he only held the rank of sainthood (wilayah), and that Allah’s wali (friend/saint) is, in understanding and insight, far above the rank of prophethood. As evidence, they present the story of Musa (alayhis salam), stating that despite being a prophet, he went to learn certain matters from Allah’s wali, Khidr (alayhis salam), and practically adopted his tutelage.
Expressing this thought, a poet says:
“Maqam al-nubuwwah fi barzakh... fawqa al-rasul wa doona al-wali—
The station of prophethood is an intermediate level, a little above messengership and below sainthood.”
That is, according to them, the rank of sainthood is higher than prophethood and messengership.
The author of ‘Aqidah Tahawiyyah, refuting them, states:
Our belief is that we do not consider any wali superior to any prophet, and all the prophets (alayhimus salam) are superior and higher than all the awliya (friends/saints) of Allah.
(Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, p. 493)

2.
The majority of scholars are inclined to the view that Khidr (alayhis salam) was invested with the office of prophethood. Thus, Allamah Qurtubi rahimahullah says that, according to the majority of scholars, Khidr (alayhis salam) was a prophet, as is evident from this incident, and no prophet ever acquires knowledge from someone of a lower rank than himself.
(al-Mufhim: 6/209)
In our view as well, the great personality of Khidr (alayhis salam) was invested with the office of prophethood, and Allah Ta’ala honored him with the dignity of messengership, as is evident from the following proofs:
➊
Regarding Khidr (alayhis salam), Allah Ta’ala says:
“We gave him mercy from Us and taught him knowledge from Our own presence.”
(al-Kahf 18:65)
Most commentators have interpreted “mercy” and “knowledge” in this verse as referring to prophethood, i.e., We granted him prophethood from Ourselves.
➋
Regarding Khidr (alayhis salam), Allah’s statement is quoted as:
“I did not do it of my own accord.”
(al-Kahf 18:82)
In its commentary, Imam Tabari rahimahullah writes that, O Musa (alayhis salam), whatever I did was not from myself, but was done by the command of Allah Ta’ala.
From this, it is clear that Khidr (alayhis salam), like Musa (alayhis salam), was bound by divine revelation (wahy).
Such important actions could not have been done without Allah’s revelation.
This is the station of a prophet, who does not act without divine revelation.
From this incident, it is evident that Khidr (alayhis salam) was informed of certain matters that were hidden from our eyes; Allah Ta’ala only informs His prophets (alayhimus salam) of such unseen matters.
Allah Ta’ala says:
“Allah is the Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His unseen to anyone except a messenger whom He has chosen.”
(al-Jinn 72:26–27)
➌
Musa (alayhis salam) knew that whatever Khidr (alayhis salam) did was not from himself, but was carried out on the basis of divine revelation from Allah; otherwise, upon witnessing such apparently extraordinary acts, Musa (alayhis salam) would not have remained silent. Such actions are not permissible for anyone other than a prophet, no matter how high his rank of sainthood may be.
➍
In a hadith, it is mentioned that regarding Khidr (alayhis salam), Allah Ta’ala said:
“O Musa (alayhis salam), he is My servant who possesses more knowledge than you.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-‘Ilm, Hadith: 122)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah writes that this proves his prophethood, and even indicates that he was a sent prophet (nabi mursal).
(Fath al-Bari: 1/290)

3.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written a treatise on this subject, “al-Zahr al-Nadr fi Akhbar al-Khidr.”
He states that from the incidents of Khidr (alayhis salam), it is evident that he was a prophet; however, there is a difference of opinion as to whether, along with prophethood, he was also entrusted with the responsibility of preaching and admonition or not.
Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu and Wahb ibn Munabbih are inclined to the view that he was a prophet, but was not sent to any particular nation, whereas other scholars hold that he was formally sent to a nation, and they accepted his call.
Abu al-Hasan al-Rummani and Ibn al-Jawzi have also supported this view.
According to Imam Tha’labi rahimahullah as well, Khidr (alayhis salam) was a sent prophet (nabi mursal).
And Allah knows best.

4.
In any case, Khidr (alayhis salam) was invested with the office of prophethood by Allah Ta’ala.
To first declare him a wali, and then to give a wali a rank higher than a prophet, is against the Shari’ah, and reason does not support it either.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written regarding the misguided Sufis that they derive from this incident the issue that the legal rulings (ahkam shar‘iyyah) are for the general masses.
But as for the awliya (friends of Allah) and the elect of the elect, they have absolutely no need for these legal rulings, for they are independent of them.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/292)
Refuting this notion, the commentator of al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah writes: Whoever uses the story of Musa and Khidr alayhima as-salam as proof and claims, by means of “divinely bestowed knowledge” (‘ilm ladunni), that there is no need for the knowledge of the Shari‘ah, is a misguided, irreligious person and outside the fold of Islam. This is because Musa alayhis salam was not sent to Khidr alayhis salam, nor was either of them made obligated to follow the other. That is why Khidr alayhis salam asked Musa alayhis salam:
“Are you the Musa who has been sent as a prophet to Bani Isra’il?” In contrast, Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has been sent to both jinn and mankind.
If ‘Isa alayhis salam descends, he will implement the Shari‘ah of Muhammad. Therefore, whoever says that ‘Isa alayhis salam has the same status with our Prophet as Khidr had with Musa, or gives this authority to any member of the Ummah, should repeat the testimony of faith (kalimah shahadah), for by uttering such a statement of disbelief (kufr), he has renounced his Islam.
Such a person is a friend and intimate of Shaytan, let alone being considered a wali of Allah.
This is precisely the crossroads where the people of truth and the people of falsehood part ways.
(Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, p. 512)

➋
Regarding those who hold such beliefs, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah states that this incident can in no way be used as proof by those who seek to undermine the Shari‘ah, because Musa alayhis salam was sent as a messenger to Bani Isra’il, and Khidr alayhis salam was not obligated to obey him, as the scope of his messengership was limited.
That is why Khidr alayhis salam said to Musa alayhis salam: “The knowledge Allah has given you, I do not know, and the knowledge He has given me, you do not have access to.” However, our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has been sent as a messenger to all humans and jinn, and the scope of his messengership is extremely broad. Therefore, no one has the right to use the excuse of “Shari‘ah and Tariqah” to refuse obedience to him.
Nor is there any room to reject the pure Shari‘ah in this way.
Its intellectual and practical aspects are both equal; absolutely no one has the right to say to the Prophet what Khidr said to Musa, because Musa alayhis salam was not sent to Khidr, so as to obligate him to obey.
Furthermore, in the incident of Khidr, there was nothing contrary to the Shari‘ah; rather, it was in complete accordance with the pure Shari‘ah, and such actions are permissible provided, like Khidr alayhis salam, one knows the underlying reasons for them. That is why, when Khidr alayhis salam explained the reasons and causes for these matters, Musa alayhis salam also deemed them correct, accepted them, and agreed with him.
If they had been contrary to the Shari‘ah, Musa alayhis salam would never have agreed to them. For example, take the incident of the boat: if, in order to save someone’s wealth, a small loss is incurred, what harm is there in that? It is better to suffer a small loss and save the remainder than to lose everything.
A shepherd is permitted to slaughter a goat in a place where there is fear of death, as a similar incident occurred during the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
Similarly, regarding the killing of the innocent boy: Khidr alayhis salam knew that this boy would grow up to become a calamity for his parents, so killing him was actually a mercy.
Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhu said regarding captive boys that if something is found in them that could be a precursor to future tribulation, then they should be eliminated, just as Khidr alayhis salam knew in this case.
If this were not so, there would be absolutely no permission to kill. As for the matter of building the wall, this was an act of goodness.
Even though there was a need for payment, he performed this good deed for the sake of Allah (fi sabilillah), as it was a form of cooperation with righteous people.
(Majmu‘at al-Wasa’il wa’l-Masa’il: 2/62)

Hadith Commentary:
It is the fundamental objective of Satan that he diverts the children of Adam from the straight path by every means, and by interfering in human affairs, he makes them heedless of the remembrance of Allah. As mentioned in the above incident, the loss of the fish was made a sign—that there, you will meet Khidr (alayhis salam). The primary purpose of this journey was to meet Khidr (alayhis salam), and for this, the fish was appointed as a sign. Despite this, Satan made them heedless, and they became unnecessarily troubled and had to travel further, which caused additional distress, even though the Messengers are protected from the machinations of Satan. However, Satan troubles those who accompany them and thus becomes the cause of their distress. May Allah, the Exalted, protect us from this. Ameen.

Hadith Commentary:
In this lengthy hadith, many matters related to Musa and Khidr (alayhima as-salam) have been discussed, for the details of which it is necessary to study the books of tafsir.

Nauf Bakkali, who is mentioned at the beginning, was a Muslim, but when he spoke contrary to the hadith, Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhuma) called him an enemy of Allah.

Some have said that this was said as a form of severity, and the literal meaning was not intended.

In short, those who go against the hadith can be called enemies of Allah.

The value of knowledge is such that as soon as Musa (alayhis salam) heard mention of Khidr’s knowledge, he expressed eagerness to meet him and showed a desire to see him, enduring all kinds of hardship, including travel, and so on.

Knowledge is such a thing that even if a person travels from east to west for it, it is not too much.

It is through knowledge alone that all the nations of the world became leaders over other nations that were ignorant.

It is unfortunate that in our times, the disregard for knowledge and scholars among Muslims is not found in any other nation.

As for traveling to acquire knowledge, that is out of the question; if a scholar comes to them from another country, they instead become his enemies and are concerned with expelling and removing him, except whom Allah wills.

What Khidr (alayhis salam) said to Musa (alayhis salam) meant that your way is different and my way is different, and I am appointed by Allah for specific matters.

You have been sent for general guidance; how long will I keep explaining to you?

Some less understanding Sufis have explained this hadith by saying that Musa (alayhis salam) only had knowledge of the Shari‘ah, and Khidr had knowledge of reality (haqiqa), and our Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was given both types of knowledge.

This statement is not correct.

Musa (alayhis salam) was among the resolute Prophets (ulul-‘azm); how could it be that he did not have knowledge of reality (haqiqa), and the lowest of the so-called friends of Allah (awliya Allah) would have it? How is this possible?

Similarly, if Khidr (alayhis salam) had no knowledge of the Shari‘ah at all, then how could he have knowledge of reality (haqiqa)?

Reality (haqiqa) without Shari‘ah is heresy (zandaqa) and atheism (ilhad).

In the Muhammadan Shari‘ah, there is nothing that, along with its outward virtues, does not also possess many inward virtues.

Thus, the Islamic Shari‘ah is the best combination of outward and inward (zahir wa batin).

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Despite the explicit statements in the Qur’an regarding Khidr (alayhis salam), the Sufi scholars have turned his personality into a mystery.
These individuals claim that he is alive in this world and, from time to time, appears to guide those who are lost.
➋
According to our inclination, in light of the following evidences and proofs, he has passed away:
©.
A few days before his passing, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
“Today, whoever is alive on the face of the earth, after one hundred years, none of them will remain.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-‘Ilm, Hadith: 116)
Ibn ‘Umar (radi Allahu anhu) explained its meaning as: the people present will all be overtaken by death.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Mawaqit al-Salat, Hadith: 601)
Similarly, it is narrated from Jabir (radi Allahu anhu) that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said, one month before his passing:
“Whatever is alive on the face of the earth today, after one hundred years, it will perish.”
(Sahih Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahabah, Hadith: 6481 (2538))
A similar narration is reported from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (radi Allahu anhu), that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said these words upon returning from the Battle of Tabuk.
(Sahih Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahabah, Hadith: 6485 (2539))
©.
It is narrated from some scholars that when they were asked about the life of Khidr (alayhis salam), they recited the following verse in response:
“We did not grant immortality to any human before you.” (Al-Anbiya: 21:34)
©.
The fact that Khidr (alayhis salam) did not come to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and pledge allegiance, despite being sent to all mankind, also indicates his death.
If he were alive, he would have certainly come to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), believed in him, and obeyed him.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said regarding Musa (alayhis salam):
“By Allah! If Musa (alayhis salam) were alive today, he would have no choice but to follow me.”
(Musnad Ahmad: 3/338, and its chain is weak)
©.
If it were possible for any son of Adam to remain alive, then at the very least, the Qur’an would have mentioned it, because this would be a great sign indicating the perfect power of Allah.
Just as Allah has explicitly stated in the Qur’an regarding Iblis that he will remain alive until near the Day of Judgment.
If, along with this, the life of His close servant had also been mentioned, then the Qur’an would have contained mention of the eternal life of both, but this did not happen, because there is no definitive proof of the life of Khidr (alayhis salam); rather, there are strong evidences for his death.
©.
If Khidr (alayhis salam) were alive, he would have certainly joined the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and fought alongside him against the disbelievers and polytheists.
On the day of Badr, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
“O Allah! If this small group is destroyed today, there will be no one left on the face of the earth to worship You.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar, Hadith: 2915)
From this, it is understood that at that time, the only people worshipping Allah were those known as the Companions of Badr.
They were only three hundred and thirteen, whose names are well-known and famous.
Among them, the name of Khidr (alayhis salam) is not found, which also shows that he was not present at that time, but had already met his Creator.
©.
To hold the belief in the eternal life of Khidr (alayhis salam) is to attribute to Allah something of which we have no knowledge; doing so is absolutely forbidden and unlawful.
Because proof of his everlasting life must be found either in the Qur’an and Sunnah, or at the very least, established by the consensus of the Ummah.
The Book and the Sunnah are before us, and there is not even an indication of this at any place, nor has there ever been consensus of the scholars of the Ummah on this matter.
In reality, those who make such baseless and unfounded claims wish to open the door to innovations and superstitions through him.
Regarding all such narrations, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has discussed them in detail and proven that they have no basis whatsoever.
(Fath al-Bari: 6/528)

Sayyiduna Khidr (alayhis salam) was a Prophet

Question: Was Khidr (alayhis salam) a Prophet, a wali (saint), or an angel? In “Shari‘at wa Tariqat,” Mawlana Abdur Rahman Kilani rahimahullah has considered the view that he was not a Prophet to be closer to the truth. Is his position correct? (A questioner)

Answer:

The preferred opinion regarding Sayyiduna Khidr (alayhis salam) is that he was a Prophet.

The trustworthy Imam Abu Hayyan Muhammad bin Yusuf Andalusi rahimahullah (d. 745 AH) said:

«والجمهور علٰي أن الخضر نبي …… والجمهور علٰي أنه مات»

And the majority are upon the view that Khidr is a Prophet... and the majority are upon the view that he has passed away.

[تفسير البحرالمحيط ج 6 ص 139، سورة الكهف: 65]

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani rahimahullah wrote a book on this issue: “Al-Zahr al-Nadr fi Naba’ al-Khidr.” See: [مجموعة الرسائل المنيريه 2/ 195۔ 234]

At the end of this book, Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote:

«والذي لا يتوقف فيه الجزم بنبوته»

And one should not hesitate in affirming with certainty his (Khidr’s) prophethood. [ص 234]

There are several evidences for Khidr (alayhis salam) being a Prophet, for example:

➊: His statement: ﴿وَ مَا فَعَلْتُهٗ عَنْ اَمْرِيْ﴾ “And I did not do it of my own accord.” [سورة الكهف: 82]

That is, revelation would come to him.

➋ The statement of Allah, the Exalted, that We granted him (Khidr) mercy and knowledge from Ourselves. See: [سورة الكهف 65]

➌ Khidr (alayhis salam) killing the (minor) boy, and it is clear that killing on the basis of inspiration (ilham) is not permissible.

➍ Khidr said: “Musa of Bani Isra’il?” [صحيح بخاري: 4725، صحيح مسلم: 2380]

It is evident from this that he was not a follower (ummah) of Sayyiduna Musa (alayhis salam), otherwise he would not have said so.

➎ The statement of the majority, as has been mentioned with reference to Abu Hayyan rahimahullah.

➏ Hafiz Ibn Hazm said: «والخضر عليه السلام نبي قدمات» And Khidr (alayhis salam) was a Prophet, and he has passed away. [المحلي ج 1 ص 50 مسئله: 90]

For further details, see Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim’s book: Al-Manar al-Munif fi al-Sahih wa al-Da‘if [ص67۔ 76، فقره: 123۔ 134]

Benefit: The correct belief regarding Sayyiduna Khidr (alayhis salam) is that he passed away long before the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and he is not alive now; therefore, mentioning him among the Companions is incorrect.

Also see: Hafiz al-Rahman Siyoharwi Taqleedi’s book: Qasas al-Qur’an [ج1ص 433۔ 440]

Janab Abdur Rahman Kilani rahimahullah has written:
“…They say that Hazrat Khidr (alayhis salam) was neither a Prophet nor a wali, rather he was not even a human… this is closer to the truth.” [شريعت وطريقت ص 124، 125]

In the aforementioned research, Kilani Sahib, by denying the prophethood of Sayyiduna Khidr (alayhis salam), has declared him to be an angel. In our view, this “research” of Kilani Sahib is incorrect and further from the truth, as it is contrary to authentic evidences and the majority.

For the original article, see the monthly Al-Hadith Hazro (Issue 62, pages 7 and 8) under the title “Tawdih al-Ahkam.”

Explanation:
Nauf Bakkali was among the Tabi‘in. Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, in a state of anger, called him “enemy of Allah” because he had said that the companion of Khidr was Musa ibn Misha, who was the grandson of Yusuf alayhis salam. In reality, this incident pertains to Sayyiduna Musa alayhis salam, the one from Bani Isra’il. From this, it is understood that such reproach is permissible against those who follow opinion and analogy in opposition to the Qur’an and Hadith.

Whether Sayyiduna Khidr alayhis salam was a prophet or a saint (wali), he could not be superior to Sayyiduna Musa alayhis salam. However, when Musa alayhis salam said, “I am the most knowledgeable,” Allah Ta‘ala disliked this, and made him encounter a servant who was lesser in rank than him, so that he would not make such a claim in the future. When Musa alayhis salam greeted Khidr alayhis salam with salam, he replied with “Wa ‘alaykum as-salam,” and at the same time was startled, wondering where this person who greeted him had come from. From this, it is understood that Khidr alayhis salam also did not possess knowledge of the unseen (ghayb); therefore, those who hold the belief of knowledge of the unseen for prophets and saints are liars.

The knowledge of Musa alayhis salam was the apparent knowledge of the Shari‘ah, while Khidr alayhis salam was assigned to specific commands with knowledge of the underlying wisdoms of the Shari‘ah (masalih shar‘iyyah). That is why the actions of Khidr alayhis salam appeared to Musa alayhis salam as contrary to the Shari‘ah, although they were not actually against the Shari‘ah.

Removing a plank from the boat was under the wisdom that a tyrant king was coming from behind to seize boats for forced labor; seeing the boat as defective, he left it. When he passed by, Khidr alayhis salam repaired it again. The killing of the child was because Khidr alayhis salam was informed by divine revelation (wahy ilahi) that this child would, in the future, become extremely harmful to his parents; under this wisdom, it was deemed appropriate to end his life. Perhaps such a killing was permissible in the Shari‘ah of that time. Then Allah granted the parents a righteous child, and it turned out well.

He repaired the wall because the father of two orphan children, at the time of his death, had buried a treasure for his children beneath that wall. If the wall had collapsed, people would have looted the orphans’ treasure. Under this wisdom, he immediately repaired the wall by Allah’s permission.

Many benefits can be derived from the incident of Musa and Khidr, the details of which can be clear to those who reflect deeply.

Benefits and Issues:
Relevance between the Chapter and the Hadith:
The relevance between the chapter and the hadith is very close. The chapter was established that when one is asked who is the greatest scholar, the mufti should reply, “Allah knows best.” Therefore, in the hadith, the reproach directed at Musa alayhis salam is itself evidence that Musa alayhis salam attributed knowledge to himself, whereas he should have attributed knowledge to Allah Ta’ala. Thus, from here, the relevance between the chapter and the hadith becomes clear.

◈ Allamah Mahmood Hasan rahimahullah says:
“That is, when a scholar is asked about «اي الناس اعلم», it is not preferable to say «انا اعلم», even if at that time he is indeed «اعلم الناس». Rather, it is recommended that in response he should say «الله اعلم». Thus, this matter is made clear from the hadith of the chapter.” [الأبواب والتراجم. ص 57]

In the previous chapter «الخروج فى طلب العلم», Imam Bukhari rahimahullah mentioned the words that when Musa alayhis salam was asked «هل تعلم احدا اعلم منك ؟», ‘Do you know of anyone more knowledgeable than yourself?’ And under the present chapter, the words are «انا اعلم», so there is no contradiction here.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah says: «وعندي لا مخالفة بينهما» “In my view, there is no contradiction between the two.” [فتح الباري، ج2، ص199]

Benefit Number ➊
For the etiquettes of issuing fatwa and discussion on these issues from various aspects, the study of these books is beneficial:
➊ The book “Salah al-‘Alim bi-Ifta’ al-‘Alim” by Shaykh Hamid al-Imadi al-Dimashqi
➋ Fatawa Ibn al-Salah
➌ “Al-Fatawa al-Misriyyah” by al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam
➍ Fatawa al-Nawawi
➍ Fatawa Shams al-Din al-Ramli

Note:
The difference of opinion between Ibn al-Salah and al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam regarding Salat al-Ragha’ib is also of historical fame. Imam Subki has especially mentioned it in “Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah al-Kubra.”

SH Benefit Number EH ➋
The aforementioned incident is of Sayyiduna Musa and Khidr alayhima salam. Some ignorant groups believe that Khidr alayhis salam is still alive. This corrupt and false belief is far from the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, addressing the noble Companions: “Tonight is such a night that from tonight until the end of a hundred years, no person who is on the earth will remain.” [صحيح البخاري رقم الحديث 116]
↰ Therefore, according to this hadith, whoever was alive on earth at the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has passed away.

◈ Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah says:
“If Khidr alayhis salam were alive, it would have been obligatory upon him to present himself in the service of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, to acquire knowledge from him, and to participate in jihad in his company. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said during the Battle of Badr:
«اللهم ان تهلك هذه العصابة لا تعبد فى الارض»
‘O Allah, if this group is destroyed, there will be none left on the face of the earth to worship You.’
↰ This group consisted of three hundred and thirteen noble Companions radi Allahu anhum. Their names, along with their fathers’ names and tribes, are available in a well-known list. But Khidr alayhis salam’s name is not found in it.

Analysis of the Evidences for the Life of Khidr alayhis salam:
SA Khidr alayhis salam was the biological son of Sayyiduna Adam alayhis salam. It is narrated from Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma that Khidr alayhis salam was the biological son of Adam alayhis salam. His life was prolonged until he would belie the Dajjal. EA ◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah writes regarding this narration:
Dar Qutni narrated it through the chain of «دواد بن جراح عن مقاتل بن سليمان عن الضحاك».
Dawud ibn Jarrah is weak, Muqatil is abandoned, and Dahhak did not hear from Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma.
↰ Therefore, this narration is not only weak but also disconnected. [الاصابة، ص429]

Meeting with Sayyiduna Ali radi Allahu anhu:
SA A narration is attributed to Sayyiduna Ali radi Allahu anhu that he saw a man holding the covering of the Ka‘bah while circumambulating the House, saying: «يا من لايشغله سمع عن سمع» At the end of this narration, it is said that he was saying, “By Him in Whose hand is the soul of Khidr.” EA ◈ Imam Ibn al-Jawzi rahimahullah says:
This hadith is not authentic. One of its narrators, Muhammad ibn Harawi, is unknown, and the other, Abdullah ibn Mahraz or Muharrar, is abandoned.
◈ Imam Ahmad rahimahullah says: People abandoned his hadith.
◈ Ibn Manawi rahimahullah says: “I have met him, and to me, goat droppings are more beloved than him.” [كتاب الموضوعات، ج1، ص140]

Condolence of Khidr alayhis salam at the Death of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam:
SA In al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, it is narrated that Sayyiduna Jabir radi Allahu anhu said that when the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam passed away, the Companions gathered. A handsome man with a white beard entered. The last words of the narration are that Sayyiduna Abu Bakr radi Allahu anhu and Sayyiduna Ali radi Allahu anhu said, “This man is Khidr alayhis salam.” [المستدرک الحاکم ج3 ص55] EA ↰ In the above narration, there is ‘Abbad ibn ‘Abd al-Samad.
◈ Imam al-Dhahabi rahimahullah says: He is extremely weak.
◈ Imam Bukhari rahimahullah says: He is rejected in hadith.
◈ Imam Abu Hatim rahimahullah says: He is extremely weak.
◈ Ibn ‘Adi says: He was weak and an extreme Shi‘a. For details, see: [ميزان الاعتدال، ج2، ص269]
↰ Besides these narrations, there are many other narrations that try to establish the life of Khidr alayhis salam, but all of them are weak, disconnected, and not valid as proof.

Benefit Number ➌
From the above hadith, traveling for the sake of knowledge is established. Because Sayyiduna Musa alayhis salam set out on a journey for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, and it is not unlikely that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah also deduced the permissibility of traveling for knowledge from this hadith, as he established in the previous chapter «خروج فى طلب العلم». Among the Salaf, countless incidents are well-known in which traveling for the pursuit of knowledge and enduring hardship for it was preferred. A few such incidents are as follows:
➊ Sayyiduna Jabir radi Allahu anhu, a distinguished Companion of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, undertook a month-long journey with hardship for the sake of a single hadith. [الرحلة للخطيب ص 109، ابن عاصم فى ’’ السنة“ رقم 514]
➋ Sayyiduna Sa’ib ibn Yazid radi Allahu anhu (d. 80 AH) traveled to Egypt to remove doubt about a hadith by reaching Sayyiduna ‘Uqbah radi Allahu anhu. [حسن المحاضرة فى اخبار المصروالقاهرة، ج1، ص86]
➌ Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Firoz al-Daylami radi Allahu anhu set out from Bayt al-Maqdis to Madinah al-Tayyibah to ask Sayyiduna Abdullah radi Allahu anhu about a matter of religion. When he reached Madinah, he learned that Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma had gone to Makkah. When he reached Makkah, he learned that he had gone to Ta’if. So he reached Ta’if, obtained the hadith from him, and then returned. [المستدرك، ج1 ص257، وقال الذهبي صحيح]
➍ Sayyiduna Sa‘id al-Musayyib rahimahullah (d. 94 AH) stated: “I used to travel for many days and nights for the sake of a single hadith.” [معرفت علوم الحديث، ص8]
➎ ‘Ikrimah rahimahullah (d. 105 AH), the special student of Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu and a hadith scholar and jurist, said: “I wandered for fourteen years regarding the context of revelation (asbab al-nuzul) of a single verse of the Qur’an, and finally, when I learned it, I found peace.” [فتح القدير ج1 ص4]
➏ Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub al-Ansari radi Allahu anhu traveled from Madinah to Egypt, a journey of one month, to obtain a single hadith from Sayyiduna ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir radi Allahu anhu. [مسند حميدي ج1 ص189]
➐ ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Adi traveled from Madinah al-Tayyibah to Iraq, a journey of one month, to hear a hadith from Sayyiduna Ali radi Allahu anhu. [فتح الباري ج1 ص175]

Hadith Commentary:
1.
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s intent is that the causes of arrogance, pride, and self-admiration are more accessible to scholars, and thus these individuals, in order to preserve their prestige and fame, consider it necessary to answer every question, lest any suspicion arise about them that they did not know the answer to a particular question—what kind of scholar is he? Scholars must exercise great caution.
When a great and esteemed prophet can be reproached for not saying “Wallahu a‘lam” (Allah knows best), then how can ordinary scholars be overlooked? Scholars should always keep their own ignorance in view. Allah the Exalted says:
﴿وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا﴾ (Bani Isra’il: 85: 17)
“And you have not been given of knowledge except a little.”
And He also says:
﴿وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ﴾ (Yusuf: 12: 76)
“And above every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing.”
In light of this clarification from the Qur’an, the knowledge of the noble scholars is, in any case, limited, and their unknowns are unlimited.
To ignore the unknowns while considering one’s own knowledge is not wisdom.
When a scholar of religion keeps his unknowns in mind, the thought will not arise in his mind that he is the greatest.
Although the answer of Musa alayhis salam was correct in the sense that he was a possessor of a revealed book, a great prophet, and had the honor of speaking directly with Allah, and thus the knowledge and insights that Musa alayhis salam possessed could not be found with anyone else, yet in the sight of Allah, this answer was not befitting his status.
He should have referred his knowledge back to Allah.
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in this context, wishes to train the scholars that if they are asked, “Who is the most knowledgeable of people (a‘lam al-nas)?” they should not consider themselves, nor should they say, “People’s attention falls upon me.”
Even if the question is not asked, one should not consider oneself superior.
Scholars should always keep humility in mind and remain conscious of their own deficiency and Allah’s perfection.

2.
There was a difference of opinion regarding two matters in the story of Musa and Khidr alayhima salam:
(a)
Regarding the one whom Musa alayhis salam expressed the desire to meet and set out from his home—was he Khidr alayhis salam or someone else? Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma used to say that he was Khidr alayhis salam, while Har bin Qays radi Allahu ta‘ala anhu held a different view.
This difference was resolved by Ubayy bin Ka‘b radi Allahu ta‘ala anhu in agreement with Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma.
(b)
The second difference was whether the Musa who went to Khidr alayhis salam was Musa ibn ‘Imran, the prophet, or Musa ibn Mitha? Abu Yazid Nawf ibn Fadala Bikali, who was a great scholar of Damascus and a distinguished tabi‘i, held the view that he was not Musa alayhis salam, the prophet of Bani Isra’il, but rather the son of Mitha and grandson of Yusuf alayhis salam.
It should be noted that he received this information from Ka‘b al-Ahbar, because Nawf Bikali was the son of Ka‘b al-Ahbar’s wife.
Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma strongly refuted this view.
He said, “The enemy of Allah speaks falsely.”
This does not mean that Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma actually considered him an enemy of Allah, but the point is that Nawf Bikali was a great preacher, and preachers have much respect among the general public.
If Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma had not refuted him forcefully, there was a fear that the devoted followers would not abandon this view.
(‘Umdat al-Qari 2/272)
Khidr was more knowledgeable in the sense that he was given some knowledge of the decrees (takwinat) which Musa alayhis salam did not possess.
He had knowledge of the revealed law (shar‘i knowledge), of which Khidr alayhis salam certainly had a portion, because Khidr, whether he was a prophet or a saint (wali), was necessarily bound by some shari‘ah.
However, compared to the legislative knowledge of Musa alayhis salam, the knowledge of decrees possessed by Khidr had no real standing, as Khidr himself acknowledged in these words: “Allah has given me a type of knowledge which you do not have, and He has given you a type of knowledge which I do not have.”
In reality, Khidr alayhis salam wanted to say: “My knowledge is not with you, and your knowledge is not with me.”
Therefore, neither I nor you are the most knowledgeable (a‘lam); rather, the Most Exalted Being is He who has granted both of us knowledge.

4.
At the end of this incident, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“May Allah have mercy on Musa alayhis salam; he did not show patience but acted hastily. If he had remained with Khidr alayhis salam, we would have learned more about his circumstances.”
From this, it is understood that the knowledge of decrees (takwini knowledge) was not with him either; it was only with Khidr alayhis salam. But this is not a cause of virtue, because knowledge of decrees is a perfection for the Creator of the universe, not for any created being.
Therefore, the lack of knowledge of decrees in Musa alayhis salam and the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam can never be considered a deficiency.

5.
Khidr alayhis salam was not superior to Musa alayhis salam, but Musa’s statement that he was the most knowledgeable was not liked by Allah the Exalted.
He should have referred this matter back to Allah; thus, he was made to encounter a person who was much lower in rank than him, so that he would not make such a claim.

6.
From the conduct of Musa alayhis salam, it is understood that a scholar of religion should not remain silent upon witnessing an act contrary to the shari‘ah, but rather it is necessary to object to it.
This is the requirement of enjoining good (amr bil-ma‘ruf) and forbidding evil (nahy ‘an al-munkar).
To witness an act contrary to the shari‘ah and, despite having knowledge, to endure it silently and not speak the truth is a sign of weak faith, which is contrary to the dignity of a scholar.
We find countless such incidents among the noble Companions radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in, which show that even at the last moments, they fulfilled this duty and did not tolerate even the slightest negligence in it.
Radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues:
Nauf Bikali:
He was a storyteller from Kufa, who was either the son of Ka‘b al-Ahbar’s wife or Ka‘b’s nephew. He said that the Musa whose incident with Khidr is mentioned was Musa ibn Laith ibn Ephraim ibn Yusuf alayhis salam, and not the well-known, eminent Prophet Musa ibn ‘Imran. Some have mentioned the name as Musa ibn Misha.

Khidr:
Whenever he sat on barren, empty land, it would become lush and green. There is much disagreement regarding his lineage and family, and the same is true for his name—no reliable statement can be made. There is also disagreement as to whether he was an angel or a human, a prophet or a saint. If he was not an angel, then he was a prophet. The majority opinion is that he was a prophet, but he possessed knowledge of cosmic (takwini) matters, which generally pertains to angels, whereas Musa alayhis salam’s prophethood was legislative (tashri‘i). There is also disagreement regarding his life. ‘Allamah Alusi has discussed this at length, and according to ‘Allamah Sa‘idi, the final word is:
“The authentic ahadith of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and transmitted evidences support the view of those scholars who hold that Khidr has passed away.”
(Sharh Sahih Muslim, vol. 6, p. 859)
For a detailed discussion, see Ruh al-Ma‘ani, Surah al-Kahf, and according to ‘Allamah Taqi, neither life nor death is established for him through logical evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah; therefore, it is better to withhold and remain silent on this matter rather than engage in debate and scrutiny.
(Takmilah, vol. 5, p. 41)
For further details, see “Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim,” Surah al-Kahf by Hafiz ‘Abd al-Salam Bhutvi rahimahullah, Fath al-Bari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Sharh Sahih Muslim by Maulana Sa‘idi, vol. 6, pp. 853–859.

Kadhaba ‘aduww Allah:
Since Nauf had said something completely baseless and false, Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhu, in anger and for the purpose of rebuke and reprimand, used these words.

‘Ataba Allahu ‘alayh:
Given the status of Musa alayhis salam, humility and etiquette required that instead of saying “I am more knowledgeable,” he should have said “Allah knows best.” And Allah holds His servants of high and lofty rank accountable even for minor matters; thus, he was held to account for his words.

Majma‘ al-Bahrayn:
The confluence of two seas. There is disagreement about which two seas these were, but there is no need to specify, as confluences change over time.

Yusha‘ ibn Nun:
He became a prophet after Musa alayhis salam and accompanied him as a servant on this journey. When Musa alayhis salam fell asleep, he remained awake, and when the fish came to life, moved, and fell into the sea, he saw it. However, he did not consider it appropriate to wake Musa alayhis salam and thought, “When he wakes up, I will inform him,” because Musa alayhis salam had instructed him, “When the fish is lost, inform me.” But he forgot, and when Musa alayhis salam woke up, he hurriedly set out with him. When Musa alayhis salam later asked for food, he remembered and explained the situation with an apology.

Inni bi-ardika al-salam:
How did someone come here to say salam? People here do not say salam.

Ana ‘ala ‘ilmin min ‘ilm Allah ‘allamanihi la ta‘lamuhu:
The knowledge of Musa alayhis salam was legislative (tashri‘i), and the knowledge of Khidr alayhis salam was cosmic (takwini)—that is, it pertained to what happens in this universe and is hidden from our eyes. We are neither responsible nor obligated regarding such matters; they pertain to the unseen. Musa alayhis salam had no connection to cosmic matters, and his knowledge was legislative, according to which a person is obligated to live and is held accountable. And Khidr, being a human, was also obligated to act upon it, so he was aware of the legal (shar‘i) matters, even though that knowledge was much less compared to Musa alayhis salam. Therefore, Khidr alayhis salam also said regarding the knowledge of Musa alayhis salam, “la a‘lamuhu”—I am not aware of it, meaning in terms of your knowledge. Thus, Khidr, along with cosmic knowledge, was also aware of some legislative knowledge. Therefore, Allah Ta‘ala said to Musa alayhis salam,
huwa a‘lamu minka:
He has more knowledge than you.

La a‘si laka amran:
Musa alayhis salam thought, “This is a servant of Allah, so he will not oppose any legal command or rule.” Therefore, he said, “You will find me, insha’Allah, patient, and I will not oppose any of your commands.” But when he saw actions that were not correct from a legal perspective or according to the circumstances, and he realized that it was difficult for him to continue with him, he desired separation and parting. Therefore, he objected even at the third incident.

Nawl:
Here, wage and compensation mean rent.

‘Amada al-Khidr ila nuh:
Khidr’s removing a plank from the boat was not noticed by any of the boatmen or passengers, so neither the sailors nor the passengers objected, nor did the boat sink.

Shay’an imra’an:
A very unpleasant act.

La turhiqni:
Do not burden me, i.e., do not hold me responsible or accountable.

Ma naqas ‘ilmi wa ‘ilmuka min ‘ilm Allah:
My knowledge and your knowledge have not diminished Allah’s knowledge in the least. These words are according to human idiom; otherwise, Allah’s knowledge is limitless, so the question of any decrease does not arise. The only point intended is that the knowledge of the created beings bears no comparison to the knowledge of Allah.

Note:
In place of “wara’ahum malik,” “amamahum malik,” and after “umm al-ghulam,” “wa kana kafiran”—these readings are for tafsir and explanation; they are not Qur’an.

Hadith Commentary:
Benefits and Issues:
Sa'id bin Jubayr and Nauf al-Bakali differed regarding the identity of Musa (alayhis salam), about whom Sa'id asked Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu). And here, the difference between Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) and Hur bin Qays is concerning the companion of Musa (alayhis salam)—who he was—and in this instance, the question was posed to Ubayy bin Ka'b (radi Allahu anhu).

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
"Anni a‘lamu bil-khayri minhu":
I know well who is better than him.
(2)
"Aw ‘inda man huwa":
Or with whom there is more goodness than him.
(3)
"Dullani ‘alayh":
Guide me to him,
so that I may reach him.
(4)
"‘Umiya ‘alayh":
The way became hidden from him and he became separated from his companion,
but this is a mistake of the narrator,
because at the time of the fish’s disappearance, Musa alayhis salam was sleeping right there,
but he (the servant) did not consider it appropriate to wake him.
(5)
"Halawat al-qafa’":
The middle of the nape,
meaning he was not lying on one side,
but rather lying on his back.
(6)
"Ma ja’aka bika":
You have come for some important and necessary task or for some purpose.
(7)
"Intaha ‘alayha":
(To break the plank)
He put all his weight on it.
(8)
"Badi ar-ra’y":
(Without thinking)
(9)
"Dhuri ‘indaha Musa dhuratan munkarah":
He became extremely frightened or terrified.
(10)
"Dhamaamah":
Shyness:
Fear of blame and reproach,
"li’am",
the plural of "la’im",
mean vile and base people,
because hospitality is part of good character,
and base people deny it.
(11)
"Tu’bi‘a yawma tu’bi‘a kafiran":
From the very first day, his heart was disposed to accept disbelief,
in his heart was placed the love of corruption and misguidance like the disbelievers, and ignorance and hardness, and the parents had affection and love for him,
so he would have become a cause of disbelief and rebellion for them,
therefore Allah Ta‘ala, by His perfect wisdom, had Khidr kill him to save the parents from his evil,
and if Khidr had not unveiled this reality, then, like other matters of divine decree,
we would not have been aware of the secret of this killing either.
Whatever decision Allah Ta‘ala makes for His servants,
it is always better for them,
therefore Allah Ta‘ala gave the parents a better child,
who, according to Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhu, was a girl,
from whose lineage a prophet was born.

From the incident of Musa and Khidr alayhima salam, it is established that a person should adopt humility and modesty and should not consider any of his own virtues or perfections to be complete, and should always desire an increase in knowledge,
even if he has to endure hardship and difficulty for it.
Hazrat Musa alayhis salam did not refrain from undertaking a sea journey for the sake of acquiring knowledge, and if there is a difference in any matter, one should refer to a greater scholar, and the purpose of discussion and investigation in scholarly matters should be to reach the truth,
not merely to display one’s own knowledge and greatness.
And the Prophets only have knowledge of those matters
which Allah Ta‘ala grants them knowledge of.
Hazrat Khidr
did not recognize Musa alayhis salam at first,
until he himself
informed him, and Hazrat Musa alayhis salam
could not understand the reality of Khidr’s actions,
so he could not remain silent about them, and in the end, he separated from him.
And from this it is also known that a scholar,
while traveling,
can keep a student with him for his service, and even a Prophet experiences hunger and fatigue and needs to carry provisions for the journey.
And Allah Ta‘ala knows
what has happened,
what will happen, and what will not happen, and if it were to happen, how it would happen.
And whatever is happening in the world,
is happening by His will and decree, and whatever a person does,
he does so with the power and choice granted by Him.
Disbelief and faith,
guidance and misguidance are also under His granted power and choice and His will and decree.
If He did not grant power and choice, a person could do nothing,
neither good,
nor evil,
neither harm,
nor benefit.
And a person should submit to every command of the Shari‘ah,
whether he understands the wisdom and benefit of the command or not.