"Where Two Seas Meet" The Qur

INFORMATION TO U SER S
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is d e p en d en t upon th e quality of the

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bieedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6R x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“W h e r e T w o S e a s M e e t ” :
T h e Q u r a n ic S t o r y o f K h id r a n d M o s e s
in S u f i C o m m e n t a r i e s
As a M o d e l f o r S p ir it u a l G u id a n c e
by
Hugh Talat Halman
Department of Religion
Duke University
Date (Q ( 2 ^ d ~ y i)
Approved.
Bruce B. Lawrence, Supervisor
V-/ ____
A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

o f the requirements for the Degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy
in the Department o f Religion
in the Graduate School o f Duke University
2000
UMI Number: 3003931
Copyright 2000 by
Halman, Hugh Talat
All rights reserved.
___ __®
UMI
UMI Microform 3003931
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright
Hugh Talat Halman
2000
ABSTRACT
(Religion)
“W h e r e T w o S e a s M e e t ” :
T h e Q u r a n ic S t o r y o f K h id r a n d M o s e s
in S u f i C o m m e n t a r i e s
A s a M o d e l f o r S p ir it u a l G u id a n c e
by
Hugh Talat Halman
Department o f Religion
Duke University
Date 12* J> '~L'(T5~b

Approved:
Bruce B. Lawrence, Supervisor
An abstract o f a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

o f the requirements for the Degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy
in the Department o f Religion
in the Graduate School o f Duke University
2000
ABSTRACT
The story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr (Qur’an 18.60-82) is often assumed to be a
model for the master-disciple relationship in Sufism. How have Sufi thinkers applied
this story to illuminating the relationship between spiritual guide (murshid) and
disciple (jnuridp. To investigate this question, we have presented original translations
and intertextual analyses o f the work o f three prominent Sufi exegetes: Abu T-Qasim
al-Qushayri (d. 1072), Ruzbihan Baqli (d. 1309), and ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (d.
1329).
After tracing the treatment o f the Quranic story in the hadith collections of
Bukhari and Muslim, the classical tafsir o f al-Tabari, this work examines the three Sufi
tafsirs. The themes in these tafsirs are related to the distinction between the instructing
master (shayfch a l-ta ‘lim) and mentor (shaykh al-suhba).
The commentator’s approaches to master-disciple relationships are related but
varied. Al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan both emphasize right conduct (adab), moral training
(ta ’dib), and mentoring companionship (suhba). Patience and obedience are necessary
to fulfill this mentoring relationship and resolve the “paradox o f mediation:” Moses
asked to be taught what had not been originally transmitted from a human teacher.
Unlike instruction (ta 7ini), this process o f mentoring companionship {su h b a /ta ’dib)
goes beyond discursive knowledge and involves both action (tasarruf) and silence.
M oses’ mistake is to have imposed stipulations o f conventional knowledge on Khidr’s
inspired knowledge. Ruzbihan follows this approach but accents as attributes o f
iv
shaykhs and saints the Khidrian qualities o f “unveiled discovery” (kashf[alethia\),
“discernment” (firasa [<diakresis]), “inspiration” (ilham), and “inner knowledge” ( ‘ilm
al-ladunni). Ruzbihan specifies that Khidr models these attributes from his station o f
“essential union: ( ‘ayn al-jam 0 in which the mediated and the mediator are one.
While al-Qashani also alludes to the master-disciple relationship, he identifies
the motifs as symbols o f the progressive training o f the soul. The disciple progresses
from the stations o f commanding soul (al-nafs al-ammara) and blaming soul (al-nafs
al-lawwama) to the establishment o f the contented soul (al-nafs al-mutma ’inna).
Where al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan apply the story to mentoring relationships, al-
Qashani extends its allegorization to the interior journey. All three exegetes engage in a
“hermeneutic of recognition” in which the narrative’s symbols evoke at once the inner
phenomena o f Sufism and its institutional expressions.
A cknow ledgements
All intellectual work is an enterprise shared among friends, colleagues, and mentors.
This present work explores this side o f the journey of learning and discovery. I owe a
great debt o f gratitude for many people who have contributed to this project and its
fulfillment.
Bruce Lawrence, who first awakened my academic interest in al-Khidr, has
been a stalwart advocate o f my research and has helped me in innumerable ways as a
friend and mentor. He has been a true guide. His Khidrian patience, persistence,
prodding, and perspectives have made this work possible. His generosity o f heart,
insight, and critical acumen has been outstanding.
Vincent Cornell has embodied the art o f dialogue. His capacity to listen and
offer both professional and personal insights has brought clarity to the more
challenging passages o f this endeavor. His understanding o f Sufi hermeneutics and
institutions has been a great gift to my work.
Rkia Cornell who shared m y enthusiasm for the tafsirs on Khidr gave her time
and expertise in Arabic and Sufi literature generously to guide me through the dense
and elliptical prose o f these exegetical masters. In her spirit and critical acumen she is a
true amat o f these luminaries.
Carl Ernst, who gave form to my wide-ranging interests in the topic o f Khidr,
gave me valuable insights into Ruzbihan and his world. The initial design o f this work
vi
was his inspiration. His encouragement, guidance, and understanding o f the master-
disciple relationship heightened my sense o f the importance o f this project.
Miriam Cooke took an interest in some o f the more perplexing passages o f
tranlation and generously contributed insightful suggestions on the translator’s craft.
Rick Colby and Omid Safi shared their work and their insights along the way.
Their friendship has been an inspiration.
I appreciate the support I received from two fellowships at Duke University:
the Kearns Fellowship (Spring 1998) and the Duke University Graduate School
Dissertation Fellowship (Autumn 2000).
Fakir Mehmet Sherif Catalkaya al-Rifa‘i inspired me to seek the interpretive
depths o f the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr and to work to apply its existential
and universal teachings.
Alfred B. Urzi helped me understand the process o f the work, how to
persevere, and how to complete it.
My parents, Talat Halman and Barbara Maggid, opened my eyes to the world
and to the world o f mystical literature. Their lives, love, and guidance called me to seek
the place “where two seas meet.”
My friend and wife Laura Thiel shared my enthusiasm for Moses’ journey
w ith Khidr and aided the completion o f this work through her love and support.
Others, unnamed here, through their love, enthusiasm, and recognition o f the
potential value o f this work also contributed to its unfolding. I am grateful to them all.
vii
Blessed is the one who finds such a ‘servant [from our servants]’ and who holds the
story o f Moses and Khidr in his heart, and makes it his Imam.
Shams-i Tabrizi, Maqalat, 2:161
The Prophet said, “He was named al-Khidr because he sat upon barren white land and
when he did, it became green with vegetation.”
Sahih Bukhari IV. 23. 614
...[M oses’] difficulties became solved, and he [Khidr] gave to him [Moses]
the key to every question (in a way) beyond telling.
Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi

Mathnawi n.3529
When the Pir has accepted thee, take heed, surrender thyself (to him):
Go like Moses under the authority of Khidr.
Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi

Mathnawi I. 2969
North and South and West are crumbling,

Thrones are falling, kingdoms trembling:
Come flee away to purer East,
There on patriarch’s air to feast;
There with love and drink and song
Khidr’s spring shall make thee young.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe, “Hijra, o r Flight,”

W est-oestlicher Divan (West-Eastern Divan)
Section I “Moghanni Namah; or, Book of the
Singer”
viii
R e p ro d u c e d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
C ontents
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s ................................................................................................................................ v i
C h a pt e r
1. In t r o d u c t io n : In t e r pr e t in g the M a st er -D isciple R el a tio n sh ip — T he

G reen M a n a l -K h id r , t h e M entor of M o s e s ............................................ 1
2. T he Faces of K h id r a s E x c e p t io n a l S e r v a n t , M y st ic a l M entor , and

P o p u l a r P a r a d ig m : F r o m Q u r ’a n a n d H a d it h t o Sun T a f s i r s 40
3. Sun T a f s i r s in T r a n s l a t i o n : T r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e S e c t i o n s o f T h r e e
Sun T a f s i r s ’ T r e a t m e n t s o f t h e S t o r y o f M o s e s ’ J o u r n e y w it h
K h id r ( Q u r ’a n 18.60-82):
(1) Abu T-Qasim al-Qushayri (376 A.H./986 C.E.- 465 A.H./1072

C.E.)
(2) Ruzbihan Baqli (522 A .H ./1128 C.E. - 606 A.H. / 1209 C.E.)
(3) ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (d. 730 A.H. - 1329 C.E.)......... 102
4. I n te r te x tu a lity am on g Sun T a f s ir s : C om p an ion sh ip , T r a in in g , a n d

K n o w le d g e in Sun R e a d in g s o f M o s e s ’ J o u r n e y w i t h K h id r .. .. 150
5 . K h id r a s t h e M i r r o r a n d M o d e l o f t h e M a s t e r (M ursh id )
in Sun H a g io g r a p h y a n d L i t e r a t u r e ........................................................ 2 2 4
6 . C o n c l u sio n : M o s e s ’ Jo u r n e y w it h K h id r —In n e r K n o w l e d g e a n d
M a n if e st P r a c t ic e in M e n t o r in g R e l a t io n s h ip s .................................. 2 8 3
B ib l io g r a p h y ...............................................................................................................................3 0 8
ix
I n t r o d u c t io n
I n t e r p r e t in g the M a s t e r - D is c ip l e R e l a t io n s h ip :
T he G reen M a n a l - K h id r , t h e M entor of M o ses
One night in 1194, the Andalusian Sufi Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi (1165-1240) was
traveling by boat from Tunis when he witnessed an extraordinary event:
I was in a boat in the port o f Tunis. I had a pain in my stomach, but the people were
sleeping so I went to the side o f the boat and I looked out over the sea. Suddoily I saw
by die light o f the moon, which was full that night; someone coming towaid m e on the
surfare o f the water. Finally he came up to me and stood with me. First he stood on
one leg and raised the other so I could see that his leg was not wet. Then he did the
same with the other leg. After talking to m e for a while in his own language, he saluted
me and went o ff making for a lighthouse on top o f a hill over two miles distant from
us. This distalce he covered in two or three steps. I could hear him praising God on the
lighthouse. He had often visited our Shaykh al-Kinani, an elder o f the order who lived
at Marsa Tdun, from whose house I had come that evening. When I returned to the
town a man met m e who had asked m e how m y night with Khidr on the boat had been,
what he had said to me and what I had said to him.
How do we approach this narrative? W hat did this meeting with Khidr mean to Ibn
‘Arabi? And what was this special language (“his own language”) which Khidr used to
communicate?
This work focuses on the Islamic figure al-Khidr, the “Green One,” or, the
“Green Man.”2 Khidr’s story, which appears in the eighteenth chapter o f the Qur’an
1 Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi, Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya I: 186; 3: 182, quoted in Ralph W. J. Austin, The
Sufis ofAndalusia (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1971), 27; Claude Addas, Quest fo r the
R ed Sulphur: The Life o f Ibn 'Arabi (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993), 298-299.
2 The name ( laqab ) or title o f “Khidr” which derives from the Arabic root for the word green,
akhdar is rendered formally as al-Khadir and more colloquially as al-Khidr, Khidr, and Khizr. The
distinctions pertain m ostly to vow elling and pronunciation. Each o f these forms translates as the
“green,” or the “green one.” Although the name Khidr does not appear in the text o f the Qur’an, the
identification is exegetically supplied in the hadith where it is traced back to the Prophet Muhammad.
1
(18.60-82), presents him as a teacher, guide, and mentor o f Moses. In the next chapter
we will present and analyze the Quranic story o f Khidr and Moses in detail. Then in
subsequent chapters, we follow an exegetical stream o f Islamic sources which interpret
and apply this Quranic narrative. We will show how this Islamic exegetical tradition
has applied the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr to an understanding o f the
practice o f mentoring or spiritual guidance in Islam’s mystical tradition o f Sufism
(Jasawwuf).
The Story o f M oses' Journey with Khidr
In the next chapter we will analyze the Quranic story and explore its exegetical
contexts in the Islamic tradition. For now, to help situate this introductory discussion,
we will present the core o f the story as it appears in the Qur’an. In this story Moses
seeks Khidr at the mysterious and elusive place “where two seas meet,” and petitions
Khidr to teach (tu ‘allimani) him the guidance (rushd) he has received from God. Moses
accompanies Khidr on a journey which tests the limits o f Moses’s patience and moral
sensibility. Surprisingly, it is the prophet Moses who submits to Khidr for guidance,
training, and learning. But Moses is not able to keep company with Khidr. Having lost
patience (sabr) with Khidr’s actions, Moses did not and could not understand and
interpret Khidr’s actions in their true light. And, as Khidr stipulates, it was patience
See Muhammad ibn Isma’il b. al-Mughirah al-Bukhari (194-256), Sahih Bukhari Volume I, Book 3,
Chapter 17, no. 74; and IV,55, 23, no. 612, 614. ed. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Medina: Islamic
University, 1976.
2
which would have been required for Moses to continue in a fruitful relationship of
companionship, spiritual guidance, or mentoring (suhba). Ironically, this story which
yields diverse exegetical applications, is at once brief, elliptical, and opaque:
60. And when Moses said to his young servant, “I w ill not cease until I reach the
meeting o f the two seas or I will continue for ages.”
61. And when they reached the meeting between them, they forgot their fish and it took
its way into the sea [through] an opening.
62. And when they had passed on, he [Moses] said to his servait, “Give us our meal;
we have encomtered on our journey fatigue.”
63. He [the young servant] said, “Did you see when we came to the rock? Indeed I
forgot the fish and it was only Satan that caused m e to forget to mention that it took its
way into the sea wondoously”
64. He [Moses] said, “This is what we were seeking.” So they retraced their footsteps.
65. And he found a servait from among Our servaits. We gave him mercy (rahma)
from Us. And We taugft him knowledge from Our Presence ( ‘allamnahu min laduma
‘lima).
66. Moses said to him, “May I follow you so that you may teach me (tu'aUimni) the
guidaice (rushd). you have learned?’
67. He [Khick] said, “Indeed, you will not be able to have patience (sabr ) with me.
68. How can you be patiait concerning what your understanding (fchubr) does not
encompass?’
69. He [Moses] said, “You will find me, God willing (in sh a ’ Allah) patient and I will
not disobey you in anything.”
70. He [Khidr] said, “If you would follow me, then do not ask me about anything until
I mention (dhikr) it to you.”
71. So they proceeded until when they rode in the boat, he broke it. He [Moses] said,
“Did you intend to drown its people? You have done a strange thing”
72. He [Khick] answered, “Did I not tell you that you would not be able to have
patience with m e?’
73. He [Moses] said, “Don’t blame m e that I forgot and don’t grieve me with
difficulty.”
74. And they journeyed until they encomtered a youth and he [Khidr] killed him. He
[Moses] said, “Did you kill a pure soul [who had not slain] another soul? Truly you
have done a reprdiensible thing”
75. He [Khidr] said, “Did I not tell you that you would not be able to have patience
with m e?’
76. He [Moses] said, “I f I ask you about anything after this, then don’t keep
compaiionship with m e (iusahibini). You have received an excuse from m e.”
77. So they proceeded until when they came to the people o f the village. They sought
food from its people, but they refused them hospitality. And they found in it [the
village] a wall verging toward (yuridu) destruction and he [Khick-] raised it up. He
[Moses] said, “If you had wished you could have taken a reward for it.”
78. He [Khidr] said, “This is the parting between m e and you. But I will tell you
(s a ’u m bi’uka) the ultimate meaning (t a ’wil) o f what you did not have the patiaice to
bean
79. “As for the boat, it belonged to poor people who worked on the sea and I wanted
(aradtu) to make it useless, for there followed them a king who took every boat by
force
80. “As for the youth, his parents were believers (mu ’minairi) and we feared that he
would oppress them with rebellion and disbdief.
81. “So w e desired (aradna) that their Lord would g ive them one better in purity and
closer in mercy (rahma).
82. “And as for the wall, it belonged to two youths. They were orphans in the town and
under it was a treasure belonging to them. Their fatho- had been a righteous man
( salih ). So your Lord desired that they reach their maturity and retrieve their treasure — a
mercy (rahma) from your Lord. And I did not do it by m y own comm aid. That is the
ultimate meaning (ta ’wtt) o f what you could not bear with patience.”
K hidr‘s Roles and Representations
Who is Khidr, the mentor o f Moses, and what related roles does he fill? In
popular culture Khidr is commonly recognized as a legendary immortal, a patron saint
o f travelers, and a symbol o f saintly proximity to God. In the tradition o f Sufism,
Khidr represents both the saint or “friend o f God” (wali A llah) and the spiritual master
(shaykh, p ir; murshid). Khidr’s roles opens the question o f complementary modes o f
authority shared by two types: (1) the figure o f the prophet (nabi! pi. anbiya *), whose
line in Muslim prophetology has ended with the seal o f the prophets, Muhammad, the
Messenger o f God (Rasul Allah), and (2) the figure o f the saint or “friend o f God,”
(w ali Allah) whose line o f sainthood (wilayaAvalaya) continues in the lineage o f the
Sufis.3 Explaining the use o f Khidr in a hagiography o f the illiterate, wild, and widely-
respected Berber saint Abu Yiczza (d. 572/1177), Vincent Cornell comments:
|T]his legendary purveyor o f peremial wisdom [Khick-], although denied the status o f
prophet by the majority o f Muslim opinion, was nonetheless able, as a wali Allah, to
surpass the prophet Moses in his understanding o f the mysteries that lie beyond
mundaie perception.4
Ahmad al-‘Azafi’s hagiography is one instance among many in which the figure o f
Khidr symbolizes and legitimates the continuing presence o f wisdom and grace,
embodied in the saint (w ali A llah) or spiritual master (murshid), even after the end of
prophecy. And as al-‘Azafi’s hagiography shows, Khidr represents an aspect o f the
saint’s authority which in some ways not only complements but also augments the
knowledge and authority invested in the prophet.
In addition to being a colorful figure spanning a variety o f Islamic —and even
some Western —literatures, Khidr’s story informs an understanding o f the master-
disciple relationship, mentoring or spiritual guidance within a Sufi context. A small
number o f scholars have alluded to the symbolic role o f Khidr in the construction of
the understanding o f the role o f the spiritual master and the process o f spiritual
3 For a careful inquiry into the prospects and problems o f terminologies o f Islamic sainthood,
see Vincent J. Cornell, Realm o f the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sttfism (Austin:
University o f Texas Press, 1998), xvii-xxi and 272-285. For a short introduction to the terms o f
sainthood and a comparison with the type o f the Prophet, see Frederick M. Denny, “ ‘God’s Friends:’
The Sanctity o f Persons in Islam,” in Richard Kieckhefer and George D. Bond, eds. Sainthood: Its
Manifestations in World Religions (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1988), 69-97. The
alternative titling o f this essay as it appears in the table o f contents is instructive: “Prophet and Wali:
Sainthood in Islam.”
4 Idem, 79. This hagiography was written by the legist Ahmad al-‘Azafi (d. 633/1236), D i
'amat al-yaqin f i z i ‘amat ak-muttaqin (The Pillar o f Certainty in the Leadership o f the God-conscious).
5
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Fu rther reproduction prohibited without permission.
guidance. However no one has explored the contribution of the story o f Moses’
journey with Khidr to the development and explanation o f that mentoring process o f
spiritual guidance. Yet, spiritual guidance is essential to the transmission o f the
mystical heritage and practice of Suflsm.
How have those few scholars who identify Khidr as a model o f mentoring
explained his role? Irfan Omar5 identifies Khidr as providing an alternative to a living
master, but ignores three issues: (1) the nature o f discipleship with Khidr; (2) the more
prevalent trend o f relationships with Khidr as a complement to relationships with
living masters; and (3) the role o f the story o f Khidr and Moses in informing the
practice o f discipleship with a living master.
James Jervis6 alludes to the story as a type o f tale about an “apprentice hero’s
journey with his magical or mystical mentor.” He leaves the question o f the
relationship unexplored and initiates instead a wide-ranging esoteric and theosophical
literary exploration o f the symbolism o f Khidr and the color green. Jervis’ designation
o f Khidr as an “angel,” and his interpretation o f the story as a “visionary recital” may
provide interesting analogies, but they may also be misleading. Such interpretations
seem at variance with the majority o f texts on Khidr.
Shawkat Toorawa7 calls the story at the outset “influential in elaborations of
s Irfan Omar, “Khidr in the Islamic Tradition,” Muslim World 83, no.3-4 (July-October
1993): 279-294.
6James Jervis, “Khizn the Emerald Angel o f the Heart,” Hikmat vol. HI, no. 6 (July 1992): 37-
44.
7 Shawkat Toorawa, “Khidr: the History o f a Ubiquitous Master,” SUFI Issue 30 (Summer
6
the notion o f the master-disciple relationship in Sufism ...”(p. 45) but leaves this vital
topic unexplored. Toorawa’s article is otherwise an interesting —if somewhat erratic —
survey o f literary, hagiographical, and classical sources.
Ian Richard N etton8 asserts that Ibn ‘Arabi’s interpretation o f Moses and
Khidr’s separation as a “mutual agreement,” rather than failure on M oses’s’ part,
should be construed to mean that while Khidr is the “Supreme Master,” Khidr and
Moses were not engaged in a master-disciple relationship: “There is no Master/Pupil
relationship here in Ibn al-cArabi’s text in which al-Khadir is the Supreme M aster.”9
N etton’s view o f “mutuality” is only one aspect o f Ibn ‘Arabi’s treatment o f the
relationship and the separation. A n alternative reading o f Ibn ‘Arabi’s discussion
suggests that Khidr defers to M oses’s status as Apostle, out o f respect for M oses’s
office, not as an endorsement o f M oses’s decision to effect their separation.10
One scholar who has considered the relationship between the story o f Khidr
and Moses and the master-disciple relationship is Sara Sviri.11 In a personal and poetic
essay Sviri uses the Khidr story to describe the teacher relationship based on her own
experience and as she applies it to the case o f the contemporary Naqshbandi teacher
1996), 45-49.
* Ian Richard Netton, “Theophany as Paradox: Ibn al-‘Arabi’s Account o f al-Khadir in His
Fusus al-Hikam,” Journal o f the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society 11 (1992): 11-22.
9 Netton, ibid., 18.
10 Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam {The Bezels o f Wisdom) trans. Ralph W. J. Austin
(N ew York: Paulist Press, 1980), 259-260.
11 Sara Sviri, “Where the Two Seas Meet: the Story o f Khidr,” SUFI Issue 31 (Autumn 1996):
28-37.
7
Irina Tweedie.12 In Khidr, Sviri finds the paradoxical qualities of the teacher as both “a
merciful, nourishing benefactor” and a “ruthless, uncompromising demolisher o f habits
and thought forms.” (p. 36) She describes the teacher as both “undertaker and
midwife” (p. 33); “a reviver o f dead souls and the destroyer o f illusions” (p. 35); “like
a finely-tuned compass, [which] always points to the ‘mystical north’ ” (p. 35); “a
black hole...a door to the beyond.” (p. 35) These descriptions, at once poetic and
dramatic, are useful to the practitioner though they do not relate to more conventional
Sufi discourse on the m urshid-m urid relationship. Sviri provides leads for what might
be found in extra-Quranic literature, but does not explore its treatment o f the topic.
Sufism: Inner Knowledge and Teaching Authority
This work focuses on examining the relationship between the story o f Khidr and
Moses and the mentoring relationship o f spiritual guidance as that relationship appears
in Sufi tafsirs and hagiographies. The figure o f Khidr plays a distinctive role in Sufi
exegesis. He has served as both an example and counterexample -- sometimes justifying
and sometimes challenging —the role o f the mentor in the spiritual training o f disciples
(murids). This work is situated in an Islamic mystical framework, the mystical
dimension o f Islam identified as Sufism (tasawwuj). Our work calls for attention to the
Qur’an as scripture and the two principal genres o f Quranic exegesis: hadith,
(authenticated reports o f the Prophet Muhammad’s words, acts, and decisions); and
12 Irina Tweedie, Daughter o f Fire (Inverness, California: Golden Sufi Center Publishing,
1986).
8
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tafsir (the corpus o f scriptural commentary). As a work on Sufism, this study requires
attention to Sufi Qur’an commentary and its contemporary historical context.
What then is Sufism? Some traditional answers are simple and brief: “Sufism is
good moral characteristics. Whoever surpasses you in good moral characteristics
surpasses you in purity.”13 The 14th-century scholar Ibn Khaldun described Sufism as
a “special field” within the science o f Islamic religious law:
It is concaned with pious exertion, self-scrutiny with regard to it, discussion o f the
diffoent kinds o f mystical and ecstatic experience occurring in the course o f (se lf
scrutiny), the mode o f ascent from one mystical experience to another, and the
interpretation o f the technical terminology o f mysticism in use among them_.Mystical
exertion, retirement, and spiritual exercises are as a rule followed by the removal o f the
veil o f sensual perception. The Sufi beholds divine worlcfc which a person subject to
the senses cannot perceive at all. 14
These definitions stress Sufism as moral character (akhlaq) and a curriculum o f training
leading to mystical experience. Other definitions stress Sufism as a path o f love. In the
11th century al-Hujwiri wrote:
“Sufi” is a name which is given, and has formo-ly been given, to the perfect saints and
spiritual adepts. One o f the Snaykhs says: Man saffchu ‘l-hubb fa huwa saf" wa man
saffahu ‘l-habib fa-hwva Sufiyy"', “He that is purified by love is pure, and he that is
absorbed in the Beloved and has abandoned all else is a Sufi.15
13 Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri, Risalah al-Qushayriyyah Transited by Barabara von Schlegell as

Principles o f Sufism (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1991), 304.
14 ‘Abd al-Rahman Abu Zayd ibn Muhammad b. Muhammad ibn Khaldun (1332-140 6), Kitab
al- ‘Ibar. Translated by Franz Rosenthall; edited and abridged by N J . Dawood as The Muqaddimah: An
Introduction to History. Bollingen Series XLIII (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 360
15 Abu’l al-Hasan ‘A li al-Hujwiri (1039-1073), Kashf asl-Mahjub, trans. Reynold A .

Nicholson, K ashf al-Mahjub: the Oldest Persian Treatise on Sufism (London: Luzac, 1911) and rpt. as
The Revelation o f the Mystery. (Accord, N .Y .: Pir Publications, 1999), 34.
Finally, some definitions o f Sufism emphasize its aspect o f inner knowledge. In this
lO^-century example, the story o f Khidr provides the basis o f the definition:
The sciences o f Sufian are eso tsic knowledge, which is the knowledge o f inspiration,
and an unmediated secret between God (the mighty and majestic) and his friends [i.e.,
the saints]; it is knowledge from the presmce. God the mighty And the majestic said
[that Al-Khidr was one] “whom w e taught knowledge from our presence’’ (Qur’an
18.65). That is the special knowledge which is the sign o f the saints and the reality o f
wisdom...When asked about this esotoic knowledge, the Prophet said,] “It is
knowledge between God and his friends o f which neither proximate angel nor any one
o f his creatures is aware” Thus every outer has an inner; every inner has a secret; and
every secret has a reality. This is what God the great and majestic gives to his friends,
as a secret by a secret. It is one o f the signs o f sainthood. The saints subsist by that,
and they live a wonderful life by it. They are the most powerful o f God’s creatures after
the prophets fGod’s blessings upon them all), and their sciences are the m ost powerful
o f sciences. 1
These examples reveal four main themes found among various definitions o f
Sufism: (1) moral character (akhlaq; adab)', (2) spiritual training (tarbiyya, riyada); (3)
love ( ‘ishq, hubb); and (4) inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni).
This study especially centers on how Sufi Qur’an commentators have used the
story of Moses and Khidr to explore two important dimensions o f Sufi practice and
training: adab or the proper conduct and etiquette between master and disciple;17 and
16Adab al-Muluk (10th century, unattributed ) selection translated by in Carl Ernst, in ibid.,
The Shambhala Guide to Sufism. (Boston: Shambhala, 1997), 62. Although the identification o f
Khidr’s name has to be inserted by the translator, the identification is clear because o f the phrase,
“whom We taught knowledge from our presence.” This phrase appears only once in the Qur’an and
describes Khidr (18.65).
17Adab as a means o f mystical training resulting in the development o f akhlaq (morals) is
discussed in the following works: Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri, Ar-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah, trans.
Barbara von Schlegell, Principles o f Sufism (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1990), 280-81; 308-315. A l-
Hujwiri, ibid., 333-366. Muhammad Ajmal. “Adab in the Murshid-Murid Relationship.” ed., Barbara
Metcalf, Moral Conduct and Authorityf Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1984), 245ff. Gerhard
Bowering, “Adab Literature o f Classical Sufism: Ansari’s Code o f Conduct” ed. Barbara Metcalf,
M oral Conduct and Authority. (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1984), 66 fF. James W.
Morris, “Situating Islamic ‘Mysticism’ ” ed. R.A. Herrera, Mystics o f the Book: Themes Topics,
Typologies. (N ew York: Peter Lang, 1993), 298. F. Gabrielli, “Adab,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam. Vol.
I. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), 175-176. A related concept o f great significance is the Quranicly-based
10
suhba, the mentoring or companionship which underlies the transmission o f knowledge
and spiritual experience in a Sufi register.18 Both concepts are interrelated. Adab, which
may be translated by terms such as “culture,” “rules o f discipline,” “correct behavior,”
and “comportment,” involves the training o f the soul on a number o f levels. Al-
Qushayri explains the adab o f the Sufis in this way:
Abu Cl-Nasr al-Tusi al-Sarraj observed,... “The elect are conconed with cleansing the
heart, guarding the secrets, being faithful to oaths, holding to the present momert,
stopping attention to stray thoughts, and having correct behavior at times o f requesting
when in the divine presence and in the stations o f nearness.19
The concept o f adab is associated closely with the Prophet Muhammad who is
considered the model o f adab and is recorded as having said, “My Lord disciplined me
and taught me the most virtuous conduct.” (Adabni Rabbifa-ahsana ta ’dibf)20
Al-Hujwiri describes the importance o f suhba for the training for novices and
implies that its basis is adab:.
term akhlaq (ethics, morals, innate disposition). See R. Walzer, “Akhlak,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam.
V ol I. Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. 325-329.
18 Suhba as a form o f spiritual development is discussed in the following: Khaliq Ahmad
N izam i, “Suhba,” in Encyclopedia o f Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade. (New York: Macmillan, 1987). Al-
Hujwiri, ibid., 333-366. J. Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1969), passim.
19 Al-Qushayri, Principles o f Sufism, 312.
20 Javad Nurbaksh, ed. Traditions o f the Prophet vol. 2. (N ew York: Khaniqah Nimattulahi
Publications, 1983), 47. Hujwiri, ibid., p. 334.
11
Since you have perceived that the m ost important thing for the novice is
compaiionship, the fulfillment o f its obligations is necessarily incumbent upon him.
Solitude is fetal to the novice, for the Apostle [Muhanmad] said, “Satan is with the
solitary, but he is further away from two who are together” ....T he principle o f the Sufis
in companionship is that they should treat everyone according to his degree. Thus they
treat old men with respect, like fathers; those o f their own sort with agreeable
familiarity, like brothers; and young men with affection, like sons.21
This study o f the story o f Khidr and Moses in Sufi commentaries explores a
network of related themes: categories o f knowledge, types o f teachers and mentors,
and spiritual psychology and its pedagogy in the sense which late antique Christians
gave to the term paideia.21 Together these themes contribute to an investigation o f the
means for the transmission o f intimate or inner knowledge. This intimate or inner
knowledge is introduced in the Quranic text through the phrase, “We taught him
knowledge from Our presence ( ‘allamnahu min ladunna ‘ilma).”23 From this phrase
exegetes have codified the term ‘ilm ladunni, which translates as “knowledge from
[God’s] presence,” or “divinely-bestowed knowledge.” The term ‘ilm ladunni
describes an inspired God-given knowledge transmitted outside textual and
institutional channels. This inner knowledge is paired with divinely-bestowed mercy
mentioned in the same verse: “And We bestowed upon him mercy from O urself’
(a ‘taynahu rahmatan min ‘indina).24 Together this knowledge and mercy lie beyond
21 Al-Hujwiri, K ashf al-Mahjub, 338-9.
22 Peter Brown, “The Saint as Exemplar in Late Antiquity,” Represetations 1:2 (Spring 1983):
1-23. Brown explains that the paideia o f the Christian saints focused on establishing virtue in a person
through face to face contact
23 Qur’an Sura al-Kahf (18.65)
24 The term rahma eludes translation. It is often translated as mercy, compassion, or grace.
However rahma is used in a broad sense that includes all these and more, especially the activity o f
revelation. The root r-h-m yields words which include two o f the most repeated Names o f God,
12
discursive structures and are unmediated. The Quranic concept o f ‘ilm ladunni both
evokes and legitimates a Sufi epistemology and esoteric exegesis which ‘recognizes’ in
the signs o f the Qur’an reflections o f a trained and disciplined mystical consciousness.
These themes all invite questions about the relationship between two poles of
authority in Sufism: the book and the master.25 The example o f Khidr leads to the
question o f whether or how spiritual guides may or may not serve as exemplars o f the
prophetic sunna, the norms and standards o f behavior, faith, and practice established
by the Prophet Muhammad. Ultimately the example o f Khidr leads to the paradox
struck between the mediator’s direct acquisition o f (unmediated) knowledge and grace
from God, on the one hand, and his role which finds him being asked to mediate that
knowledge and grace, on the other.
The sections o f three Sufi commentaries which treat the story o f Moses’
journey with Khidr are presented in original translations and examined:
Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri (376/986 -465/1072), Lata’i f al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim

Basyuni (6 vols.; Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Arabi, 1968-71). Vol 2, pp. 406-412.
Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi, Sadr al-Din

Abu Muhammad (522/1128-606/1209), ‘Ara ’is al-bayan f i haqa 'iq al-
Rahman and Rahim and also the word for the womb, rahim. These more comprehensive, ubiquitous,
and maternal resonances cannot be matched in English, The English words “caring” and “kind” offer the
advantage o f carrying some o f the maternal resonances (especially since the word kind is related to
“kin”). The English words “mercy,” with its connotations o f exchange (“commerce”), “compassion,”
with its connotations o f suffering (“passion,” pathos), and “grace,” with its connotation o f a quality
from outside the natural order, to different degrees elude the semantic field o f rahma.
“ This relationship between poles o f authority is described in Muhsin Mahdi, “The Book and
Master as Poles o f Cultural Change in Islam, “ in Islam and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages:
Fourth Giorgio Della Vida Biennial Conference. Ed. Speros Vryonis Jr. (Weisbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1975), 3-14.
13
qur ’an / The Brides o f Explanation on the Realities o f the Q ur’an.
Cawnpore (1285/1868-9) Calcutta 1300/1883; Karachi
(1310/1892-3) (Arabic Lithographs) Lithograph supplied by Alan
Godlas.
‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (d. 730/1329), Tafsir al-Q ur’an al-Karim

(attributed to Muhyi al-Din ibn ‘Arabi), ed. Mustafa
Ghalib (2 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 766-773.
In this chapter our purpose is to introduce briefly the figure o f Khidr, to
indicate his ubiquity and significance, and to outline the direction o f this study. An
additional purpose o f this introduction is to outline some relevant theoretical issues.
One might begin with the very question o f how this story applies to teacher-student or
master-disciple relationships. What legitimates the interpretation o f Khidr as either a
teacher or an analogue or model o f teaching? Is this assessment o f Khidr as an example
o f a teacher inherent in the Qur’anic narrative or is it a function o f eisegesis? In the text
o f the Qur’an it is narrated that God has taught Khidr. Khidr is “one o f Our servants
to whom We had taught knowledge from Our presence ( 'allamanahu min ladunna
‘ilma).” Does the fact that God taught this knowledge translate to the potential for it
to be readily taught to another person? As we shall see, al-Qushayri and Ruzbihuan
Baqli do not assume this. Moses approaches Khidr and asks to “follow” him (hal
attabi ‘uka [May I follow you?...]) so that, as Moses says, “y °u might teach me”
(tu ’allimanf); Khidr, in his response acknowledges that Moses may “follow”
(ittaba ‘tani) him, but does not explicitly identify his activity as teaching. Interpreting
their relationship as that o f teaching seems plausible, but involves a number o f
14
inferences.26 While contextual clues may be taken to suggest that their relationship
involves teaching, direct indication is more elusive: Moses proposes that Khidr “teach”
him; Khidr, in turn affirms that Moses may “follow” him and before their parting,
Khidr conveys to Moses the “true meaning” (ta ’wil) o f the acts he committed. Is
Khidr’s agreement to allow Moses to “follow” him equally an intention to teach
Moses and accept him as his student? Does Moses’ assertion that Khidr can teach him
validate our inference that Khidr is a teacher? Are the contextual inferences sufficient
to be counted as proof that Khidr’s role is that o f teacher? And if Khidr is a teacher,
what are his methods? How much o f Khidr’s teaching role is fulfilled in the three acts
on the journey as compared with his verbal explanations before he and Moses part?
Other theoretical issues emerge as well: How does the authority o f Khidr’s
inner knowledge complement or challenge textual, institutional, and juridical authority?
How does this basis o f authority relate to authority derived from the Prophetic
precedent (sunna)? How shall we situate our analysis, and that o f our commentators in
relation to typological comparisons? Can we apply our discussion o f Khidr to
26 Moses requests to follow Khidr in order that Khidr might “teach” him (tu ’allimani [18.66])
and Khidr explains the terms Moses must fulfill if he would “follow ” him ( ittaba'tani [18.70]). It is
M oses who assumes and asserts that Khidr’s knowledge is a guidance which he can be taught. (“May I
follow you that you might teach m e ( tu ’allimani) o f what you have been taught ( ‘ullimta) o f guidance
(rushd ).” [18.66]) In introducing Khidr, the Qur’an says o f him, “We taught him knowledge from Our
presence ( ‘allamnahu min ladunna ‘ilma).” The text establishes that God taught Khidr but leaves
unresolved the question o f whether Khidr can in turn teach this knowledge to Moses. We note these
points here as they w ill relate to the assessment by the Sufi Qur’an commentator al-Qushayri (translated
below in chapter three and discussed in chapter four) that Khidr’s knowledge is unmediated and
therefore cannot be taught. The fact that Khidr him self neither introduces, nor appropriates M oses’s use
o f “teaching” bears upon the question o f whether Khidr’s knowledge is unteachable. These
considerations also relate to different types o f teaching. Al-Qushayri, for example, will distinguish two
types o f teaching: guidance ( tarbiyya ) and instruction (ta ‘lini).
15
considerations o f the master-disciple relationship across traditions? In addition to
introducing these considerations, we will present the development and direction o f the
subsequent chapters in studying how Sufi commentators have used the figure o f Khidr
as a model for mystical mentorship.
Why is the M entor o f M oses a “Green Man? ’’
Often when one mentions the “Green Man” outside o f an Islamic context, one may
think o f the Green Man whose stone images grace household gardens, and the pagan
figure o f the Green Man.27 Many medieval cathedrals featured faces framed with
foliage; these were the faces o f the Green Man. There are “green” saints: St. George
and St. Michael. In the Arthurian cycle, Sir Gawain is initiated by a Green Knight.28
People concerned about “men in black,” think about “little green men.” Star Wars fans
may think o f Luke’s teacher, the green-skinned Yoda. Some think o f Mayday’s Jack-
in-the-Green (the subject o f a Jethro Tull song.) A magazine titled The Green Man
features articles for pagan men. Who is the “Green Man?” In a recent popular book,
27 For a treatment o f the Green Man from this perspective see William Anderson, The Green
Man: the Archetype o f Our Oneness with the Earth. (London and San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990)
and Kathleen Basford, The Green Man. (Ipswich, 1978).
28 Brian Stone, tr. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (London: Penguin Books, 1959). The
persona and actions o f the Green Knight, as Stone describes them echo in some ways the stages o f
Khidr’s persona and acts: “Thus, on his first appearance he is described successively as a terrifying giant
01- 137-40), a handsome and well-built knight (11. 141-6), a weirdly green - and hence, implicitly
supernatural person (11. 147-50. ..And on his last appearance, besides all these, he appears as a warm and
sympathetic human being (11.2333-6), an omniscient confessor who judges with accuracy and
compassion, and above all with authority (11. 2338-99, and finally as a human, subtly diminished by
the termination o f his supernatural function.” (idem, 116).
16
The Green Man William Anderson includes “Green Men” from a range o f periods and
cultures, including: Osiris (who usually was depicted as green), Attis, Adonis,
Dionysis, and even Robin Hood!
Why would an Islamic figure bear the name the “Green Man?” First, green is
the emblematic color o f Islam. The Prophet Muhammad usually wore green or white;
the dome o f the mosque o f the Prophet is green; paradise, the eternal garden, is
implicitly a green realm. Verses in the Qur’an describe the inhabitants o f paradise
wearing green robes29 and reclining on green couches.30 The Andalusian traveler Ibn
Jubayr, writing in the eleventh century, reported that the Ka‘aba’s silk covering
(kiswa) was green.31 The significance o f the nickname al-Khidr, “the Green,” takes its
place in a rich symbolic matrix evoking at once prophethood, paradise, and piety.
Precedents and Parallels
Some o f the earliest scholarly —and much popular -- work on Khidr has seized
on his story’s potential typological parallels across traditions. As we shall see below,
some scholars have related the story to the Epic o f Gilgamesh, the Alexander Romance,
and even some stories o f Elijah. Folklorists have classified the story o f Khidr and
29 Qur’an Surat al-Kahf (18. 31); Sura Insan (7 6 .2 1 .)

30 Qur’an Sura ar-Rahman (55. 76 )
31 Abu’l-Husayn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Jubayr (540/1145-614/1217), “A Description o f
the Sacred Mosque and the Ancient House,” from The Travels o f Ibn Jubayr, trans.: R.J.C. Broadhurst,
excerpted in Ilse Lichtenstadter, ed., Introduction to Classical Arabic Literature. (New York: Schocken
Books, 1976), 376-392. See pp. 377, 384.
17
Moses as a theodicy tale (AT 759 / Stith Thompson C410).32 As enriching as such
frameworks can be, I want to study its value as a distinctively Islamic source within a
series o f related Islamic contexts. How have Muslims, and especially Muslim mystics,
understood and applied this story?
After exploring its particular Islamic significances, we will be better able to
return to the cross-traditional implications o f the story with clarity. The story o f
Moses and Khidr explores a situation and issues which are essential to many types o f
religious traditions: spiritual guidance, or the master-disciple relationship. Masters are
known across religious traditions by many names: Hindus have gurus and avatars;
Buddhists, lamas and “virtuous friends” (kalyanamitra); Taoists, “perfected masters”
(chun tzu); Hasidic Jews, “authentic masters,” tzaddiks; Sufi Muslims, “spiritual
elders” (shaykhs), Eastern Orthodox Christians, “elders” (startsy). Similarly, how do
we understand Socrates’ appreciation o f his teacher Diotima, whom he claims in the
Symposium33 was his only teacher and from whom he learned only love? By analogy
the story o f Khidr and Moses may offer insights into the dynamics o f these varied
relationships o f spiritual guidance. Our understanding o f such diverse phenomena as
the desert fathers, late antique paidiea, eastern religions, and new religious movements
32 Haim Schwartzbaum, “The Jewish and M oslem Versions o f Some Theodicy Legends (Aa-
Th. 759) ” Fabula 3 (1959): 119-169.
33 Plato, Symposium 205E-212C. Diotima’s discourse to Socrates on love ( eros ) shares the
dialectic quality which Khidr displays in his teaching to M oses on the true interpretation ( (a ’wil) o f his
acts. Diotima explained to Socrates that love belongs in between the polarities o f good and bad, beauty
and ugliness, wisdom and ignorance. Khidr, the teacher Moses found “where two seas meet,” showed
M oses that even those acts which Moses judged as ‘bad’ had beneath them the ‘good’ o f a hidden
treasure o f mercy.
18
requires understanding the master-disciple relationship. And it is that mentoring
relationship o f spiritual guidance which the story o f Khidr and Moses illustrates.
Unfortunately, in relation to the importance o f this relationship across traditions, the
amount o f work which has been done is proportionately small.34
As we explore the narrative o f Moses and Khidr and trace the evolution o f
some o f its exegetical contexts, we will be able to witness how this story has been
interpreted and applied to the master-disciple relationship. How has this story
illuminated aspects o f the role o f the teacher among Sufis? What is a teacher? How
does he teach? How is the teacher’s authority integrated —or at odds with — textual
and institutional expressions o f authority? How have the Sufis pulled this thread from
scripture to exegesis to institutional application?
34 Some o f the best work on spiritual guidance and the master-disciple relationship includes:
(Sister) Donald Corcoran, “ Spiritual Guidance” Christian Spirituality vol. 1 (N ew York: Crossroad,
1993); idem, “The Spiritual Guide: M idwife o f the Higher Spiritual Self,” in Abba: Guides to
Wholeness and Holiness East and West (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982); I. Hadot,
“The Spiritual Guide,” in A.H . Armstrong, ed. Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek,
Roman (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 436-459; Stuart Smlthers, “Spiritual Guide,” in Mircea Eliade,
ed. The Encyclopedia o f Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987); Peter Brown, “The Saint as Exemplar
in Late Antiquity,” Represetations 1:2 (Spring 1983): 1-23. Martin Buber’s works on the zaddikim are
extremely descriptive, especially Martin Buber, The Legend o f the Baal Shem Tov (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1954); and idem., Tales o f the Hasidim 2 vols. (N ew York: Schocken Books, 1947-
48). On the Hermetic tradition see Brian Copenhaven, “Introduction,” Hermetica (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992) and Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1986). On the pagan holy man, see Garth Fowden, “The Pagan Holy Man in Late
Antique Society,” Journal o f Hellenic Studies (1982), 33-59. Some sources for this topic in Buddhism
include: Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art o f Archery. (N ew York: Vintage, 1951, 1983). Dalai Lama,
Freedom in Exile. (N ew York: Harper, 1990). For the Hindu tradition consult Daniel Gold, The Lord
as Guru: Hindi Sants in North Indian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) and Francis
Acharya, “The Guru: the Spiritual Father in the Hindu Tradition,” in Abba: Guides to Wholeness and
Holiness East and West (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982). Evocative descriptions o f
mentoring and companionship with a master appear in Lex Hixon, Great Swan: Meetings with
Ramakrishna (Burdett, N Y : Larson Publications, 1992, 1996), 20, 32, 61, 71, 84, 157-158, 171, 189,
19
Structure o f this Work
In order to explore these and other questions, in the next chapter (Chapter
Two) we will begin with a review the development o f an exegetical corpus around this
Qur’anic narrative First we will review the Qur’anic text which is the core narrative o f
the Islamic figure o f al-Khidr. Then we will integrate the first horizon o f commentary,
the material directly conveyed from the Prophet Muhammad in the collections o f
reports known collectively as hadith. Chapter Two concludes with a preliminary
consideration o f the genre o f Quranic commentary (tafsir) and the importance o f Sufi
tafsirs. These tasks are laid out in the second chapter of this work.. In Chapter Two
we also summarize the culmination o f the tradition o f specialized Qur’an commentary
as its classical period is synthesized in the work o f al-Tabari. After establishing this
context we will present original translations o f three sections o f Sufi tafsirs treating the
story o f Moses and Khidr (Chapter Three). Then we will consider this collective body
o f exegesis in its intertextual and historical perspective (Chapter Four). Finally we
proceed to consider the evolution and variation o f the role of al-Khidr in a variety o f
hagiographical and literary sources (Chapter Five). And we conclude with observations
and indications about the continuing relevance o f Khidr for future inquiry. (Chapter
Six).
293.
20
K hidr as Master, Mentor, and Guide
It seems to be an unstated assumption that the story o f Moses and Khidr
involves Khidr in the role o f teacher, mentor, or guide. This explicit categorization
evolved gradually. Its seeds lie in the narrative’s use o f terms for learning, knowledge,
and guidance. In the hadith literature (the reports o f the words, acts, and decisions o f
the Prophet Muhammad), we find no clues o f this identification o f Khidr as a teacher.
We do find in the hadith an analogy drawn from the story to the desideratum of a
scholar’s persistence in the pursuit o f knowledge; but there is still yet no reference to
Khidr as a teacher at this stage. Even in the classical tafsir o f al-Tabari discussed in
Chapter Two, we do not yet find this association explicitly asserted. The identification
o f Khidr as an exemplary teacher may have become established prior to classical
Sufism, but it is most fully developed in the three Sufi Qur’an commentaries we will
treat in this work.
By the period o f these Sufi tafsirs (4th A..H. /I l * 0-5- to 7th A.H. / 14th C.E.
centuries) a typology of teachers had emerged. To begin, we have the traditional terms
for Sufi teachers: shaykh (Ar., elder, or master); murshid (Ar., guide); p ir (Pers., elder).
In the typology which emerges by the 4th / 11th century we find a categorization o f
three types o f teachers: (1) the instructing teacher (shaykh al-ta ‘lim ), who conveys
knowledge in a the sense o f following a curriculum o f study; (2) the training or
mentoring master (shaykh al-tarbiyya, also called shaykh al-suhba). This type of
teacher provides close spiritual guidance to the disciple in the form o f the training o f
21
his soul throughout the unfolding o f his spiritual life and practice. In this sense the
contact with a living master is analogous to a patient’s need for the direct attention o f a
physician. (3) The third category is not explicitly a type o f shaykh, but rather, a type
o f affiliation to a secondary or additional guiding shaykh. This affiliation is accrued
through the initiation o f blessing (bay‘a al-tabarruk). Among these distinctions o f
teachers and affiliations we find different types o f activities which we might loosely
call teaching. Within the teaching relationship with an instructing teacher, we find the
type o f lecture and book ieaming associated with schooling. Here the content o f the
work conveyed is paramount. But in the second and third category, that o f the training
or mentoring shaykh, we are faced with a greater diversity o f activities in which the
process o f training is paramount. Here we find the teaching relationship as a training
(tarbiyya) in action (tasrif) involving at times silence, charisma (baraka), and requiring
a strong bond or connection (rabita)?5 All o f these activities transpire within the
framework o f a companionship o f mentoring and discipleship called suhba. The term
suhba involves shades o f meaning which describe all three o f these activities:
companionship, mentoring, and discipleship. These distinctions will be further
explored in Chapter Four o f this work.
3S For discussions o f training masters (shaykh at-tarbiyya ) and instructing masters (shaykh al
ia ‘lim ), the follow ing are helpful: Muhsin Mahdi, ibid., 3-14. John Renard, “Introduction,” to Ibn
‘Abbad o f Ronda, Letters on the Sufi Path, trans. J. Renard. (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 25-26;
cf. ibid., 185-188. Arthur Buehler, Sufi Heirs o f the Prophet: the Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise
o f the Mediating Shaykh (Columbia: SC, University o f South Carolina Press, 1998). Johann G.J. Ter
Haar, “The Importance o f the Spiritual Guide in the Naqshabandi Order,” in The Legacy o f Mediaeval
22
The Shaykh and the Sunna
One potentially problematic aspect o f this paradigm is the question of the
relationship o f these structures with the pattern o f authority and legitimation inscribed
in the sunna. The sunna, the exemplary body o f the Prophet Muhammad’s words,
acts, and decisions is conveyed in the genre o f the hadith. Through knowledge and
application o f the sunna, the ethics, practice and spirituality o f Islamic life is made
manifest. It is the Prophet Muhammad’s life as a model for Islamic life that gives the
sunna its tangible relevance. In the minds o f the Sufi commentators with whom we are
dealing and in the minds o f their contemporary colleagues, we find the conviction that
the Sufi master (shaykh) is the representative or living link to the Prophet Muhammad.
A very sensitive reading o f the nature o f prophetic sunna has been offered by Marilyn
Waldman:
In every “founded” religious tradition, maintaining proximity to the founder has been
an important source o f legitimacy and authority, just as arguments about how to
establish that proximity have been a source o f conflict. In the Islamic tradition, the
word sunnah has been the focal point o f such issues... [S\unnah comes from a root that
is concretely associated with honing or molding, with something firmly rooted, like a
tooth (sinn). Sunncfi, by extension came to mean habitual practice, customary procedure
or action, norm, standard, or “usage sanctioned by tradition \S\unnah quickly came
to be assoaated with the exemplary, imitsble, normdive words; deeeds, and silert
approval o f the Prophet him sdf....|Tjt may have been the very size o f the corpus [of
“news?’ or “reports” (hadith) from the compaiions o f the Prophet) that not only
encoiraged selectivity but also promoted and reflected, disagreement about the norms to
be derived from it....A t the popular level and especially among the Sufis (mystics),
Muhammad became the soul’s guide and the perfect univosal human, showing people
how to behave in the presoice o f G od ...’’16
Persian Sufism. Ed. Leonard Lewisohn (London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi Publications, 1992), 311-21.
36
Marilyn Robinson Waldman, “Sunnah” in Encyclopedia o f Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade
(N ew York: Macmillan, 1987).
23
Among the Sufis, the conviction emerged that the shaykh is the embodiment and
transmitter o f the prophetic sunna, a “soul’s guide,” as Waldman expresses i t This
characteristic is described by Abu Najib al-Suhrawardi where he compares
companionship with one’s shaykh to the loyalty shown to the Prophet Muhammad
by his companions:
The master in the midst o f his followers is like the prophet in the midst o f his
comm unity...H e [a disciple] should behave towaid the shaykh like the Companions
with the Prophet in following the ethics o f the Qur’an: “O you who believe! Do not
assert yourselves before Allah and His Messenger, but fear Allah, for Allah is He who
knows all things* O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice o f the
Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as you may speak loud to one another lest
your deeds become vain and you perceive not.” (Surat al-Hujaral [49].l-2)37
Writing from his prison cell in Baghdad in defense o f his orientations toward Sufism
and the sunna, the martyr ‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani (1098-1131) argues for the
essential role o f the spiritual master, citing and applying a number o f prophetic and
mystical precedents:
Another matter over which they have criticized m e concerns certain chapters wherein I
have spokai o f the need o f a neophyte for a spiritual instructor to conduct him to the
path o f truth and to guide him on the straight road, so that he may not stray from the
right way. A sound tradition [a hadith o f the Porphet] informs us that God’s Messenger
(God bless him) said, “Whoever dies without an imam dies the death o f a pagan” Abu
Yazidal-Bistami said, “If a man has no master, his imam is Satan” ‘Amr b. Sinan al-
Manjibi, one o f the great Sufi shaykhs, said, “A man who has not been to school with
a master, such a man is an imposter.” The Sufi expositors o f the hue reality are
unanimous in declaring that he who has no shaykh is without religion.”38
37 Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi, Kitab Adab al-Muridin. trans. Menahim Milson, A Sufi Rule
fo r Novices (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 46-47.
38 ‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani, ‘Complaint o f a Stranger Exiled from Home,” trans. A.J.
Arberry, in idem, A Sufi Martyr: the Apologia o f 'Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani (London: George Allen
and Unwin, Ltd. 1969), 33.
24
The centrality o f the spiritual m aster’s role to the Sufi path is expressed
succinctly in the opening statement o f a work by one o f Ibn ‘Arabi’s contemporaries,
the 12th century Andalusian teacher Abu Madyan:
The primary requirement for the aspirant is compauonship (suhba) with a practicing
spiritual mastff who is knowledgeable, fears God, is conversant with both the exotaic
and the esoteric sciences, and is aware o f the Transcendent Truth and Reality.39
As we shall see, Abu Madyan’s description o f the qualities o f the spiritual master
matches a number o f the characteristics attributed to Khidr.
Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri asserted the centrality and value o f the shaykh’s role
as a continuous function originating from the b e g in n in g s o f Islam:
During the entire Islamic era, there has always been a master o f Sufism who
possessed the science o f unity. A t all times, under the leadership o f the Sufis, the
leading scholars o f the age have submitted to that master, humbling themselves to
him and asking his blessing....T hus it is necessary for the disciple to study with a
master, and i f he does not have a master, he w ill never succeed. Abu Yazid said, “One
who has no master has Satan for a leader.” I heard the master Abu ‘All [al-Daqqaq]
say, “The tree that grows by itself without a gardener puts forth leaves, but it does
not bear fruit Similar is the disciple who has no master from whom he can Ieam his
path, one breath at a time. He remains a worshiper o f his own desire and does not
~ • 40
attain success.
Sometimes hagiographical legends o f Khidr highlight the importance o f
following one’s own shaykh over the temptation to involve Khidr directly as one’s
own mentor. Khidr serves in some instances as the model o f the master; in other
39 Abu Madyan Shu’ayb ibn al-Husayn al-Ansari, Bidayat al-Murid (Basic Principles o f the
Sufi Path ) trans. Vincent J. Cornell, in idem, ed. and trans., The Way o f Abu Madyan: the Works o f
Abu Madyan Shu’ayb (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1996), 54.
40 Abu al-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri, “The Testament to Disciples,” from al-Risala al-
Qushayriyya (The Epistle o f al-Qushayri ) Ed. ‘Abd al-Halim Mahmud and Mahmud ibn al-Sharif
(Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1974), pp. 731-752. Translated by Carl W. Emst in Teachings o f
25
instances he represents an alluring test to the aspirant’s exclusive loyalty to God and
the Prophet Muhammad. Vincent Cornell comments on the historical trend in which
the model o f the spiritual master in Sufism shifts from Khidr to the Prophet
Muhammad:
After the sixtM welfth centuy, when the efforts o f al-Ghazali and earlier “orthodox”
mystics to harmonize Sufism with Islamic legalism had reached full fruition, Khidr
began to lose his axial position in Sufi doctrine and began to be replaced as a model for
esoteric spirituality by the Prophet Muhammad himself, who was now seen as the
ultimate synthesis o f saintly and prophetic attributes.41
This tendency, in its latent form, is hinted at in hagiographical reports such as this one
concerning Ibrahim al-Khawwas, who when asked about the wonders he had seen,
replied:
“Many wondos,” he replied, “but the m ost wonderful was that the Apostle Khidr
begged m e to let him associate with me and I refused. Not that I desired any better
compaiion, but I feared that I should depend on him ratha- than on God, and that my
trust in God would be imparted by consorting with h im ...42
This issue is articulated more explicitly in a story about Jalaladdin Rumi (1207-1273).
One day while Rumi is teaching, Khidr appears to one o f Rumi’s disciples in the
com er o f the teaching hall and instructs him to hold fast to their teacher, Jalaladin
Rumi, rather than becoming absorbed in the marvel o f Khidr’s visit:
When Jalal was quite young, he was one day preaching on the subject o f Moses and
Khidr. One o f his disciples noticed a stranger seated in a comer, paying great
attention and every now and then saying: “Good! Quite true! Quite correct! He might
Sufism (Boston: Shambhala, 1999), 151-152.
41 Vincent J. Cornell, Mirrors o f Prophethood: The Evolving Image o f the Spiritual Master in
the Western Maghrib from the Origins o f Sufism to the End o f the Sixteenth Century. (Ph.D. Diss.,
University o f Claifomia, 1989), 71.
42 Al-Hujwiri, K ashf al-Mahjub. trans. R. A. Nicholson (London: Luzac, 1911), 153.
26
have been the third one with us two!” The disciple surmised that he might be Khidr.
He therefore seized hold o f the stranger’s skirt, and asked for his spiritual aid. “Oh,”
said the stranger, “rather seek assistance from Jalal as we all do. Every occult saint o f
God is the loving and admiring friend o f him.” So saying, he managed to disengage
his skirt from the disciple’s hold, and instantly disappeared. The disciple went to pay
his respects to Jalal, who at once addressed him, saying: “Khidr and Moses, and the
prophets, are all friends o f mine.” The disciple understood the allusion, and became
more devoted at heart to Jalal than he even was before.”43
The distinction is critical: an appearance by Khidr can stand either as a model or as a
test o f loyalty to one’s living shaykh as the embodiment o f the Prophetic sunna and
the key to its practice for the disciple.
Khidr as the Embodiment o f Inner Knowledge
As we shall see the Qur’anic narrative ascribes to Khidr the acquisition o f an
inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni), the unmediated knowledge imparted directly (ladun)
from God. This association o f Khidr as the bearer o f inner knowledge has led at least
one unidentified lO^-century Sufi writer, quoted earlier, to describe Sufism itself as
Khidr’s knowledge:
43 Shams ud-Din Ahmad al-Aflaki, Manaqib al- 'Arifin, translated as The Legends o f the Sufis.
trans. James W. Redhouse (London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1881, rpt. 1977), 70. I have
revised Redhouse’s version in the following ways: although Redhouse makes it clear through his
citation o f the Qur’anic verses o f the story o f Khidr and Moses that the stranger in the comer is Khidr,
he chose (perhaps for the ease o f his nineteenth-century readers) to substitute the name Elias, based on
traditions which associate Khidr and Elijah. I have also omitted Redhouse’s explanatory parenthetical
remarks which in the context o f this work are redundant.
27
The sciences o f Sufism are esotffic knowledge, which is the knowledge o f inspiration,
and an umnedated secret between God (the m ight/ and majestic) and his friends [i.e.,
the saints]; it is knowledge from the presence. God the mighty And the majestic said
[that Al-Khidr was one] “whom we taught knowledge from our presence” (Qur’an
18.65). That is the special knowledge which is the sign o f the saints and the reality o f
wisdom...When asked about this esoteric knowledge, the Prophet said,] “It is
knowledge between God and his friends o f which neither proximate angel nor any one
o f his creatures is aware”44
This passage demonstrates the degree to which the story o f Khidr and Moses can and
has served among the verses o f the Qur’an as a signature note o f Sufism. As the
quotations we have given suggest, the story o f Khidr and Moses offers a rich lexicon of
terms and symbols which can inform the role o f the teacher and his inner knowledge.
What implications emerge from the story o f Khidr and Moses for the study o f
personal authority and charisma? What is the authority o f one who serves as a teacher
or mentor to a Prophet? Such stories as those o f Khidr the Green Man, the first
Muslim Prophet Adam, and Joseph point —for some esoteric exegetes —to a radical
spiritual anthropology, in which the human being becomes a theophanic mediator. For
example, in the commentary o f Ruzbihan Baqli we will find such intimations of
theophanic witness in human form in his discussion o f the beautiful face o f the youth
(p. 594). One o f the earliest expressions o f this theophanic witness in human form is
the Sufi “hadith o f the vision (ru ’y d):”
I have seen my Lord in the form o f the greatest beauty, as a youth with abundant hair,
seated on the Throne o f grace; he was clad in a garment o f gold [or a green robe,
according to a variant]; on his hair a golden mitre; on his feet goldoi sandals. 5
44 Adab al-Muluk (10th century, unattributed ) selection translated by in Carl Ernst, The
Shambhala Guide to Sufism. (Boston: Shambhala, 1997), 62. See ftn. 16.
4SHammad ibn Salama (d. 157/774) quoted in Henri Corbin, Creative Imagination in the
Siifism o f Ibn "Arabi. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 272.
28
How does such theophanic witness in human form complement or challenge the
authority o f other hierophanies —textual and institutional? These challenges are played
out in the Sufi tafsirs.
In this sense it is not surprising that some have extended themselves greatly to
apply their understandings o f the nature o f this elusive figure named Khidr. When a
12th century Persian heresiographer Abu T-Fath Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrastani (1076-1153) reflected on India, he was transfixed by the figure o f the
Buddha. The Buddha he learned was unborn and undying (in the Buddha’s Wisdom
Body, Dharmakayd). Also the eternal Buddha appeared in different forms, places, and
times with the same teaching. Thus al-Shahrastani explained the Buddha to his Muslim
readers:
There is no one comparable [in the Islamic world] to the Buddha as they have described
him — i f they are right in that —except Khidi; whom M uslins recognize/6
In al-Shahrastani’s comparison, the figure o f the Buddha brings into relief the
intimations o f theophanic witness which are at once an inspiration and a risk for those
who would adopt Khidr as a model o f authority in an Islamic context. In our
examination o f Sufi tafsirs we will want to watch for traces o f such ambivalence and
diversity.
46 Abu T-Fath Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, "Ara ’ al-Hind (Views o f the
Indians) trans. Bruce B. Lawrence in Shahrastcmi on the Indian Religions. (The Hague: Mouton,
1976), 43.
29
Khidr as Popular Symbol
Khidr is not only a paradigmatic and esoteric figure, but also a popular one.47
Popular tales present him as a white-bearded man often dressed in green who rescues
the distressed from danger. Throughout Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon sacred places are
multiply dedicated to Khidr, Ilyas (Elijah), and St. George48 In Turkey the Spring
time festival o f Hidrellez honors Khidr and Ilyas.49 Popularly Khidr is known as
Khawwad al-Buhur “roamer o f the seas.”50 In India, as Khwaja Khidr, Khidr embodies
the attributes o f a river God and is artistically depicted as if he were Matsya Avatara,
the fish avatar o f Vishnu.51 In the Alexander Romance, as deputy and cook to
47 Wensinck, “Al-Khadir (Al-Khidr),” in Encyclopedia o f Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960).

48 A. Augustinovic, ‘El-Khadr’ and the Prophet Elijah (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press,
1972). This work surveys holy sites dedicated (often mutually) to Khidr, Elijah, and St. George and
traces archetypal commonalities shared between the three figures. These include sites in such central
places as the Bab al-Khidr (Khidr’s Gate) in the Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem and the Qubba al-Khidr
(Khidr’s dome) at the northwest comer o f the Temple Mount. Among masjids (mosques) deedicated to
Khidr there exists one in Karbala and one in Samarkand.
49 Currently celebrated on the Gregorian calendar dates o f May 5 (evening) and May 6, this
holiday was observed on the Rumeli calendar on the same date as the feast day o f St. George, April 23.
H.S. Haddad cites Malalas Chronicles to assert that the date has been continued from feast days o f Zeus
(H .S. Haddad, “’Georgic’ Cults and Saints o f the Levant,” Numen 16 [1969], 28-29). For a detailed
explanation o f the relationship between St. George and Khidr, see J. Sadan, s.v. “Ludd,” in
Encyclopedia o f Islam V, 798-803. Discussions o f popular traditions and practices related to al-AI-
Khidr appear in the following sources: P.N. Boratov, s.v. “Khadir-Ilyas,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam.
Warren Walker and Ahmet E. Uysal, “An Ancient God in Modem Turkey,” Journal o f American
Folklore 86, no. 341 (July-Sept. 1973), 286-289. F.W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the
Sultans (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), 319-336. Lucy M. J. Garnett, Mysticism and Magic in
Turkey. (London: Pitman, 1912), 22-34. A selection o f Anatolian Igends o f Khidr (Turkish, Hizir) is
presented in Warren S. Walker and Ahmet E. Uysal, More Tales Alive in Turkey (Lubock, Texas: Texas
Tech. University Press, 1992), 2-3; 271-6.
50 H.S. Haddad, ibid., 34„ Warren Walker and Ahmet E. Uysal, “An Ancient God in Modem
Turkey,” ibid., 286-289. F.W. Hasluck, ibid., 319-336.
51 M. L. Dames, “Khwadja Al-Khidr,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam.. A.K. Coomaraswamy,
“Khwaja Al-Khidr and the Fountain o f Life in the Tradition o f Persian and Mughal Art.” Ars Islamica.
I, Part 2 (1934), 173-182. Haijot Oberoi, The Construction o f Religious Boundaries (Chicago:
University o f Chicago Press, 1994), 168.
30
Alexander the Great, he achieved immortality by drinking the water o f eternal life. Here
again he acts as a guide, guiding Alexander through the land o f darkness before
discovering and drinking the water o f eternal life.52
Within the Chapter o f the Cave (Surat al-Kahj), in the Qur’an the story o f
Moses’ journey with Khidr is complemented by two narratives popular in late
antiquity: the story o f the Companions o f the Cave (Ashab al-Kahf) (18.9-26) and the
story o f Dhu’l-Qamayn, or Alexander the Great (Iskandar) which immediately
follows the narrative o f Khidr (18. 83-98). Together these stories treat themes o f
resurrection and intimations o f immortality. The story o f the Companions o f the Cave
suggests God’s power to resurrect life; the story o f Dhu’l-Qamayn has been popularly
understood in terms o f the legend o f Alexander’s quest for the waters o f eternal life.
The prevailing classical and popular identification o f Khidr as Alexander’s deputy and
cook who discovers and drinks the waters o f eternal life, coupled with the sequential
order o f the stories o f Khidr and Dhu’l-Qamayn in the Qur’an, creates a juxtaposition
which invites intertextual examination o f the two narratives.53 As we shall explore,
from the outset, Qur’an commentaries have linked the stories o f Khidr and Alexander,
but this intertextuality implies and requires careful interpretation.
52 Minoo Southgate, Iskandamamah: a Persian Medieval Alexander-Romance (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1978).
53 Mohammed Arkoun asserts that the 18th Sura o f the Qur’an contains the most “mythical”
passages o f Qur’anic text opening it to the greatest Iattitude in the exegetical act o f mystical
interpretation, or t a ’wil. See idem., “Lecture de la Sourate 18,” in Lectiures du Cor an. (Paris: Editions
G.-P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 1982), 69-86.
31
Khidr in the West
Khidr has traveled West as well. Possibly the earliest European reference to
Khidr appears in Goethe’s W est-osterlicher Divan, a work consciously modeled on the
poetry o f the 1^ -c e n tu ry Persian Sufi poet Hafiz.54 In this opening section titled
“Hijra, or Flight,” Goethe expresses a desire to seek refuge and rejuvenation in the East
at the spring o f Khidr:
North and South and West are crumbling,

Thrones are falling, kingdoms trembling:
Come flee away to purer East,
.There on patriarch’s air to feast,
There with love and drink and song
Khiser’s spring shall make thee young.55
Here Goethe’s affinity for the Persian poetry o f Hafiz and his interest in alchemical
immortality flow together to make Khidr and the Water o f Eternal Life one o f the
initial symbolic allusions o f the poem and its Divan.56
The psychiatrist Carl Jung devoted an entire article, and sections o f other work,
to his hermetic-alchemical interpretation o f the story o f Khidr.57 Here Jung offers his
54 Khwaja Shams ad-Din Muhammad Hafiz-i Shirazi (d. 793/1391), who enjoys the greatest
prestige and popularity among Persian poets, is said to have been initiated by Khidr.
55 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Goethe’s Reineke Fox, West-Eastern Divan, and Achilleid,
trans. by Alexander Rogers (London: George Bell and Sons, 1890), 199-200.
56 On Goethe’s alchemical interests see Ronald Gray, Goethe the Alchemist (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1952). An Austrian novel from 1916, Gustav Meyrink’s D as Grune
Gesichte (The Green Face), features a character named Chidher Green . (The spelling “Chidher” is the
German transliteration o f “Khidr.”) The novel is briefly profiled in Antoine Faivre The Eternal Hermes
(Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1995), 116-119. Faivre associates Chidher with Hermes and misses
his identification as Khidr. Nonetheless, the name o f the character (Chidher/Khidr) as w ell as
associations within the novel point to Elijah and Ahasueras, Earlier generations o f Western scholars, as
represented for example, in the article “al-Khadir/al-Khidr” in the Encyclopedia o f Islam, have asserted
associations between Khidr and Elijah and Ahasueras.
32
archetypal interpretation o f the master-disciple relationship as it is embodied between
Khidr and Moses:
Al-Khidr may well be a symbol o f the self. Moses accepts him as a higher
consciousness and looks up to him for instruction. Then follow those
incomprehensible deeds which show ego-consciousness reacts to the superior guidance
o f the s e lf through the twists and turns o f fate. To the initiate who is capable o f
transformation, it is a comforting tale; to the obedient believer, an exhortation not to
murmur against Allah’s incomprehensible omnipotence. Al-Khidr symbolizes not
only the higher wisdom but also a way o f acting which is in accord with this wisdom
and transcends reason. Anyone hearing such a mystery tale will recognize him self in
the questing M oses and the forgetful Joshua, and the tale shows him how the
58
immortality-bringing rebirth com es about.
The novelist David James Duncan in an unpublished short story, “On Mortal
and Immortal Flyfishing Guides,” (1997)59 portrays Khidr as his “one and only
favorite flyfishing coach” : Duncan explains that flyfishing occurs at the surface o f the
water ‘where two seas (air and water) m eet’; Khidr teaches that necessary fishing skill:
intuition (unmediated inner knowledge).
In popular culture, the story o f Khidr and Moses has been presented in the
martial arts film, Circle o f Iron (1983) In this film, reported to be the last project
57 Carl G. Jung, “A Typical Set o f Symbols Illustrating the Process o f Transformation,”

Collected Works Vol. 9, pt. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University press, 1959, 1969), 135-147. Jung
explores the role o f the “magical traveling companion” as the water o f life which nurtures the self, using
the examples o f Khidr [and M oses], Krishna [and Aijuna], and Jesus [and the disciples on the road to
Emmaus]), in his essay “Dream Symbols o f the Individuation Process,” in Spiritual Disciplines:
Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks. Bollingen Series xxx.4 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1960), 375-
6. Jung refers to Khidr as “the archetype o f the s e lf’ and, in a striking formulation, “the human
personification o f Allah,” in Fl;ying Saucers: a Modern Myth o f Things Seen in the S ly (New York:
N ew American Library, 1959), 32, cf. p. 111. For biographical background on Jung’s interest in Khidr,
see N icholas Battye, “ Al-Khidr in the Opus o f Jung: the Teaching o f Surrender,” in Jung and the
Monotheisms, ed. Joyce Ryce-Menuhin (London and N ew York: Routledge, 1994), 166-191.
58 Jung, “A Typical Set o f Symbols Illustrating the Process o f Transformation.” In Collected
Works Vol. 9 pt. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1959, 1969), 141
59 David James Duncan, “On Mortal and Immortal Flyfishing Guides” (unpublished, 1997).
33
involving Bruce Lee, and shot in the Muslim culture o f Indonesia, David Carradine
plays a Taoist master who takes his aspiring disciple on a journey with tests and
challenges which match in exact detail those o f the Qur’anic narrative o f Moses and
Khidr.
The Questfo r the Pre-Islamic Khidr
Many have looked to alleged pagan parallels as precedents for Khidr, focusing
on extra-Islamic contexts in a quest for alleged origins. To this end, such scholars have
pointed to rituals and myths o f vegetation gods and immortals as sources from which —
allegedly —the Khidr story has been derived. For example, Khidr has been linked with
what one scholar calls “Georgic” figures, including in addition to George and Elijah, a
number o f Mediterranean Baals: Baal-Zeus, Baal-Saphon, and Baal-Hadad.60 This
association is in part based on shared feast days. But parallels cannot serve as proof of
origins. And origins are not necessarily fruitful explanations o f the role o f a text in
guiding actual practice and knowledge within a tradition.
Western scholars have often emphasized the parallels between the narrative o f
Khidr and three allegedly earlier stories from other traditions: the epic o f Gilgamesh,
the Alexander romance, and the story o f Elijah and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.61 The
60 H.S. Haddad, ibid., 28-29; 35-36. An even more close resemblance among Baals would be
that o f the Libo-Phoenician Baal Hamon, an oracle o f the god o f the sea, sought out by Alexander the
Great (with whom al-Khidr is often associated). Baal Hamon is discussed in Oric Bates, Eastern
Lybians (London: Macmillan, 1914). I am grateful to Vincent Cornell for this reference.
61 Wensinck, Arent Jan. s.v. “al-Khadir (al-Khidr)” Encyclopedia o f Islam H. Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1978. James Jervis, ibid., is devoted to fulfilling this project o f source-criticism and comparative
34
epic o f Gilgamesh features a character named Utnapishtim. It is Utnapishtim whom
the hero Gilgamesh seeks out in his quest to overcome death and suffering.
Utnapishtim, whose name is usually translated as “He who saw life,” “came to
possess everlasting life” when after the Flood, the god Enlil blessed him and his wife
and placed them “in the distance at the mouth o f two rivers.”62 His chief epithet is
“the Faraway.” The similarities are attractive from a literary-typological perspective,
even if inapplicable to questions and contexts o f Islamic exegesis. Scholars o f earlier
generations stressed a number o f convenient associations between this figure and
Khidr: Utnapishtim is also known as Khasisatra (vaguely suggesting a phonetic
similarity with the name “Khidr”); Utnapishtim dwells at the distant ina p i narati, the
mouth o f the rivers (allegedly correlate to the majma ‘ ai-bahrain, the meeting o f the
two seas); and like Khidr, Utnapishtim was given eternal life.63 Although the
typological similarities between Utnapishtim and Khidr are intriguing and even
enriching from a literary perspective, so too are the parallels between Utnapishtim and
Noah. Furthermore the question o f how the lost text o f Gilgamesh could even have
served as a reference for Quranic revelation remains unanswerable.
Some o f the motifs o f the Khidr story also appear in the Alexander Romance of
analysis o f origins. On the question o f chronological precedence, the first two o f these stories
(Gilgamesh and Alexander) are indisputibly earlier); the claim that the story o f Elijah and Yehoshua ben
Levi is earlier than the Qur’an w ill be critiqued in chapter two.
62 N.K . Sandars, trans. The Epic o f Gilgamesh (London: Penguin Books, 1960), 107, 113,
125.
63 Friedlander, Israel. “Khidr.” Encyclopedia o f Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961 and idem,
“Khidr” in Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (N ew York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1915), VII: 693-695. Wensinck, Arent Jan. s.v. “al-Khadir (al-Khidr),” ibid.
35
Pseudo-Callisthanes: Alexander’s cook, Andreas (alleged by earlier scholars to be the
Greek precedent o f the Arabic name Idris)64 washes a salted fish in the spring o f the
water o f life and the fish comes to life and swims.65 What one may take from these
associations is that stories o f quests for immortality naturally share common symbols
and motifs. Whether or not sources o f derivation may be identified, it is o f greater
value to explore the reasons and intentions behind adopting the content, associations,
or prestige o f such precedents.
In addition to the Alexander Romance, a story o f Elijah presents interesting
parallels. In an 11th century Jewish story written by Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin o f
Kairouan, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (220-250 C.E.) is guided by Elijah on a journey
which resembles the journey o f Moses and Khidr. Elijah performs three baffling and
outrageous acts similar to those performed by Khidr.66 We shall comment on the
significance o f this parallel, and questions surrounding claims o f derivation in the next
chapter.
Others have cast their typological net to include Osiris (he was green, a river
64 s.v. “Idris,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam

65 Richard Stoneman, trans. The Greek Alexander Romance.^ London: Penguin, 1991), 121-
124.
66 Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin (990-1062 C.E.) An Elegant Composition concerning Relief
after Adversity. (Translation o f Hibbitr Yafeh me-hay-Yeshu 'ah by William M. Brinner.) (New Haven:
Yale, 1977), cf. pp. 13-16. The motifs: (1) a family hosts the travelers; in the morning Elijah causes
their cow to die; (2) a wealthy man offers no hospitality and Elijah rebuilds his wall; (3) when at a rich
synagogue they are offered only bread and salt, Elijah wishes that God will give them many chiefs; (4)
when a poor community hosts them, Elijah asks that God grant only one chief. The interpretations: (1)
the cow was substituted for the w ife slated to die; (2) the wall had under it a treasure which the stingy
man did not deserve; (3) a place with many chiefs is bound to be ruined; (4) those under one chief can
prosper. The moral: I f the wicked prosper, it is to their disadvantage; when a righteous person is
distressed or tried, s/he is being delivered from a worse ordeal.
36
god, and immortal)67 and Melchizedek (he was an immortal initiator who trained a
prophet, Abraham). Ilse Lichtenstader presents Khidr as a figure derived from Osiris.68
In his translation o f the Qur’an Yusuf ‘Ali compares Khidr to Melchizedek, “King o f
Salem and Priest o f God M ost High” (Gen. 14:18-20),69 represented by the writer o f
Hebrews (Heb 7:3) as an immortal.
Brannon Wheeler70 suggests that Muslim commentators related the story to the
Alexander Romance not to trace sources, but to signal both their own expertise and the
prestige o f the Prophet Muhammad by associating Alexander the Great as a
forerunner. For the same reason, Wheeler suggests, commentators compared Khidr to
Elijah to make Khidr his Islamic counterpart.71 In the next chapter we shall examine
these correspondences more closely.
67 I thank Orval Wintermute for first pointing out this correspondence to me.
68 Ilse Lichtenstadter, “Origin and Interpretation o f Some Koranic Symbols,” Arabic and
Islamic in Honor H.A.R. Gibb . ed. George Makdisi (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1965), 426-436. This article extracts significance from every similarity between narratives o f Osiris and
the narrative o f Khidr. Khidr’s wall is correlated to Osiris’ building o f cities. Osiris’ phallus swallowed
by a fish is tied to M oses’s fish which leads him to Khidr. Kharq al-Safina (the breaking o f the boat)
is linked to the possibility o f obliterating the ferry boat o f death.
69 ‘Abdallah Y usuf ‘Ali, trans. The Meaning o f the Holy Qur ’an, new revised ed.
(Brentwood, MA: Amana, 1991), 727, ftn 2411.
70 Brannon Wheeler, “The Jewish Origins o f Qur’an 18:65-82?” ibid., and idem, “Moses or
Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis o f Qur’an 18. 60-65,” Journal o f Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 57, no.
3, (July 1998): 153-171.
71 Idem, “The Jewish Origins o f Qur’an 18:65-82?”, 165.
37
Khidr in Sufi Our ’an Commentary
Such comparisons between Khidr and pre- and extra-Islamic sources disclose
structural similarities, new perspectives, and helpftd models for identifying features o f
the story. But all such comparisons demonstrate an interesting disregard for Islamic
meanings and applications. How have Muslims understood and applied this narrative?
Sufi commentators find in this story categories of knowledge, mystical
experience, and spiritual training. They adapt the narrative’s lexicon to unearth a
mystical substrate. The process o f mentoring companionship (suhba) directs the
disciple’s journey into the realm o f knowledge, experience, and training realized
through unveiling (kashf) and witnessing/contemplation (mushahada). In the
companionship o f suhba, mentoring is a bridge to inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni).
beyond words, or concepts. This notion, to which al-Qushayri alludes, is directly
asserted by al-Qashani: “All o f the dialogues are in the language o f a [spiritual]
state.”72
O f all Quranic narrative, it is this story o f Moses and Khidr which has
historically and typologically provided a model for the legitimacy and intricacies o f the
mentoring or master disciple relationship. As we shall see in the subsequent chapters
o f this work, its characterization, plot, and symbolism point to the possibilities o f
imparting knowledge through mentoring companionship (suhba). Further this story
72 Abu’I-Qasim al-Qushayri, L ata'if al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim Basyuni (6 vols.; Cairo: Dar al-
Kutub al-‘Arabi, 1968-71): vol 2, 768.
38
opens a vista o f interpretation which explicitly transcends the explicit formulas o f legal
interpretation. And this dimension is demonstrated clearly by the plot o f the story in
which the spiritual guide uses few words to teach. Rather than using words o f
instruction, he employs action and silence. And here the learning that is required is not
based on a concept, but rather in a virtue, the virtue of patience (sabr). Further the
transmission o f this knowledge involves a type o f etiquette (adab) and a process of
mentoring or companionship (suhba). Does this story hold keys to the master-disciple
relationship? The answers to this, and related questions, comprise the core o f the work
which follows.
39
C hapter Tw o
T h e F aces of K h id r as
E x c e p t io n a l S e r v a n t , M y s t ic a l M entor, and P o p u l a r P a r a d ig m :
F rom Q u r ’a n a n d H a d it h to S u f i T a fsers
Synopsis. This chapter introduces Khidr, the companion o f Moses (Sahib Musa), and
addresses two questions: (1) How do Qur’an, Hadith, and other original sources
interpret the figure o f Khidr and his companionship (suhba) with Moses? (2) How
have Sufi Qur’an commentaries developed the theme o f this companionship to
articulate and legitimate the mentoring relationship between guide (murshid) and
disciple (m urid ) along with the types o f knowledge and mystical states produced by
this training?
A Hidden Treasure: The Value o f Studying Khidr
Between the first and second question lies a range o f literary and institutional
expressions distinctive to Islamic piety. The story o f Khidr and Moses appears in the
Q ur’an, the scripture revealed to Islam’s last prophet Muhammad. The scriptural
account is supplemented in the Hadith, thematically-organized collections of
Muhammad’s words and deeds. As primary sources, both Qur’an and Hadith inform
Quranic commentary (tafsir). Hagiographic literature, and Sufi discourses (malfuz)
presuppose the value o f all three: Q ur’an, Hadith, and tafsir. The locus classicus o f
40
the narrative o f Khidr and Moses appears in the Qur’an in Sura al-Kahf, the Chapter
o f the Cave (18.60-82). It is a text alluding to a knowledge outside o f texts, gained
through companionship (suhba) with a mentor.
Why write about a mysterious unnamed and obscure figure in the Qur’an? Four
answers come to mind. First, whatever is in the Qur’an, even among its most
mysterious or ambiguous references is revealed and therefore commands our attention.
The Quranic story o f Khidr and Moses (Musa) is reinforced liturgically in Islamic life,
since the chapter in which it appears is frequently recited in mosques in the mornings
before the Friday community prayer.1 Thus this narrative demands special attention as
the subject o f a significant ritual performance. Second, this mysterious figure who
guides Moses on a journey o f learning, informs and complements the Qur’an’s concept
o f prophethood (nubuwwa) and contributes to the general concept o f sainthood. A
study o f the figure o f Khidr promises to shed light on sainthood in both its inner
aspect as intimacy with God (walaya) and its outer manifestation as spiritual authority
(wilaya)? Third, one stream o f Quranic commentary has accepted the “truth” o f this
1 Cf. Louis Massignon, Essay on the Origins o f the Technical Language o f Islamic
Mysticism, trans., Benjamin Clark. (Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press, 1997), 91.
2 This distinction identifying walaya as the inner aspect o f sainthood and wilaya as the outer
aspect is taken from Vincent J. Cornell, Realm o f the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Su/ism
(Austin: University o f Texas Press, 1998). Cornell argues for this distinction based on literary and
socio-historical usage in the Maghrib which is applicable throughout the Muslim world. This
distinction complements that o f al-Qushayri (986-1072), whose Qur’an commentary on Khidr and
M oses will be discussed in this work. Al-Qushayri articulates two meanings o f sainthood —one passive,
and one active — by interpreting the word wali in terms o f two grammatical paradigms: (l)fa'yl — the
passive meaning that God takes possession (yatawalla) o f the saint’s affairs, and (2) fa a 7/ —an active
sense o f a saint as one who undertakes worship and observance. For al-Qushayri the true saint fulfills
both meanings: God takes possession o f the affairs, and the saint actively worships and obeys God. (al-
41
mysterious figure as paradigmatic o f relationships o f spiritual guidance. An
understanding o f the story o f Khidr and Moses promises to contribute to an
understanding o f the sources o f authority for the roles o f teachers and guides.
Furthermore, Khidr’s special stature is evidenced by a unique fact o f the Qur’an:
among the narratives o f Moses — the single most frequently-narrated prophet in the
Qur’an — one finds only two figures who seem to surpass Moses: Muhammad and
Khidr.3 Moses serves as a foreunner to M u h am m ad and a student o f Khidr. Finally,
Khidr appears very early in the sequence o f hadith collected by Bukhari. Bukhari, one
o f the earliest, and perhaps most illustrious collector o f hadith, uses the story o f Khidr
and Moses not only as a quoted verse, but retells, interprets, and applies it as a moral
precedent and guideline for the proper attitude toward acquiring knowledge.4 In fact
the story o f Khidr is the first Quranic narrative to which Bukhari devotes such a full
treatment.
Qushayri, Principles ofSufism (Berkeley: Mizan, 1990), pp. 268-269.
3 Moses narratives encompass 535 verses representing 8% o f the content o f the Qur’an. By
comparison Ibrahim appears in 4%, Jesus in 2%. For the case that the narratives o f Musa are aimed at
providing a specific model for the challenges to Muhammad in the development o f the itmma in its
transition before the triumphal return to Mecca, see Hugh Talat Halman, "We Have Found Muhammad,
a Prophet like M oses”: How Comparisons between Muhammad and Moses in the Q ur’an and Sira are
Guided by the Hermeneutics o f Genre. (Duke University, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, 1993).
4 Muhammad ibn Isma’il b. al-Mughirah al-Bukhari (194-256), Sahih Bukhari Volume I,

B ook 3, Chapters 17 (no. 74) , 20 (no. 78) , 45 (no. 124). ed. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Medina:
Islamic University, 1976, p. 401.
42
What Bukhari initiates, others follow and develop. The role o f Khidr informs
relationships between teacher (ustadh) and student (talib)5 and between spiritual guide
(murshid) and disciple (murid). Across a wide range o f Islamic discourses and cultures
Khidr stands as a model for relationships o f spiritual guidance, esoteric explanations o f
spiritual realities, and the continuous expectation o f intervening compassion and
deliverance from distress.
In particular, the relationship between Moses and Khidr is presented within a
quest for knowledge that characterizes Sufism; it establishes a relationship o f paideia
shared between the guide and the disciple.6 This journey or quest then comes to be
institutionalized in the Sufi Orders (tariqa/turuq); it authorizes, even as it impels, a
seeker (murid) to pursue the spiritual journey under the auspices, guidance, and
training (tarbiyya) o f a shaykh (master), m urshid or p ir (spiritual guide). The authors
o f the Sufi tafsirs have framed the significance o f the narrative o f Khidr and Moses in
the Qur’an and hadith in terms o f the training (tarbiyya) o f the soul (nafs) through the
practice o f proper conduct (adab). The Sufi exegetes accent the way companionship
(suhba) and right conduct (adab) between master and disciple facilitate the training o f
s Rosenthal, Franz, The Concept o f Knowledge in Medieval Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970,
p. 6; sec. 19.
6 Peter Brown, “The Saint as Exemplar in Late Antiquity,” Representations 1:2 (Spring
1983):l-23. Brown explains that the paideia o f the Christian saints focused on establishing virtue in a
person through face to face contact For a comprehensive discussion o f the evolution o f this concept
see Wemer Jaeger, Paideia; the Ideals o f Greek Culture Oxford: Blackwell, 1939.
43
the soul and help to develop the states o f knowledge and experience necessary for the
disciple.
Tracing the Steps: the Narrative ofK h idr and M oses in Q ur’an and Hadith
The Qur’an features a narrative in Surat al-Kahf (Sura 18.60-83) which tells o f the
Prophet Moses seeking and following a “servant from among [God’s] servants,” with
the intention o f learning the rushd (guidance or spiritual maturity) which this special
servant has learned. The sevant Khidr is not named in the text of the Qur’an itself. It is
the hadith collections o f al-Bukhari and Muslim which first record the name. The
hadith report that when the Prophet Muhammad was asked who was the companion
o f Moses (Sahib M usa), he answered, “Khidr,” the Green One.7
First we will present the narrative from the Qur’an and then examine how the
two prominent hadith collectors Bukhari and Muslim apply the narrative. What
follows is a translation o f the Quranic narrative. The narrative is divided under four
topical rubrics for reference in the discussions to follow: (1) Moses’ quest; (2) the
meeting with Khidr; (3) the journey o f companionship; and (4) the interpretation and
separation:
7 The accounts in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim vowel the laqab (nickname) as
“Khadir.” Later traditions and popular usage use the voweling “ai-Khidr” and sometimes even the
simple form “Khidr.” Also, since the letter dad in Arabic is in vernacular speech ( ’ammiya ) pronouced
as a “z,” one often hears (and sees) al-Khazir or al-Khizr.
44
Moses’ Quest for the Meeting o f the Two Seas (Maima ‘ al-Bahrairi)
60. And when Moses said to his servant (fata), “I will not cease until I reach the
meeting o f the two seas or I will continue for ages.”
61. And when they reached the meeting between them, they forgot their fish and it
took its way into the sea [through] an opening.
62. And when they had passed on, he [Moses] said to his servant, “Give us our meal;
we have encountered on our journey fatigue.”
63. He [the servant] said, “Did you see when we came to the rock? Indeed I forgot the
fish and it was only Satan that caused me to forget to mention that it took its way into
the sea wonderously”
64. He [Moses] said, “This is what we were seeking.” So they retraced their footsteps.
Moses’ Meeting with Khidr and their Agreement
65. And he found a servant from among Our servants. We gave him mercy (rahma)
from Us. And We taught him knowledge from Our Presence ( ‘allamnahu min ladunna
‘ilma).
66. Moses said to him, “May I follow you so that you may teach me the guidance
(rushd). you have learned?”
67. He [Khidr] said, “Indeed, you will not be able to have patience (sabr) with me.
45
68. How can you be patient concerning what your understanding (khubr) does not
encompass?”
69. He [Moses] said, “You will find me, God willing (in sh a ’Allah) patient and I will
not disobey you in anything.”
70. He [Khidr] said, “If you would follow me, then do not ask me about anything until
I mention (dhikr) it to you.”
The Journey o f the Companions
71. So they proceeded until when they rode in the boat, he broke it. He [Moses] said,
“Did you intend to drown its people? You have done a strange thing.”
72. He [Khidr] answered, “Did I not tell you that you would not be able to have
patience with me?”
73. He [Moses] said, “Don’t blame me that I forgot and don’t grieve me with
difficulty.”
74. And they journeyed until they encountered a youth and he [Khidr] killed him. He
[Moses] said, “Did you kill a pure soul [who had not slain] another soul? Truly you
have done a reprehensible thing.”
75. He [Khidr] said, “Did I not tell you that you would not be able to have patience
with me?”
76. He [Moses] said, “If I ask you about anything after this, then don’t keep
companionship with me (tusahibani). You have received an excuse from me.”
46
77. So they proceeded until when they came to the people o f the village. They sought
food from its people, but they refused them hospitality. And they found in it [the
village] a wall verging toward (yuridu) destruction and he [Khidr] raised it up. He
[Moses] said, “I f you had wished you could have taken a reward for it.”
The Interpretation and Separation
78. He [Khidr] said, “This is the parting between me and you. But I will tell you
(sa ’unabi ’uka) the ultimate meaning (ta ’wil) o f what you did not have the patience to
bear:
79. “As for the boat, it belonged to poor people who worked on the sea and I wanted
(aradtu) to make it useless, for there followed them a king who took every boat by
force.
80. “As for the youth, his parents were believers (mu ’minain) and we feared that he
would oppress them with rebellion and disbelief.
81. “So we desired (aradna) that their Lord would give them one better in purity and
closer in mercy (rahma).
82. “And as for the wall, it belonged to two youths. They were orphans in the town
and under it was a treasure belonging to them. Their father had been a righteous man
(salih). So your Lord desired that they reach their maturity and retrieve their treasure -
- a mercy (rahma) from your Lord. And I did not do it by my own command. That is
the ultimate meaning (ta ’wit) o f what you could not bear with patience.”
47
Khidr in Hadith
How does Khidr figure in the canonical collections o f hadith recognized by a consensus
o f Sunni scholars as sound (sahih)? The two “sound” collections o f Bukhari and
M uslim offer similar, and in some cases, identical elaborations o f the narrative. Their
transmissions o f the narrative o f Khidr and Moses reflect contiguous material which
has been transmitted in tandem since the second century A.H. / eighth century C.E. -
The hadith provide a larger frame for this narrative with additional background,
commentary, and legal implications. Bukhari includes accounts about Khidr in three
chapters within his “Book o f Knowledge,”8 one in his “Book o f Wages,”9 and another
in his “Book o f Stipulations (shurut).”l° In addition to accounts supplied as legal
precedents, he offers three accounts in the “Book o f Accounts o f the Prophets,” 11 and
three in the “Book o f Qur’an Commentary.” 12
It is worth noting that Khidr appears relatively early in Bukhari’s editorial
sequence. Bukhari discusses Khidr in his 74th and 78th entries among 652 entries
spanning nine volumes. In these initial entries, which he includes in the “Book of
8 Sahih Bukhari, Volume I, Book 3, Chapter 17, Number 74; Ch. 20, no. 78; Ch. 45, no.
124.
9 Ibid., in . 36. 7. 467.
10 Ibid. m . 50. 12. 888.
" Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 612-614.
48
Knowledge,” Bukhari takes the narrative as a precedent for seeking knowledge with
diligence and humility. Indeed, in the hadith collection o f Bukhari, the first Quranic
figure whose story is narrated and explicated is the companion o f Moses, Khidr. In
fact these hadiths are Bukhari’s first retellings o f any Quranic narrative.
In the three hadith accounts collected in the “Book o f Knowledge,” Bukhari
emphasizes two themes: persevering in the search for knowledge, and recognizing that
all knowledge belongs to God. The title o f chapter (bab) 17, the text o f which
exclusively comprises a narrative from Ibn ‘Abbas, reads:
What has been said about the journey o f Moses (dhahab Moses) to the sea and the
Statement o f God: “[Moses said (to Khidr)], “May I follow you that I may learn o f
the guidance (rushd) which you have learned (18.66)”
The text o f chapter 20 o f Bukhari’s “Book of Knowledge” follows the wording of
chapter 17 very closely. But Bukhari’s title statement here draws a parallel between
M oses’s journey to find Khidr and the journey (rihla) to collect hadith reports. The
title reads:
Going in search o f knowledge (khuruj f t talab a l-'ilm) and Jabir ibn ‘Abdallah
journeyed (rahala ) for a month to get a single hadith from ‘Abdallah ibn Unais.
The theme o f journeying for knowledge is culled from the narrative, but the hadith does
not suggest the possibility that such journeying might entail the companionship with,
and training under a teacher. For this perspective, we will have to wait for the Sufi
12 Ibid., VI. 60. 249-251.
49
tafsir s. Bukhari’s title to chapter 45 o f the “Book o f Knowledge” focuses on the need
not to credit oneself with the achievement o f knowledge:
When a learned scholar ( ‘alim ) is asked “Who is the most learned ( a ’lam), then he
should attribute (yakilu) the knowledge to God.13
This point o f attributing knowledge to Allah is raised in four o f Bukhari’s
narrations: “So Allah admonished him (Moses) for he did not ascribe (yuraddu) all
knowledge to Allah.” 14
In another legal application derived from the story o f Khidr, Muslim also
transmits hadith in which the Prophet refers to the example o f Khidr’s slaying o f the
youth in order to reinforce his point that during battle, children o f the enemy may not
be killed. Yazid ibn Hurmuz narrates that Ibn ‘Abbas answered the queries o f Najda b.
‘Amir al-Haruri by saying:
The Messenger o f God (S .) used not to kill the childen, so you should not kill them
unless you could know what Khadn* had known about the child he killed15
Another exceptional hadith featuring Khidr relates a story o f the anti-Christ
(al-Dafjal). The anti-Christ, unable to enter Medina will be visited by one o f the best
men o f the community, who will tell the anti-Christ that he recognized him. The anti-
13 Ibid., 1.3.45.124.
14 Ibid., I. 3. 45. 124; IV. 55. 23. 613; VI. 60. 249, 250.
I5Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj. Al-Jami' tts-Sahih. (trans. ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqui) (Lahore: Shaikh
Muhammad Ashraf, 1973), Chapter 750, sec. 4456-61.
50
Christ then will ask if the man’s opinion would change if he were to kill and restore a
human being to life. The virtuous man will say, “No.” The anti-Christ then will kill and
raise a man back to life. The virtuous caller will still hold his opinion. In a second
attempt, the anti-Christ will fail to kill the man again. The subnarrator Abu Ishaq
explains: the man will be Khidr.16
Nine o f Bukhari’s eleven accounts begin with the question o f the identity o f
Moses’ companion (Sahib Musa). Ibn ‘Abbas, whose viewpoint prevails in Bukhari
and Muslim, reports two disputes over the identities o f Khidr and Moses. Ibn ‘Abbas,
identifies Moses’ companion as Khidr; the alternative view o f his disputant, al-Hur ibn
Qais al-Farazi, is suppressed.17 In a second instance, Sa‘id ibn Jubair narrates that Ibn
‘Abbas rejected the doubt raised by one o f Sa'id’s discussants, N auf al-Bukali as to
whether the Moses o f the narrative is the same Moses who led the children o f Israel
from Egypt.18
The full chains o f transmitters (isnads) for these two accounts are as follows:
(1) ‘Amr ibn Muhammad, Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim, Abu Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim, Salih, Ibn
Shihab, ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Abd Allah, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubay ibn Ka’b .19 (2) Ibn ‘Abd
16Sahih Muslim, 41. 7017. The narration leaves room for reading either or both the virtuous
man and the man who resists death as Khidr.
17Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 612.
18 Ibid., IV. 55. 23 . 613.
19 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 612.
51
Allah, Sufyan, ‘Amr Ibn Dinar, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubay ibn Ka’b 20 To
support his identifications o f Khidr and Moses, Ibn ‘Abbas cites testimony from
Ubay ibn Ka’b, one o f Muhammad’s companions (sahaba) otherwise famous for his
transmission o f commentary based on Jewish sources (tafsir isra ’iliyyat).21 In addition
Ibn ‘Abbas supplies this frame narrative for the Quranic narrative:
Yes, I heard God’s Messenger saying, “While Moses was sitting in the compaiy o f
some Israelites, a man came and asked him , ‘Do you know anyone who is more learned
than you?” Moses replied, ‘N o .’ So God sent divine inspiration (wahy ) to Moses,
‘Yes, our slave Khadir.” Moses asked how to meet him. So the fish was made for him
as a sign and he was told that when the fish was lost, he should return and there he
would meet him. So Moses went looking for the sign o f the fish in the sea. Moses*
servait said to Moses, ‘D id you see when w e came to the rock, I forgot the fish and it
was only Satan who made me forget to tell you about it.” Moses said, “That was what
we were seeking after.” Both o f them returned, following their footsteps and found
Khadir. And their other events are what Allah narrdes in His Book.22
Bukhari next narrates another transmission from Ubay ibn Ka‘b providing
additional descriptive detail, motifs, and symbols. The fish has been explicitly given as
a sign o f the place Moses is to reach.23 In the conversation between Moses and Khidr,
Moses identifies himself as the Moses o f the Children o f Israel.24 Khidr alludes to two
complementary types o f knowledge with which he and Moses have each been
20 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613.
21 s.v. “Ubay b. Ka‘b.,” E l
22 Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 612. The content is almost identical to the entries which follow
(no. 613, 614) and to the entries in Bukhari’s “Book o f Knowledge” (Vol. I, Book 3, Chapters 17 [no.
74], 20 [no. 78], 45 [124])
23 Ibid., I. 3. 74; I. 3. 20. 78; IV. 55. 23. 612.
24 Ibid., 1.3. 45. 124; IV. 55. 23. 613; VI. 60. 249, 250, 251.
52
entrusted.25 The fish is described as passing through an archway o f water made by
God.26 Moses’ fatigue occurs at the very moment he passes the place where two seas
meet.27 Khidr is described as a man (rajul),2&suggesting thereby that Khidr is a human
being, not an angel or apparition.
The exchange o f greetings between Khidr and Moses echoes the question o f
identity which Ibn ‘Abbas tries to resolve. After receiving Moses’ greeting, Khidr asks
Moses how people greet each other in Moses’s land. When Moses responds, “I am
Moses” he seems to be avoiding Khidr’s request. The avoidance conforms to the
pattern Moses will show in his journey with Khidr o f being unable to obey his mentor
with partience. W hatever rapport may eventually develop between them, it is not
evident at this point; nor is a sense o f rapport conveyed through their conversation.
This exchange about greetings and identity also corresponds to the disputes to which
Ibn ‘Abbas alludes as he champions the identification o f Khidr as the name o f Moses’s
companion and asserts that this Moses is the same Moses whose story is narrated
throughout the Qur’an, the Moses o f the children o f Israel.
The following parallel version also relates the events which led Moses to
initiate this journey and identifies the fish as the designated sign for finding Khidr:
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613; cf. VI. 60. 249.
27 Ibid., VI. 60. 251.
28 Ibid., I. 3. 45. 124.
53
[Sa cid ibn Jubair narries from Ibn ‘Abbas] “Ubay ibn Ka ‘b told us that the Prophet
said, “Once Moses stood up and addressed the Chilcfcen o f Israel. He was asked who
was the most learned man among the people. He said, “I.” Allah admonished him as he
did not attribute absolute knowledge to Him. So Allah said to him, Yes, I have a
servant { ‘abd) at the meeting o f the two seas who is more learned than you.” Moses
said, “O my Lord, how can I meet him ?’ Allah said, “Take a fish and put it in a large
basket and you w ill find him at the place where you lose the fish.”29
In the version from the “Book o f Knowledge” Ibn ‘Abbas narrates that the fish itself is
a sign (aya): “So Allah made the fish as a sign (ayd) for him [Moses] and he was told
that when the fish was lost, he should return (to the place where he lost it) and there
he would meet him [Khidr].”30
The identity o f the fa ta (young servant) is given as Joshua; the water through
which the fish vanishes is described as assuming the shape o f an arch; the travelers’
fatigue happens exactly when they pass the place where two seas meet.
Moses took a fish and put it in a basket and proceeded along with his servant Joshua
ben Nun (Yusha’ ibn Nun) till they reached the rock where they laid their heads. Moses
slept, and the fish, moving out o f the basket, fell into the sea. It took its way into the
sea, as in a tunnel. Allah stopped the flow o f water over the fish and it became like an
arch, in the manner o f the example o f an arch. They traveled the rest o f the night, and
the next day, Moses said to his servant, “Give us our food, for indeed w e have suffered
much fatigue in this journey o f ours.” Moses did not feel tired till he crossed that place
which Allah had ordered him to seek. His servait said to him, “Do you know that.
when w e came to the rock, I foigot the fish, and none but Satan caused me to forget to
tell o f it; and it took to the water in an amazing way T So there was a path for the fish
and that astonished them. M oses said, “That was what we were seeking.” So they went
back over their steps till they reached the rock.31
29 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613.
30 Ibid., I. 3. 74. In an almost postmodern way, it is a sign which signifies by its absence,
rather than by its presence.
31 Ibid., IV, 55, 23, 613.
54
The description which follows o f Khidr as one covered in a garment (musaja ’ bi-
thawb) supplements the Quranic account. In Sufi hagiographies the motif o f this
garment reappears as the mantle o f initiation (khirqa).32 After they greet, Khidr asks
about M oses’s greeting, but then announces that each o f them, Khidr and Moses
possess their own distinctive domain o f divine knowledge. It is as if their different
forms o f greeting symbolize these distinctive modes o f knowledge.
And there was a man coveted in a garment. Moses offered the greeting o f peace (fa-
sallana) and he replied, “How in your land do you offer greetings o f peacd? Moses
said, ‘I am Moses.” He said, “Moses o f the Childen o f Israel?’ He [Moses] said, “I-
have come to you that you might teach m e what you have learned o f guidance {rushd).
He [al-Khdir] said, “O Moses, I have som e o f the knowledge from the knowledge o f
Allah which Allah has taught me and not taugii you; and you have some o f the
knowledge o f the knowledge o f Allah which He has taugit you and not taught me.
Moses asked “May I follow you!” He said, “But you w ill not be able to bear with me
patioitly for how can you be patioit with what your knowledge cannot comprehend?’33
Khidr tells Moses that each o f them possesses a part o f God’s knowledge. Implicit in
this statement is the answer to the question o f chronology: Did Moses travel with
Khidr before or after he had received the Torah? Khidr’s reference to his and Moses’
complementary knowledge is suggestive. But more conclusive is this statement
attributed Khidr: “Is it not sufficient for you that the Torah is in your hands and the
Divine Inspiration comes to you, O Moses.”34 Both statements establish a chronology
in which Moses had already received the Torah when he embarked on the journey with
32 See Claude Addas, Questfo r the Red Sulphur, pp. 143, 145 (Cambridge: Islamic Texts
Society, 1993); William Chittick, The S elf Disclosure o f God: Principles o f Ibn 'Arabi’s Cosmology
(Albany: S.U .N .Y ., 1998), p. 395, n. 20.
33 Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613.
34 Ibid., VI. 60.250
55
Khidr. This narrative element frames the interpretation o f Moses’ authority and
station and consequently informs the narrative’s assessment o f the relationship o f
prophecy to other modes o f knowledge. Moses’ engagement with Khidr reflects his
incorporation o f the Torah; his perspectives on the journey are —at least potentially —
informed by his knowledge o f Torah.. In this sense, the narrative presents Khidr’s
God-given knowledge ( ‘ilm ladvnni) and apprehension o f true meaning (ta ’wil) in
relationship to Moses’ knowledge o f Torah as revealed scripture (tanzil). From these
factors, one might speculate that Moses and Khidr symbolize the relationship between
orality and writing in the transmission o f knowledge.35 That Moses received Torah
before journeying with Khidr implies a priority o f Khidr’s knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni,
ta ’wil) as an extension or completion o f prophetic knowledge (nubuwwa).
The hadith provide other explanatory details supplementing the Quranic
narrative. The crew o f the boat recognize Khidr and charge no fare (bi-ghayri nawl).
Then a sparrow appears dipping its beak into the water, an act which Khidr explains
to Moses as a measure o f their composite knowledge:
Khidr said to Moses, “O Moses; My knowledge and your knowledge have not
decreased Allah’s knowledge except as much as this sparrow has decreased the water o f
the sea with its beak.”
35 On orality and literacy, see Jack Goody, The Interface between the Oral and the Written.
Studies in Literacy, Family, Culture and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
56
Khidr’s first statement compared the knowledge o f Khidr as complementary to the
knowledge o f Moses; this second statement now measures both o f their “seas” o f
knowledge as drops compared to God’s ocean o f knowledge. This incident of the
sparrow continues the lesson o f the admonition Moses had early received about
crediting all knowledge to God.36 It is also a comparison o f the scope o f prophetic
knowledge compared to all divine knowledge.
In this hadith, as well as in a hadith Bukhari includes in his “Book of
Stipulations”37 (Kitab al-Shuruf) the Prophet Muhammad highlights a pattern in
M oses’ answers: Moses moves from giving the excuse o f forgetfulness, to then setting
up, and finally intentionally imposing upon himself his own condition o f separation
from Khidr:
Ubay ibn Ka‘b narrded: God’s Messenger said, “Moses, the Messenger o f God,” and
then he namted the whole story about him. Khidr said to Moses, “Did I not tell you
you would not be able to be patiait with me? (18.72) [1] Moses then violded the
agreanent for the first time because o f forgafulness. [2] Then Moses promised that i f
he asked Khidr about anything, the latter [Khidr] would have the right to desert him.
Moses abided by that condition and on the third occasion [3] he intertionally asked
Khidr and caused that condition to be applied.™
Moses’ three utterances which bring about his separation from Khidr are as
follows: (1) “Rebuke me not for forgetting, or grieve me by raising difficulties in my
case.” (2) “If I ask you about anything after this, keep me not in your company; you
36 Ibid., I. 3. 45. 124; IV. 55. 23. 613; VI. 60. 249, 250.
37 Ibid., E l. 50. 12. 888.
38 Ibid., HI, 50. 12. 888. (Cf. Bukhari I. 3. 124; VI. 60. 249; VI. 60. 251).
57
have a direct excuse from me.” (3) “If you had wished, you could have taken for this
[work] a wage.”
The commentators will further develop this aspect o f the story and its
implications in (shar ’iah) concerning the legal limits, stipulations, or conditions o f
responsibility (shart/shurut). Moses’ excuse relates to the principle that one not aware
o f his obligations is not held accountable for their violation. Indeed, in his “Book o f
Oaths,” Bukhari transmits an account from the Prophet’s wife ‘Aisha’ in which
Moses’s excuse, “Do not blame me for forgetting...” serves as a commentary on the
Quranic verse, “God will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in
your oaths.”39
Bukhari uses Moses statement about the justice o f taking wages for rebuilding
the wall as a precedent in his “Book o f Wages” (Kitab al-Ijar). The chapter is titled:
“It is permissible to employ someone to repair a wall which is about to collapse.”40
Compared to Bukhari’s contexts for this episode in his other accounts as one o f
Moses’s failure, this application seems ironic. Yet it stresses the two-tiered framework
which is at the heart o f the narrative o f Moses and his companion. In Khidr’s words to
Moses: “I have some o f the knowledge o f Allah which he has taught me and which
you do not know, while you have some o f the knowledge o f Allah which he has taught
you which I do not know.” While the hadith reports accept the positive value o f this
39 Ibid., VIE. 78. 656; Qur’an 23.25.
40 Sahih Bukhari, HI. 36. 7. 467.
58
precedent for the stipulations o f oaths and the acceptability o f wages, the Sufi
commentators will expose the limits o f these perspectives and explore a further
horizon o f virtue.
Most o f Bukhari’s eleven hadith contribute many additional details, some
incidental, some, perhaps, symbolic. The fish was carried in a basket.41 Some accounts
report that Moses was sleeping when the fish slipped away 42 One account informs us
that there was a spring at the rock called “Al-Hayat, (the life)” a name which suggests
that the fish came alive and swam away.43 One account relates that Moses found
Khidr on a green carpet in the middle o f the sea.44 As we have observed, Khidr
questions Moses about not being satisfied with his possession o f the Torah.45 In this
same narrative, God does not directly command Moses to find Khidr, but Moses
instead initiates the request. Khidr either tore the hole in the boat with his hands46 or
used an adze (fas).*1 He plugged the hole with either wood, a bottle, or tar 48 In his
41 Ibid., 1.3.45.124
42 Ibid., VI.60.250 & 251
43 Ibid., 6.60.251. This name corresponds to the term Abu Hayyat in the Alexander Romance
in which Khidr figures. See below.
44 Ibid., VI.60.250
45 Ibid., V I .6 0 .2 5 0
46 Ibid., 1.3.45.124
47 Ibid., IV.55.23.613; VI. 60. .249.
48 Ibid., VI.60.250
59
objection to Khidr’s breaking the boat Moses emphasizes that they had been charged
no fare.49 The name o f the king seizing boats (Hudad ibn Budad) and the name o f the
boy (Haisur) are recorded.50 We learn that the slain youth had been playing with other
boys when Khidr, using his hands, “plucked o ff his head as if it were fruit.”51 While
some accounts describe the slaying o f the youth as like “plucking fruit;” others say
Khidr cut his head with a knife.52 The boy was replaced with a girl.53 Some hadith
describe Khidr as raising the wall by touching it and passing his hands up over it.54
The descriptions o f how Khidr used his fingertips to pluck the boy’s head like a piece
o f fruit and raised the wall by passing his hands are enacted with gestures by the
transmitter Sufyan. Similarly, the shape o f the tunnel o f water through which the fish
passed is also described by gestures. Sufyan describes the shape o f the tunnel o f water
by making his arms into the shape o f an arch. Ibn Jurayj narrates that another
transmitter, ‘Amr b. Dinar, demonstrated the shape the water by joining his two
thumbs and index fingers together.55
49 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613; VI. 60. 249, 251.
50 Ibid., VT. 60. 250.
51 Ibid., IV.55.23.613; VI. 60. 249
52 Ibid., VI. 60. 250, 251.
53 Ibid., VI. 60. 250.
* Ibid., m.36.7.467; 4 . 55. 23. 613.
55 This same gesture is narrated in another hadith to refer to the opening in the wall which will
be made by Gog and Magog (Juj wa Majuj), an element in the story o f Alexander the Great (Dhu 7-
Qarnayn) which follows the story o f Khidr and Moses in the same eighteenth chapter, the Sura o f the
Cave. We will discuss this below.
60
Moses’ objection to Khidr’s repairing the wall as one o f Khidr’s entitlement to
wages, stresses the discrepancy between the rejection by the people o f the village and
Khidr’s generosity. A contrast is also established between the fare (nawl) which the
ferrymen waive and the wage (ajr) Moses would claim as Khidr’s entitlement. The
implication o f Moses’ interest in the wage as money that might have been used to get
food will be explored by the Sufi commentators.56 As we mentioned earlier, a number
o f hadith examine M oses’ role in bringing the separation upon himself.57 In the case o f
M oses protest over wages, his objection contradicts not only Khidr’s generosity but
also the ferrymen’s waiving o f the fare for passage. Moses appears keenly aware of
their generosity when he protests Khidr’s scuttling o f the boat.58
It is in hadith that we discover why the Qur’an’s elect servant earned the
nickname (laqab) o f Khidr, the “Green:” it is narrated that when he would sit on barren
land it would turn verdant green.59
Abu Huraira narraed: “Al-Khadir was so named because when he sat over a barren white
land, it would turn green with vegetation.60
56 Ibid., in.36.7.467; VI. 60. 250
57 Ibid., 1.3.124; HI. 50. 12. 888; VI.60.249; V I.60.25l.
58 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613; VI. 60. 249, 251.
59 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 614. The mufassir Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Ishbili relates his full name as Abu al-
’Abbas Balya ibn Malkan al-Khidr.
60 Ibid., IV. 55, 23, 614.
61
What connotations does this nickname al-Khidr, “the Green” evoke? As we have
previously observed, green is the emblematic color o f Islam. The Prophet Muhammad
often wore green; the dome o f the Prophet’s mosque is green; paradise, which is an
eternal garden, is symbolically green. The people o f paradise wear green robes61 and
recline on green couches.62 At times the Kacaba’s silk covering (kiswah) has been
green.63 The nickname Khidr, “the Green,” connotes a relationship between the
companion and mentor o f Moses and the Prophet Muhammad, paradise, and Muslim
piety.
M uham m ad’s Evaluation o f M oses’ Quest
How did the Prophet Muhammad interpret Moses’ companionship (suhba)
with Khidr? One of the most noteworthy features of this hadith is the Prophet
Muhammad’s summary evaluation o f Moses’ performance:
(1) “We would have wished that Moses had been patient; then Allah would
have narrated more o f their story.”64
61 Qur’an Surat al-K ahf(18. 31); Suralnsan (76. 21).
62 Qur’an Sura ar-Rahman (55. 76 )
63 Abu’l-Husayn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Jubayr (540/1145-614/1217), “A Description o f

the Sacred Mosque and the Ancient House,” from The Travels o f Ibn Jubayr (trans.: R. J.C. Broadhurst)
excerpted in Ilse Lichtenstadter, ed., Introduction to Classical Arabic Literature. N ew York: Schocken
Books, 1976, pp. 376-392. See 377, 384.
64 Sahih Bukhari, 1.3.124; VI. 60. .249; VI. 60. 251.
62
(2) “May Allah bless Moses with Mercy; had he been patient we would have
been told more about their case.”65
This final judgment by Muhammad lauds Khidr’s knowledge at the same time
that it underscores Moses’ lack o f patience. On both accounts the Prophetic dictum
opens a way for reflection on the meaning o f Khidr’s role. As we have discussed, in a
related interpretation, the Prophet also distinguished Moses’ role in bringing the
journey to a close: “He [Moses] asked Khidr and caused the condition [of Moses’
excuse] to be applied.”66
Throughout this work we will see how the narrative’s motifs, events, and
exegetical nuances are interpreted. In the following synopsis o f the accounts in Qur’an
and Hadith, I have divided the narrative into sections and given each section a title to
highlight the thematic developments and accents on Khidr’s role which the Hadith
contribute.
The Quest for the Meeting o f the Two Seas becomes a Quest for Khidr as one who is
wiser than Moses.
Once when Moses and the Children o f Israel were gathered and Moses preached to them, a man
stood up afterwards and asked Moses if anyone in the world was more learned than he.67
65 This same hadith is recorded in Muslim, Al-JamV Chapter 992, sec. 5864. I have modified
the translation at times for style.
66 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 405.
67 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 612.
63
When Moses said, “N o.” Allah told Moses that there exists one o f His precious servants to whom
He has given deeply o f His Mercy and Compassion (rahma min ‘indana and o f inner Knowledge
68
and Wisdom ( ‘allamanahu min ladunna [ 'Urn ladunni ] ).
Allah admonished M oses for not attributing all knowledge to him69 and inspired ( aw ha") Moses to
70
look for “our servant Khadir" at the place where the two seas meet ( majma ’ al-bahrain ) and to
bring along in a basket a fish. Allah explained the sign by which Moses will know he has reached
71
the place where the two seas meet: he will lose and forget the fish.
In the opening o f the narrative in the Qur’an, M oses resolved to journey on a quest72 to find this
precious servant o f Allah so as to learn o f his gifts o f wisdom ( ‘ilm ladunni ), compassion (rahma
min ‘indina ), and guidance ( rushd ) from Allah.73
As M oses journeyed along the seashore, he proclaimed to his disciple Joshua his intention not to
cease searching until finding the place where the two seas meet, even i f it takes ages.74 They
continued on their journey, until they grew weary. As they rested on a rock, their fish slippecf out
o f the basket, slid o f f the rock, touched the water, sprang to life, and swam away as i f plunging
through a tunnel. Allah stopped the flow o f the water and it became an arch. When Muhammad,
75
described this, he drew an arch with his hands. But even though Joshua had witnessed the fish
tunneling through the arch o f standing water, he forgot to tell M oses.
They traveled through the night. Joshua said nothing until the next day when Moses suggested
they eat their meal. Then Joshua informed M oses that the fish got away and that Satan made him
forget to disclose that when the fish slipped o f f the rock and touched the water it sprang to life and
took o f f miraculously. Identifying this miracle o f the fish and their forgetfulness o f it as the sign o f
the place where the two seas meet — the place to which Allah had sent him — Moses commanded
that they retrace their steps to this place where they had lost and forgot their fish.
68 Qur’an Surat al-Kahf (18.65).
69 Sahih Bukhari, I. 3. 45. 124.
70 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 612, p. 401.
71 Qur’an Surat al-K ahf (18.61). Sahih Bukhari I. 3. 17. 74; I. 3. 20. 78; I. 3. 45. 124; III. 36.
7. 467; HI. 50. 12. 888; IV. 55. 23.612, 613, 614; VI. 60. 249, 250, 251. O nce the Prophet
Muhammad explained to his companions that this special servant o f Allah w as named Khidr, “the
Green One,” because whenever he would sit on barren land, the ground would turn green by the time he
stood up. (Sahih al-Bukhari vol 4, ch. 23, 614).
72 Qur’an Sura K ahf (18.60).
73 Qur’an 18.65-66.
74 Qur’an 18.60.
75 Sahih Bukhari IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 402-3.
64
Through the meeting with Khidr and their contract comes Khidr’s self-disclosure and
the complementarity between their two bodies o f knowledge.
So they retraced their steps until they came to the rock at the place where the two seas meet. And
they found there one o f God’s servants, one God had selected to directly receive His merciful
compassion and inner knowledge (18.64-65), Khidr, the Green One. When Moses approached him
76
he was lying covered with a garment. M oses greeted him and he asked, “How do people greet
77
each other in your land?” M oses said, “I am M oses.” Al-Khadir asked, “Moses o f the Children o f
Israel?” Moses asked, “May I follow you that you may teach me spiritual growth and give me
78
some o f the guidance you have been taught.”
Al-Khadir replied, “But, truly, you w ill not be able to be patient with me. And how can you be
patient when you w ill be faced with what is beyond what you can understand?”79
Al-Khadir said, “O Moses, I have some o f the knowledge o f Allah which he has given m e which
you do not know, and you also have som e o f the knowledge o f Allah which he has given you
which I do not know.” 0
Moses expressed his determination to fulfill his mission and follow Khidr: “You w ill find me
patient, God Willing, and I w ill not disobey your commands.”*1 Al-Khadir finally agreed, but set
one condition: “I f you wish to follow me, you must not ask anything until I mention it to you
first.”82
The ioumev o f the companions begins with a lesson in the infinity o f God’s
knowledge and Khidr’s demonstration o f selfless action.
So they traveled on along the seashore until they met the crew o f a boat who recognized Khidr and
let him and M oses ride for free.83 Then a sparrow came and sat on the edge o f the boat and dipped
its beak into the sea. Al-Khadir said to M oses, “M y knowledge and your knowledge, compared to
the knowledge o f Allah is like what this sparrow has removed from the sea.”84 As they were riding
76 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 403.
77 Ibid., IV, 55. 23, 613, p. 402.
78 Ibid., IV, 55. 23, 613, p. 403.
79 Qur’an 18.68.
80 Ibid., IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 403.
81 Qur’an 18.69. Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 403-4.
82 Qur’an 18.70.
83 Sahih Bukhari, TV. 55. 23. 613, p. 404.
84 Ibid., IV. 23. 613, p. 404.
65
Khidr took out a woodworking tool, broke the boat, and plugged the holes. Moses protested and
asked, “Are you breaking this boat to drown its people? You have done a strange thing!”85
Al-Khadir answered, “Did I not tell you that you would not be able to find enough patience to bear
with me?86
Moses said, “Please do not blame me for forgetting, or for causing difficulties.”87 The Prophet
Muhammad underscored the fact that the first excuse given by Moses was that he had forgotten.88
They continued further until they came upon a young boy playing among other boys. Al-Khadir
stepped forward and, as i f plucking a piece o f fruit, killed him by pulling his head off. And Moses
challenged, “Have you killed a pure soul who has not killed anyone? You have done a terrible
thing.”89
Al-Khadir then reminded Moses, “Didn’t I tell you that you could not patiently bear with me?”
And Moses said, “I f I ask you about anything after this don’t keep company with me. N ow you
have my excuse.” In this way Moses indicated that when and if he protested again, he would
90
understand and accept Khidr’s decision to part ways with him.
N ext they journeyed until they came to the people o f a village. They asked for food and drink, but
the people o f the village refused to grant these favors. Al-Khadir then found in the village a wall
which was on the verge o f falling down. So Khidr passed his hand upward over the wall and it
straightened back up. Moses protested, observing that these people had denied them food and
refused them as guests and yet, Khidr had chosen to rebuild their wall, even though, had he
desired, he could have taken a reward for this service. Moses was thinking that they could use the
91
wages for food. But Khidr was not acting for the sake o f his own reward.
The interpretation and separation concludes with the Prophet’s reprimand o f Moses
and commendation o f Khidr.
At this point Khidr announced to Moses, “This is the parting between me and you. However, I
will reveal to you the real meaning ( ta ’w il ) o f what you were not able to bear with patience.”92
85 Qur’an 18.71. Sahih Bukhari, IV, 23, 613, p. 404.
86 Qur’an 18.72.
87 Qur’an 18.73.
88 Sahih Bukhari, IV 55. 23, 613, p. 404.
Qur’an 18.74. Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 404-5.
Qur’an 18.76. Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 405.
Qur’an 18.77. Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 2 3 .6 1 3 , p. 405.
Qur’an 18.78. Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 405.
66
The Prophet added, “We wish that M oses could have remained patient by virtue o f which Allah
might have told us more about their story.”93
Al-Khadir then began to show M oses the ultimate meaning (ta ’wil) surrounding the events which
M oses had not understood: “A s for the boat, it belonged to poor people (masakin) who worked on
the sea and I wanted to make it useless because coming from behind was a king seizing every boat
by force.”94
95
Al-Khadir explained that in the case o f the youth, his parents were believers (mu ’minayn) and
that Allah and Khidr together feared that the child would cause them grief by his stubborn
rebellion, disbelief, and ingratitude. In fact he was likely to corrupt his parents, who. in their love
for him, might have been lured into a life o f evil. So their Lord and Khidr desired to give them in
exchange a child better in purity and closer in Mercy.96
Finally Khidr explained that the wall belonged to two young orphans in the town. Beneath their
wall lay a treasure left for the two orphans by their father, a righteous person o f virtue (Abuhuma
97
Salih). Al-Khadir told Moses, “Your Lord desired that these young orphans should reach their
strength and maturity so that they might bring out their treasure —a treasure o f Mercy from their
Lord. And I did not do these acts on m y own authority. This is the real meaning ( t a ’w il ) o f what
go
you could not bear with patience.”
The Prophet Muhammad commented that by protesting the third time, Moses, by volunteering his
consent that Khidr might leave him i f h e broke his promise not to challenge Khidr’s actions,
signaled or triggered Khidr’s departure. As the Prophet Muhammad said, “We wished that Moses
could have been more patient so that Allah could have described to us more about their story.” The
first time M oses spoke up, he gave forgetfulness as his excuse. The Prophet once said o f this third
act o f speaking out by Moses, “He intentionally asked Khidr and caused the condition [o f M oses’s
99
excuse] to be applied.”
Even, in advance o f the classical and Sufi commentators, these hadith reports
already present the idea that Khidr is invested with a knowledge beyond that o f
93 Idem, IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 405.
94 Qur’an Sura al-Kahf (18.79).
95 Ibid, 18. 80.
96 Ibid, 18.80-81.
97 Ibid,, ibid., 18.82
98 Ibid,, ibid., 18.82.
99 Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613, p. 405.
67
Moses. The Qur’an as well alludes to this special inner knowledge through the motifs
o f seeking guidance (rushd) and Khidr’s question to Moses concerning Moses’s ability
to understand what his knowledge does not encompass. But the hadith reports
underscore how vast is that knowledge without articulating how it might be learned.
For that development we must look to the Sufi commentaries.
But first we should evaluate two questions in a broader perspective. What
makes Khidr important? Second, how has this story been studied up to now?
Retracing the Steps: K h idr’s Ubiquity and Diversity
What value and currency have Khidr and his story actually achieved? We have
seen how Khidr emerges as a figure o f importance in Qur’an and Hadith. Sufi
hagiographies predictably narrate numerous encounters with this immortal esoteric
initiatory guide. He receives widespread mention, if not always extensive
interpretation.100 The term for the knowledge he imparts to Moses is the same term
100 Am ong insightful, i f brief, treatments o f the subject o f Khidr/al-Khidr in general works
may be included: Marshall Hodgson, Venture o f Islam Vol. II. (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press,
1974), 460-1; Karen Armstrong, A History o f God. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993), 236-7.
Noteworthy longer treatments appear in Brandon Wheeler, “The Jewish Origins o f Qur’an 18:65-82?
Reexamining Arent Jan Wensinck’s Theory” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 118.2 (1998),
153-171 and ibid., “Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis o f Qur’an 18. 60-65,” Journal o f Near
Eastern Studies , V ol. 57, no. 3, (July 1998), 191-215; James Jervis, Al-Khadir: Origins and
Interpretations. A Phenomenological Study. (Unpublished M A Thesis. McGill University, Toronto,
Canada, 1993) and Norman O. Brown, “The Apocalypse o f Islam,” in Apocalypse and/or
Metamorphosis (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1991): 69-94. The generic figure o f the Green
Man receives increasing cross-cultural attention in this ecologically-attuned age, partly due to the pagan
figure o f the Green Man, whose relationship to that o f the Islamic Green Man Khidr is interesting, i f
speculative; some, though not all, o f the grounds for this connection appear below in the discussion o f
Levantine “Georgic Saints.” General treatments o f the Green Man include: William Anderson, Green
Man: the Archetype o f Our Oneness with the Earth. (London and San Francisco: HarperCoIlins, 1990);
68
used to describe Joseph’s skill at dream interpretation (ta’wil).101 It is also the term at
the center o f discussions o f exegetical authority raised in a verse o f Sura Al-Imran
(3.7). That discussion reflects on the question o f whether any or some gifted human
interpreters might have access to the Qur’an’s “true meaning” (ta’wil): Does access to
the “true meaning” belong to God alone or is it shared along with certain people, those
“firmly rooted [in knowledge]” (rasikhuri) who are “possessers o f the inner heart”
(u lu’ al-albab)?102 The majority view is that God alone knows its true meaning
(ta ’wil). This view is reflected by punctuating the text with a stop (waqfa lazirri) —
equivalent to a period so that it reads:
But no one knows its [the Qur’an’s] true meaning (ta'wil) except Allah. And those who
are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole o f it is from
our Lord” and none w ill grasp the message but men o f undeistanding.
Carl G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections. (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), 313-4, 318.
Northrop Frye, Anatomy o f Criticism. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 196. Hildegard o f
Bingen’s representation o f Christ as “Greenness Incarnate” and as the “Green Man” appear respectively
in Matthew Fox, Illuminations o f Hildegard o f Bingen (Santa Fe: Bear & Co., 1985, pp. 30-32) and
idem., The Reinvention o f Work (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994), p. 306. This is literally
illustrated in Hildegard’s drawing reproduced in Carl Jung, Psychology and Alchemy (Princeton:
Bollingen, rev. ed., 1968), 364, pi. 195. For a slightly similar European legend o f a green initiatory
figure associated with rejuvenation (if not immortality) and whose tests challenge the patience and
ethical notions o f his apprentice, see Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
101 Sura Y usuf (12.6, 21, 44, 100, 101).
102 Carl Emst, Shambhala Guide to Sttfism. (Boston: Shambhala, 1997), 37-38. Mahmud
Ayoub, The Q ur’an and Its Interpreters vol 2. (Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1992), 39-46. A discussion o f the
issues underlying Sura A1 Imran 3.7 is the subject o f Jane Dammen McAuIiffe, “Quranic Hermeneutics:
The V iew s o f al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir,” in Andrew Rippin, ed. Approaches to the History o f the
Interpretation o f the Q ur’an (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 47-62,; see in particular pp. 51-54 and
58-62.
69
The minority o f commentators, o f whom the most famous and authoritative exponent
is Mujahid,103 run the sentences together to assert that both God and these gifted
human interpreters share in the authority to arrive at the text’s true meaning (ta ’wit):
But no one knows its [the Qur’a i’s] true meaning (ta'wil) except Allah and those who
are firmly grounded in knowledge. They say “We believe in the Book; the whole o f it
is from our Lord” and none will grasp the message but men o f undeistanding.
In essence, this term for interpretation (ta ’wil) which Khidr uses twice to describe
what he teaches to Moses, also connotes the Prophet Joseph’s skill at dream
interpretation, as well as a key term in the discussion o f interpretive authority in
Quranic exegesis. T a ’wil is an exegetical term from the root a-w-l, meaning origins,
beginnings, and firsts. As an exegetical term, ta ’wil means understanding the origins or
source o f meaning. It is a “hermeneutic o f origins.” The exegetes’ answer in the Quranic
passage underscores the thrust o f ta ’wil as a return to origins. They profess belief as
the basis o f engagement with the Book and affirm its source to be God. Their exegetical
principles trace the origins o f interpretation in belief and authorship in God.
Khidr’s significance is also further measurable in terms o f Khidr’s relation to
Moses and M oses’s relation to Muhammad: as we observed earlier, other than
Muhammad, no other figure in the Qur’an except Khidr exhibits either such pre
eminence or authority over Moses.
103 Abu’I-Hajjaj Mujahid b. Jabir al-Makki (21/642-104/722), a pupil o f Ibn ‘Abbas frequently
cited by al-Tabari.
70
As we have discussed before, Khidr’s significance is reflected in his adoption
by two European esotericists: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Carl Jung. Possibly
the earliest European reference to Khidr appears in Goethe’s West-osterlicher
D ivan.104 As we have also seen in the previous chapter, Carl Jung presents a hermetic
interpretation o f the story o f Khidr as an allegory o f initiatic rebirth into the higher
consciousness within the self.105
Between quests for origins and quests for ends, the question therefore
arises: How do we approach this material in a way which traces it in an Islamic
framework?
The Questfo r Origins: Ends as Form s Rather Than Functions
How much value should we attach to theories and insights about the genealogy o f the
figure o f Khidr, his precedents, and similarities to other figures and narratives, previous
and contemporary? Even though some o f the following theories may contribute to an
enriched appreciation o f Khidr, they do not address the Islamicate significances o f the
104 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, G oethe’s Reineke Fox, West-Eastern Divan, and Achilleid ,
trans. B y Alexander Rogers (London: George Bell and Sons, 1890), 199-200.
105 Carl G. Jung, “A Typical Set o f Symbols Illustrating the Process o f Transformation,”
Collected Works Vol. 9, pt. 1. (Princeton: Princeton University press, 1959, 1969). On the role o f the
“magical traveling companion” as the water o f life which nurtures the construction o f s e lf (i.e., Khidr
[and M oses], Krishna [and Aijuna], and Jesus [and the disciples on the road to Emmaus]), see Jung’s,
“Dream Symbols o f the Individuation Process,” in Spiritual Disciplines: Papers from the Eranos
Yearbooks. Bollingen Series xxx.4 N ew York: Pantheon Books, 1960, 375-6. Jung refers to Khidr as
“the archetype o f the s e lf ’ and [in a striking formulation] “the human personification o f Allah,” in
F ly in g Saucers: a Modern Myth o f Things Seen in the Sky. (N ew York: N ew American Library, 1959,
p. 32), cf. p. 111. For biographical background on Jung’s interest in Khidr, see Nicholas Battye,
“Khidr in the Opus o f Jung: the Teaching o f Surrender,” in Jung and the Monotheisms. (London and
N ew York: Routledge, 1994.).
71
role o f Khidr and the narrative in which he figures.
Let us review this approach. A number o f scholars have cited similarities o f
feast days and figurative symbolism to link the figure o f Khidr with what H.S. Haddad
has colorfully termed “Georgic” figures, including in addition to George and Elijah,
Baal-Zeus, Baal-Saphon, and Baal-Hadad.106 I f so, why would such a figure become
the protagonist o f a narrative which focuses on themes not particularly related to
agricultural cultic ritual, but directly bearing on issues of institutional and textual
practice? The story o f Khidr focuses on three such themes: (1) spiritual guidance, (2)
inner interpretation, and (3) justice and the limits o f human interpretation to
comprehend the complete context (ta ’wil [inner hermeneutic]) o f any situation. The
key to the story o f Khidr, in our analysis, implied in the exegetical works o f the
commentators (mufassiruri), appears in the socio-historical question o f the role o f the
spiritual guide (murshid). Whatever similarities to past precedents may root the figure
o f Khidr in an agricultural symbolism and cult, we propose turning to Islamic
discussions o f Khidr as a paradigm o f prophecy and spiritual guidance.
But this comparative legacy is deeply rooted. Western scholars have often
emphasized the parallels between the narrative o f Khidr and three allegedly earlier
stories from other traditions: the epic o f Gilgamesh, the Alexander romance, and the
106 H.S. Haddad, “ ‘Georgic’ Cults and Saints o f the Levant.” Numen 16 (1969): 28-29; 35-36.
An even more close resemblance among Baals would be that o f the Libo-Phoenician Baal Hamon, an
oracle o f the god o f the sea, sought out by Alexander the Great (with whom Khidr is often associated).
Baal Hamon is discussed in Oric Bates, Eastern Lybians (London: Macmillan, 1914) I am grateful to
Vincent Cornell for this reference.
72
story o f Elijah and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.107 The epic o f Gilgamesh features a
character named Utnapishtim, also known as Khasisatra (with the phonetic similarity
between this name and that o f Khidr being implied) who lives at ina p i narati, the
mouth o f the rivers (allegedly correlate to the majma ‘ al-bahrain , the meeting o f the
two seas ) and was given eternal life. In the Alexander Romance o f Pseudo-
Callisthanes, Alexander’s cook, Andreas (alleged to be the Greek precedent o f the
Arabic name Idris)108 washes a salted fish in the spring o f the water o f life and the fish
comes to life and swims.109
In addition to the Alexander Romance, a story o f Elijah presents interesting
parallels. In an 11th century Jewish story written by Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin o f
Kairouan, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (220-250 C.E.) is guided by Elijah on a journey, in
a narrative structure parallel to that o f the Quranic narrative, during which Elijah
performs three baffling and outrageous acts similar to those performed by Khidr.110
107 s.v. “Khidr” in EI. James Jervis’s dissertation, ibid., is devoted to fulfilling this project o f
source-criticism and comparative analysis o f origins. On the question o f chronological precedence, the
first two o f these stories (Gilgamesh and Alexander) are indisputibly earlier); the claim that the story o f
Elijah and Yehoshua ben Levi is earlier than the Qur’an will be critiqued.
108 s.v. “Idris,” in EI.
109 Richard Stoneman, trans. The Greek Alexander Romance. London: Penguin, 1991, pp.
121-124.
1,0 Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin (990-1062 C.E.) An Elegant Composition concerning R elief
after Adversity. (Translation o f H ibbur Yafeh me-hay-Yeshu 'ah by William M. Brinner.) (New Haven:
Yale, 1977.) The motifs o f this version are as follows: (1) a family hosts the two travelers; in the
morning Elijah causes their cow to die; (2) a wealthy man offers no hospitality and Elijah rebuilds his
wall; (3) when at a rich synagogue they are offered only bread and salt, Elijah wishes that they should
be given many chiefs; (4) when a poor community hosts them, Elijah asks God that they only be given
one chief. Here are the interpretations: (1) the cow was substituted for the wife slated to die; (2) under
73
Although some Orientalists have attempted to assert that this is an oral tale older than
the Quranic version, no evidence for this claim exists and a number o f issues undermine
this assertion. First, the authorship follows the Qur’an by 400 years. Secondly, as
Brinner shows, the genre o f this work follows that o f the Kitab al-Faraj o f al-Tanukhi
and other such works. Finally, despite Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s dates (220-250
C.E.), no earlier version o f this story exists in Jewish literature.111 Some would add to
Alexander and Elijah the names o f Osiris and Melchizedek. In a parallel quest for
origins, Ilse Lichtenstader has argued that the figure o f Khidr was adapted from that o f
Osiris.112 Qur’an translator Y usuf ‘Ali compared Khidr to Melchizedek, “King o f
Salem and Priest o f God Most High.” (Gen. 14:18-20)113
Such comparisons offer little value on their own terms, since they can only
posit alleged genealogical similarity but cannot prove any historical transmission or
influence. They may, however, provide new perspectives, interpretive agendas, and
the wall was a treasure the stingy man, because o f his stinginess, did not deserve; (3) a place with many
chiefs is bound to be ruined; (4) those under one ch ief can prosper. The moral o f this story is given as
follows: If the wicked prosper it is to their disadvantage; when a righteous person is distressed or tried
s/he is being delivered from a worse ordeal.
111 This question o f the comparative dating o f the two narratives is further explored by
Brannon Wheeler, “The Jewish Origins o f Qur’an 18:65-82? Reexamining Arent Jan Wensinck’s
Theory” Journal o f the Am erican Oriental Society (118.2).
112 Ilse Lichtenstadter, “Origin and Interpretation o f Some Koranic Symbols,” Arabic an d
Islam ic in Honor H.A.R. Gibb. George Makdisi, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1965), 426-436. This article extracts significance from every similarity between narratives o f Osiris and
the narrative o f Khidr. Al-Khadir’s wall is correlated to Osiris’ building o f cities. Osiris’ phallus
swallowed by a fish is tied to M usa’s fish which leads him to Khidr. K harq al-Safina (the breaking o f
the boat) is linked to the possibility o f obliterating the ferry boat o f death.
113 ‘Abdallah Y u su f‘A ll, trans. The M eaning o f the H oly Q u r’an, new revised ed.
(Brentwood, MA: Amana, 1991), 727, ftn 2411.
74
helpful models for identifying and focusing attention on unnoticed features within the
story. But all such comparisons demonstrate an interesting disregard for the Islamicate
significance and provenance o f this narrative and its application in Islamic settings.
How do Muslims in general, and Sufis especially, understand and apply this narrative
in historically discernible ways?
Into this comparativist’s fray, a new voice enters. Brannon Wheeler114 posits
that the commentators used allusions to the motifs and materials o f the Alexander
Romance and Gilgamesh Epic not as a form of source criticism, but rather, as a strategy
for positioning the authority o f the commentators’ expertise and advancing an
intertextuality that informs and exalts the status o f the Prophet Muhammad. Wheeler
suggests that the commentators chose motifs and associations which linked the story
o f Khidr in a number o f authoritative directions: connections with other Moses stories,
connections to Alexander and Moses as “Prophet Kings” heralding these dimensions of
the prophethood o f Muhammad, connections to the motifs o f Gilgamesh and
Alexander to link this story to well-known motifs or stories, and connections to Elijah
to allow Khidr to emerge as a distinctively Islamicate counterpart to Elijah.115 Wheeler
re-examines and proposes corrections o f the dating o f some o f the alleged “sources” of
114 Brannon Wheeler, “The Jewish Origins o f Qur’an 18:65-82? Reexamining Arent Jan
W ensinck’s Theory” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 118.2 (1998): 153-171, and ibid.,
“M oses or Alexander? Early Islamic E xegesis o f Qur’an 18. 60-65,” Journal o f Near Eastern Studies,
V ol. 57, no. 3, (July 1998): 191-215.
115 Ibid., “Jewish Origins,” p. 165.
75
the Khidr story and argues that some versions o f the Alexander Romance, as well as
the story o f Elijah and Joshua b. Levi, are informed by, rather than derived from, the
Islamic commentaries.116 However, in this otherwise thoroughly documented body o f
work, citations for the sources o f two o f the connections remain unclear. First, which
commentaries allege connections between Gilgamesh and the story o f Khidr? All that
can be said at this point is that motifs found and interpreted by the tafsirs are shared
by the story o f Gilgamesh. The second question: Which commentaries identify
connections between the Khidr story and Moses’ journey to, and training under, his
father-in-law Shu’ayb/Jethro (Qur’an 28: 24)? Aside from the question o f voice, this
parallel itself is suggestive enough to invite us to ask why Islamic sources have not
even hinted at an identity or relationship between Khidr and Shu’ayb/Jethro. In the
commentaries, the stories o f Khidr and Alexander have been linked by key motifs: the
fish reborn in the Water o f Eternal Life and the notion that both Khidr’s meeting o f the
two seas and Alexander’s places o f the setting and rising sun similarly signify the
extremes o f East and West leading to the Garden o f Eden. The commentators’
interpretations may, as Wheeler suggests, show us not the sources, but rather, the
intertextual strategies o f the commentators who use a “homiletic or midrashic style to
teach readers.”117 As important as new interpretations o f the intertextual relationship
among diverse narratives may be, we must return to the basic question for Sufi
'16 Ibid, “M oses or Alexander?,” 193-203.
117 Idem, 212-213, 215.
76
exegetes: How is the narrative o f Khidr applied in the framing o f the relationship
between Sufi teacher and student. How does the story o f Moses and Khidr inform
aspects o f Islamic life which it models and parallels, namely the relationship between
murshid and m uridl
Now that we have sketched out the broad outlines o f his persona, we will save
our consideration o f how Khidr figures in hagiographies until after we complete our
analysis o f the construction o f successive interpretive frameworks among Qur’an,
Hadith, and Tafsir. What will be needed is to consider the case o f the treatment o f
story o f Khidr and Moses in the classic encyclopedic tafsir o f at-Tabari.
Foundations o f Tafsir Traditions:

Interpretations ofM oses ’ Journey with Khidr in the Traditional Tafsir o f Al-Tabari
In the exegetical line that begins with Qur’an and hadith and leads to Sufi tafsirs, the
foundation for Quranic hermeneutics is established in the classical tradition o f received
tafsir (tafsir ma ’thur). Traditions o f Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir/tafassir) were passed
down and received within an interdisciplinary scope broader than the legal and ethical
concerns which guided the recension o f hadith. Hadith collections were arranged and
applied to legal norms; tafsirs to exegesis. O f course, in a broad sense, hadith provide
Qur’anic commentary by detailing Muhammad’s life as a model (sunna) o f the
Qur’an’s values and import; in a more direct sense, the hadith collections also contain
discrete verbal explanations o f select passages o f the Qur’an.118 Tafsirs provide a
systematic and comprehensive analysis o f the meanings o f passages in the Qur’an on a
number o f levels. Commentators, especially the classical commentators, unfold
significances and applications o f the Qur’an by integrating knowledge from a vast
variety o f Islamic disciplines or fields o f knowledge including: hadith, recitation
(qira ‘a), jurisprudence (fiqh), theology (kalam), grammar (nahwa), and rhetoric
(ibalagha).
As Norman Calder has observed, tafsirs as a genre are constituted o f
instrumental and ideological structures.119 Tafsir’s instrumental structures consist o f
linguistic and literary features: “orthography, lexis, syntax, rhetoric, symbol, allegory;”
ideological structures refer to scholastic disciplines: “prophetic history, theology,
eschatology, law, tasawwuf.”120 Calder describes the formal structural characteristics
o f tafsir as containing three elements: (1) Qur’anic segments followed by commentary:
(2) citation o f named authorities; and (3) polyvalent readings. Tafsir then is an
exegetical activity developed in an interactive matrix o f various disciplines and
involving an interplay between received tradition and new interpretation within a
118 The role o f hadith in tafsir and its relationship to tafsir is examined by R. Marston
Speight, “The Function o f hadith as Seen in the Six Authoritative Collections,” in Approaches to the
history o f the Interpretation o f the Q u r’an, ed. Andrew Rjppin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 63-
81.
1,9 Norman Calder, “Tafsir from Tabari to Ibn Kathir,” in G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A.
Shareef, Approaches to the Q u r’an. (London: Routledge, 1993), 101-140.
120 Ibid., 105-106.
78
lineage o f Quranic commentators (m ifassirun). These characteristics describe the
classical tafsir tradition which culminates in the work o f Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b.
Jarir al-Tabari (224/839-310/923), Jam i ’ al-bayan ‘an ta ’w il ay al-Qur 'an (The
Gathering o f the Elucidation o f the Verses o f the Qur ’an).121
In this section we will introduce the history o f the classical tafsir tradition o f
commentary based on received reports (tafsir bi ‘l-ma ’thur), and then examine al-
Tabari’s treatm ent o f the story o f Moses and Khidr (Qur’an 18.60-82).122 The
discussion in this chapter applies directly to the tafsir o f al-Tabari, while also
providing a context for understanding the nature o f the Sufi tafsirs which we shall
examine in the next two chapters.
As we will discuss in chapter four, Sufi tafsirs both conform to and diverge
from the model which Calder outlines for classical tafsir. Like their classical
counterparts, Sufi tafsirs cite hadith, though less frequently. Also like their classical
counterparts Sufi tafsirs cite named authorities; however, in Sufi tafsirs the named
authorities are more typically earlier Sufis. The main hermeneutical thrust o f Sufi
tafsirs comes from literary allusions, which Gerhard Bowering describes as “the result
o f the merger between Qur’anic keynotes and the matrix o f the Sufi world o f ideas.”123
121 Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (224/5-310 / 839-923), Jami' al-bayan 'an ta ’wil
ay al-Qur'an (30 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘AIamin, 1992).
122 ibid., vol. 15, pp. 244-259, continuing in vol. 16, pp. 260-273.
123 Gerhard Bowering, “The Qur’an Commentary o f al-Sulami.” In Islamic Studies Presented
79
Although Sufi commentators engage in a hermenetic o f inner meaning (batin), their
readings assume and use the explicit level o f meaning (zahir) as their foundation.
The oldest tafsir traditions date to the generation o f the Prophet’s companions.
The allegedly earliest mufassir was the Prophet’s companion and cousin ‘Abd Allah
‘ibn ‘Abbas (d. circa 688). Ibn ‘Abbas was honored with such titles as the “ocean of
Qur’anic knowledge;” the “Doctor (habr) o f the community; and he was popularly
known as “the interpreter o f the Qur’an (tarjuman al-Q ur’a n )”124 Ibn ‘Abbas also
served as the governor o f Basra. One o f ‘Ali’s sons, Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, who
led his funeral said o f him, “By Allah, today the master (rabbani) o f this community
has died.”125 The Prophet is reported to have prayed for the flowering o f his exegetical
acumen: “God, instruct him in the religion and teach him the interpretation.”126
According to tradition, Ibn ‘Abbas received direct instruction from the Prophet in
Qur’anic exegesis. Apparently Ibn ‘Abbas also collected reports from Jewish converts
to Charles J. Adams, eds. Wael B. Hallaq and Donald P. Little. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), p. 51.
124 Fred Leemhuis argues that this designation means that Ibn ‘Abbas was, among others, an
eminent interpreter, not as is often thought that he was the exclusive superlative mufassir. Leemhuis
bases this re-evaluation based on al-Tabari’s wording in his preface which reads: “What an excellent
Qur’an interpreter Ibn ‘Abbas is!” (Ni'm a tarjuman al-Q ur’an Ibn ‘Abbas.) Leemhuis argues that this
formulation implies that Ibn ‘Abbas is one among other qualified interpreters. See idem, “Origins and
Early Development o f the tafsir Tradition,” in Approaches to the History o f the Interpretation o f the
Quran, ed. Andrew Rippin. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 13-30.
125 John Cooper, “Introduction,” The Commentary on the Q u r’an. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1987), xvi.
126 Al-Ghazali, Ihya ‘ulum ad-din (Istanbul, 1318-1322 A .H 71900-4 C.E.), I, 268ff., quoted
in Helmut Gatje, The Qur ’an and its Exegesis. Ed. and trans., Alford T. Welch (Berkeley: University
o f California Press, 1976), 230. Al-Ghazali cites this oft-quoted report as evidence that the Prophet
intended and endorsed an ongoing interpretive enterprise.
80
to Islam, especially Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and Kacb al-Ahbar (d. 32/652 or 34/654), Ikrama,
and Sa ‘id ibn Jubayr. This is evident from the hadith reports we examined earlier in
this last chapter. In addition to having collected information received from the
Prophet’s companions (tafsir b i’l-m a’thur), Ibn ‘Abbas also derived interpretations
through applying his own reasoning (ijtihad bi ‘l-ra ’y ) in his evaluation o f the received
materials. From Ibn ‘Abbas extends a lineage o f Qur’an commentators, who in addition
to transmitting the work o f their teacher, became greatly respected commentators in
their own right. The most prominent o f these distinguished students o f Ibn ‘Abbas
include: Ikrama (d. 723-4), Mujahid (624-722), S ‘id b. Jubayr (b. 655), and ‘Ata’ b.
Abi Rabah (d. 732). The exegesis o f all these students o f Ibn ‘Abbas is incorporated in
the tafsir o f al-Tabari, who among all these authorities most frequently cites Ibn
‘Abbas. In addition to citing the above mentioned students o f Ibn ‘Abbas’ who
comprise the Meccan school, another major source for al-Tabari is Ubay b. K‘ab and
his Medinian school. Al-Tabari also cites traditions from Ibn M a‘sud (d. AH 33) and
his students known as the ‘Kufan school.
Ibn M a‘sud was a companion who had extensive contact with the Prophet,
having served him closely by doing menial work for him in his home. When
transmitting reports o f the Prophet he would tremble and break out in a sweat in his
concern to transmit information faithfully and accurately. Nonetheless, he was inclined
to giving allegorical interpretations. His propensity toward allegorical interpretation
81
has implications for understanding Sufi exegesis as sharing a continuity with aspects
o f the classical tafsir tradition. Allegorical readings have never been absent from the
tradition o f Qur’anic commentary. In this sense what the Sufi commentators developed
had been established as one o f many hermeneutical modes from the beginning o f the
tafsir tradition.
The classical tafsir tradition is exemplified in al-Tabari’s compendium, Ja m i‘
al-bayan ‘an ta ’w il ay al-Q ur ’an. By the time he was forty, al-Tabari had traveled to
Rayy, Kufa, Basra, and the towns o f Egypt and Syria and had become a prominent
scholar o f tafsir and fiqh, as well as science and math. He developed his own
madhdhab the Jaririya (the name derives from his nisba, b. Jarir) which resembled the
S h a fi maddhab closely in principle, but did not continue. In al-Tabari’s time,
Baghdad, where al-Tabari wrote and taught, was becoming established as the center of
learning for the Islamic world.
Al-Tabari’s tafsir was the first comprehensive encyclopedic collection and
evaluation o f the cumulative tradition o f exegesis from its origins from Ibn ‘Abbas till
his own time. Al-Tabari reviewed and evaluated the entire corpus o f tafsir,
incorporating the work o f Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161/777), M a’mar ibn Rashid (d.
153/770; or 154/771), and Ibn Jurayj (d. 149/766 or 150/767). Although al-Tabari
created a synthesis, his work is also o f value because he included divergent
interpretations. His collection became a standard upon which later exegetes drew and a
82
source for the advancement o f tafsir as a multi-disciplinary systematic scholarly
enterprise, reflected in the use o f the term “sciences o f the Qur’an” ( ‘ulum al-qur’ari).
After al-Tabari new directions in tafsir developed: e.g., the rationalist commentary o f
Zamakhshari (538/1075-538/1144) and the philosophical tradition o f Razi. Though the
tradition o f Sufi commentary can be traced back to al-Tabari’s contemporary al-Tustari
(d. 283/896),127 the flowering o f Sufi commentary happens with al-Qushayri’s teacher
al-Sulami (d. 1021),128 and with al-Qushayri himself (d. 1072). In addition to the
extensive material he collected in his tafisr, al-Tabari also conveyed exegetical material
in his forty volume Ta ‘rikh al-Rusul wa ’l-M uluk (The History o f Messengers and
Kings')}29
In al-Tabari’s work we find the integration o f tafsir bi ’l-ma 'thur
(interpretations received from the prophet, his companions, and their successors) and
tafsir bi ’l-ra y (interpretation through reason or opinion). At this point it is helpful to
understand the controversy surrounding the role o f “interpretation through reason”
(tafsir b i’l-ra ’y ). Distrust o f this method arises from a hadith transmitted by Ibn
‘Abbas: “ ...Those who interpret the Qur’an by independent reasoning (r a ’y ) will have
127 On Sahl al-Tustari Gerhard Bowering, The M ystical Vision o f Existence in Classical Islam:
the Qur ’anic Hermeneutics o f the Sufi Sahl al-Tustari (d. 283/896) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980).
128 Gerhard Bowering, “The Qur’an Commentary o f al-Sulami”
129 Abu Jafar Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, T a’rikh al-Rusul w a ’l-Muluk, ed. M.J. de Goeje et
al, III series Leiden 1879-1901. Translated as The History o f al-Tabari, 39 vols., ed. Ehsan Yar-Shatar
(Albany: S.U.N.Y, 1987)
83
their place prepared for them in the fire o f hell.”130 R. Marsden Speight131 suggests
that in the light o f parallel hadith accounts and the vital role o f independent reason in
tafsirs such as al-Tabari’s, that the issue is not one o f two separate methodologies. The
real concern is that o f avoiding exegesis which ignores the received knowledge o f
experts in grammar, law, hadith, and other disciplines. This knowledge ( 7/m) which is
oriented around practicing the sunna is “...useful for the worship o f God and for life in
society.”132 Thus al-Tabari’s tafsir is a treasury o f received interpretation (ma ’thur)
guided and informed by the judicious use o f independent reason (ra ’y ):
Practically speaking, even that great monument to m a ’thur interpretation which is the
commentary o f al-Tabari (d. 310/922) contains much that can be labelled as tafsir b i ’l-
ra'y. That work was accepted by partisans o f hadith, because r a ’y was exercised in it
according to the established principles o f ‘ilm and o f disconment (qawarirt al-'ilm w a-
al-nazar)m
As we shall see, Sufi commentators could defend the authenticity o f their exegesis from
allegations of individual opinion {tafsir bi ‘l-ra ’y ) on two bases: their work
incorporated a knowledge o f the foundational sciences, and their hermeneutics was
based on the authority o f their training and experience with inner knowledge ( 7/m
ladunni) and knowledge o f the unseen ( ‘ilm al-ghayb). On the basis o f their
130 Al-Tirmidhi, al-Jam i', tafsir, I, quoted in Alan Godlas, “Psychology and Self-
Transformation in the Sufi Qur’an Commentary o f Ruzbihan Baqli” unpublished paper.
131 R. Marsden Speight, “The Function o f hadith as Commentary on the Qur’an,” pp. 63-81.
132 ibid, 87. An important implication o f this perspective on the ethical, experiential, and
practical dimensions o f ‘ilm is that it more closely resembles the Sufi commentators’ methodogy o f
“symbolic allusion” {isharat) in which the commentator’s own experience opens the text’s meaning in
accordance with relevant and lived realities o f the spiritual path.
84
competence and attention to fundamental exegetical disciplines and the “objectivity”
o f their mystical knowledge, they viewed their work as untainted by personal opinion
or independent — i.e. arbitrary or gratuitious —judgm ent Their exegesis reflected a
consensus o f earlier Sufis and was confirmed by knowledge based on spiritual
achievement through rigorous training.
In his tafsir, al-Tabari presents the consensus o f viewpoints in the history o f
Qur’anic commentary, coupled with his editorial evaluation o f the merits o f different
interpretations. Peter Heath has described and discussed this under the term
“hermeneutic pluralism.” 134 In Heath’s view, “ ...(Tit is rare that he [al-Tabari] does
not endorse one interpretation...On the other hand, he rarely explicitly discounts
alternatives.” 135 Al-Tabari applied his collected knowledge (m a’thur) and scholarly
aptitude (ra ’y ) to such issues as grammar, variant readings o f the text, and historical
background. What Heath describes as “hermeneutic pluralism” reflects al-Tabari’s
adherence to received traditions (tafsir bi 'l-ma ’thur) as reliable sources; what Heath
describes as “endorsement” reflects al-Tabari’s use o f reasoning (ra ’y ) to critically
evaluate the best interpretation from among a variety o f sound views. A description of
al-Tabari’s tafsir by one o f his students expresses the range and depth o f al-Tabari’s
work:
133 ibid, 68
I3‘*Peter Heath, “Creative Hermeneutics: a Comparative Analysis o f Three Islamic

Approaches,” Arabica XXXVI (1989), 185.
85
He explains in it [the commentary] its [the Qur’an’s] ordinances, its abrogating and
abrogated vases, its difficult and unusual expressions, its meanings, the difloences o f
opinion among interpreters and scholars concerning its ordinances and interpretation,
and what he him seif considers correct, the destinential inflexion o f its letters, arguments
against those who disbdieve in it, stories and traditions o f the M uslin commuiity,
[accounts] o f the day o f resurrection, and other thing? o f the ordinances and wonders it
contains; word for word, verse by verse; from its very beginning until its end.136
By assessing the issues, topics, and methodology o f traditional commentators leading
up to and including al-Tabari, we can better understand the distinctive aspects and
orientations o f the Sufi tafsirs. We also can begin to see the methdological and stylistic
continuity between the genres o f classical tafsir (tafsir bi ‘l-m a’thwr) and Sufi tafsirs.
Both genres incorporate previous traditions from hadith and earlier commentators. In
both genres, the commentators integrate received materials with independent critical
evaluation. To what issues does al-Tabari devote his attention in his tafsir? In giving
some highlights we can also detect the main styles o f al-Tabari’s exegesis.
Al-Tabari primarily addresses grammatical, semantic, historical, and
narratological concerns. These parallel and complement earlier hadith reports. After
giving a summary o f these points, we will examine how al-Tabari’s treatment o f the
story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr presages discussions o f knowledge and teaching
authority which correspond to the discussions in the Sufi tafsirs. Here we outline al-
135 Ibid, 185.
136 Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah al-Farghani (d. 362/972-3) quoted in Shams ad-Din
Muhammad ibn ‘A li ibn Ahmad ad-Da’udi (d. 945/1533-34), Tabaqat al-mufassirun, 2 vols. (Beirut;
Dar al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyya, 1983) 2:114, quoted in Peter Heath, ibid, p. 181, n. 15.
86
Tabari’s exegesis in his tafsir along with some of the material he incorporates in his
T a ’rikh (H istory)}31
As the hadith accounts emphasized, al-Tabari affirms that the Moses o f this
narrative is Moses, the son o f ‘Imran whose story is narrated in the Torah and
elsewhere in the Qur’an. The two seas are the “Roman Sea in the west”
(Mediterranean) and the Persian G ulf in the east.138
An alternative account identifies the meeting o f the two seas in North Africa at
Tanja (Tangier).139 The length o f time Moses announces he is willing to travel (huqub)
is assessed as an epoch (dahr).140 Al-Tabari gives details about the nature o f the fish
and the configuration o f the water through which he disappears. Some say the fish was
salted.141 God set the river ( ‘arab) as the marker o f His decree identifying the meeting
o f the two seas.142 Al-Tabari transmits different interpretations o f the fish’s
disappearance through the archway o f water: the fish circled; the fish went through the
ground; the water was frozen; the water was hard as a rock. The reason for the
137 Al-Tabari, Ta’rikh. Material on Moses and Khidr appears in volume three o f The History o f
al-Tabari: The Children o f Israel, trans. William M. Brinner (Albany: SUNY, 1991), 1-18.
138 Al-Tabari, Jami' vol. 15, no. 23167-8.
139 ibid., 23172.
140 ibid., 23176.
141 ibid., 23182.
142 Ibid., 23182.
87
journeying by Moses and his servant is the knowledge given to Khidr from the
presence o f God.143
When not referring to Khidr by name, al-Tabari calls him, the “sage” (al- ‘alim).
In his Ta ’rikh, al-Tabari identifies al-K hadir s time as the reign o f the Persian mythical
king Afridhun (Fredon). Other sources al-Tabari transmits in his Ta ’rikh associate
Khidr with Dhu’l-Qamayn (Alexander the Great), who is said in these traditions to
have arbitrated for Abraham at Beersheba. While serving over the vanguard o f Dhu’l-
Qamayn, Khidr found the water o f life, drank it and became immortal. Another report
says Khidr was the son o f one o f Abraham’s community who joined Abraham in his
emigration from Babylon. Khidr’s full name was Baliya ibn Malikan.144 His genealogy
is given as the son o f Peleg, five generations descended from Noah.
Such less substantiated traditions are reserved for al-Tabari’s Ta ’rikh. For
example, in the Ta ’rikh, al-Tabari sorts out the question of the relationship between
Khidr and Elijah. Al-Khidr, al-Tabari asserts, was a Persian, Elijah an Israelite. The
two are said to have met during annual festivals. Al-Tabari repeats and repudiates Ibn
Ishaq’s remarkable identification o f al-Khadir as Jeremiah. Al-Tabari reiterates the
hadith accounts which begin with Moses claiming to be the most learned o f God’s
creatures. Al-Tabari also transmits the other motifs introduced in hadith which inform
143 Ibid., 23203.
144 A complete rendering o f KhidPs name is alternatively given by Simnani as Abu’l ‘Abbas
Balyan ibn Qalyan ibn Faligh al-Khidr. See M assignon, Essay, p. 91
88
the narration: the exchange o f greetings; the bird pecking water; Moses’ pattern o f
forgetting; and Muhammad’s wish for more o f the story to have been known, had
Moses only shown greater patience. Al-Tabari transmits Ibn ‘Abbas’ report that
Moses and his people had settled in Egypt after their victory over Pharoah. In Ibn
‘Abbas’ account, God sends Gabriel to correct Moses for claiming to have the most
knowledge. In this account, when Moses returns to the rock, he finds the fish, follows
it by poking with his staff, and discovers that whatever the fish touches dries up and
turns to rock. The fish leads Moses to an island in the sea. Another account from Ibn
‘Abbas describes Moses, not proudly claiming to be the wisest, but rather in
conversation with God, asking a series o f questions which culminates in “Which o f
your servants is the wisest?” Another transmission places Moses’ commission to find
Khidr at the time and place o f the splitting o f the sea. In this version, someone simply
tells Moses o f a man wiser than he. God restores the fish to life and it crawls on the
shore before swimming again.145
With few exceptions, al-Tabari transmits material which explains the narrative
in order to give background. However, at times, al-Tabari does shift into analogical
readings. For example, al-Tabari distinguishes between Moses’ motives in his different
protests: his protests over the boat and the youth were both for the sake o f God,
145 Al-Tabari, Ta’rikh, 417; History IE, 17.
89
whereas his question about rebuilding the wall was motivated by his own gain.146 This
very interpretation is adopted by al-Qushayri and al-Qashani in their exegesis o f 18.77.
In distinction to the preponderance o f his literal exegesis ( ‘ibccra), al-Tabari
makes a number o f exegetical moves which place certain portions o f the commentary a
few steps in the direction o f the Sufi commentaries. In a few cases the tone o f these
interpretations prefigures the interpretations o f the Sufi commentators.
Al-Tabari on Inner Knowledge and Teaching Authority
We now turn to examining those passages in al-Tabari’s tafsir which focus on
knowledge ( lilm) and point to the authority o f the teacher. This examination will
provide a basis o f comparison with the treatment of these themes in Sufi
commentaries. Discussing the term “divinely-disclosed knowledge” ( ‘ilm ladunni), a
term derived from “And we taught him from Ourselves knowledge” ( ‘allamnahu min
ladunna ‘ilm ), al-Tabari reports that this was the cause o f the journey (safar) o f
Moses and the servant.and concludes: “ .. .He [God] guided him to a sage ( ‘alim) who
would increase his knowledge o f himself to himself.”147 In this sense, Khidr’s gift
exemplifies what might otherwise be explicitly identified as a particularly Sufi mode of
146 Idem., Ta’rikh 423; History m .1 2 .
147 Idem, Jami', no. 23203.

90
knowing, following the saying quoted by Sufis, “Whoever knows himself, knows his
Lord.”148
Al-Tabari defines Khidr’s knowledge as “knowledge o f the unseen” ( Him al-
ghayb) which goes deeper than the explicit terms o f justice. Al-Tabari paraphrases
Khidr’s statement, “How can you be patient about what your understanding does not
encompass?” (18.68) with a gloss that defines the terms o f the distinctions between
the levels o f understanding o f Moses and Khidr. In al-Tabari’s paraphrase, Khidr’s
reply takes on an almost Sufi significance: “That is, you only know o f the visible outer
(zahir) part o f justice and you cannot encompass what I know o f the unseen ( ‘ilm al-
ghayb) : ’,49
At one point, al-Tabari touches on the theme o f submitting to and following the
teacher:
He [Moses] said, “You will find m e i f God wills, patient. (18.69a) concerning what I
see from you and even i f it contradicts what seems to be correct.” (And I will not
disobey you in anything” (18.69b) He said, “I will go to the end o f what you commaid
me to do, even i f it does not agree with my passions. ..Certainly I [Khidr] have taught
you and the work that I do is in the realm o f the unseal knowledge which you cannot
150
encompass.
148 (Man ‘arafa nafsahu fa-qad ‘arafa rabbahu.) This tradition, sometimes claimed as a
hadith, can be found in Javad Nurbaksh, Traditions o f the Prophet Vol. 2 (New York: Nimatullahi
Publications, 1983), 45. As reported by Ajluni, Ibn ‘Arabi (1165-1240) said, “I f this hadith is not
sound by way o f its transmitters (min tariq al-riwaya ), from our perspective it is sound by way o f
unveiling (min tariq al-kashj)." ( Kashf al-Khafa ', vol. 2, p. 343), quoted in Alan Godlas, ‘Tsychology
and Self-Transformation in the Sufi Qur’an Commentary o f Ruzbihan al-Baqli,” 58-59, ftn. 37.
149 Ibid., 23209.
150 Al-Tabari, Jami', p. 256, no. 23214.
91
In his comments on Khidr’s caution, “You will not be able to have patience
with m e...” (18.67; 23214) al-Tabari explains:
This is [becaxse]: I am working according to an inner [aspect of] knowledge (bi-bctin

a l-‘ilm) [which] God taught m e and the only kind o f knowledge which you have
[which] is only o f the outer aspects o f affairs. So that is why you cannot be patient
regarding what you see o f actions. [This is] just as we mentioned from information
(khabar) from Ibn ‘Abbas before, that he JKhick] was a man who worked in the [realm
of] the unseei (al-ghqyb) who knew that. 1
One o f the subtle issues in the story o f Khidr and Moses involves the question o f
Moses’ excuses to Khidr. Al-Tabari reports that some o f the interpreters (ahl al-
ta ’wil) differ on this point. According to some o f the interpreters, when Moses
requests o f Khidr, “Do not blame me for forgetting...” (18.73), he was challenging
Khidr. But al-Tabari concludes, alluding to sound hadith, that Moses was admitting he
had broken his promise not to ask.152 Continuing his examination o f Moses’s adab
with Khidr, al-Tabari evaluates M oses’s plea, “Do not make my affair difficult.”
(18.73b): “It would have been more worthy o f Moses that he forgot.” 153 Finally, when
Moses proposes to Khidr that Khidr cease keeping company with him if he raises
questions again, this is because o f M oses’s shame. Al-Tabari recounts that the Prophet
would follow this verse by saying, “Moses was ashamed before God.” 154
,sl Ibid., 23214.
152 Ibid., 23221.
153 Cf. Bukhari, Kitab al-Shurut, 3.50.12.888 “M oses then violated the agreement for the first
time because o f forgetfulness...” and idem, Kitab al-Tafsir 6.60.250: “The first inquiry o f Moses was
done because o f forgetfulness; the second caused him to be bound with a stipulation; and the third was
done intentionally.”
154 Ibid., 23230.

92
Al-Tabari correlates the hidden dimension o f the unseen with an “inner [aspect
of] knowledge.” (bi-batin ‘ilm) which he calls “knowledge o f the unseen” ( ‘ilm al-
ghayb). Al-Tabari develops this within the context o f Khidr’s warning about Moses’
impatience:
How w ill you be patient O Moses, overwhat you see o f my actions which you do not
see in their correct aspects, although they are established correctly for me. You did
howerer judge with the greatest degree o f correctness, though also error regarding the
outer form (bi ’l-zahir) by the degree o f knowledge you had. But my actions happai
without an outer proof (dalil zahir) recognizable to your eyes, because it is established
with reasons disclosed latei; not immediately. You cannot know [this] by being told
because it is unseen. Your knowledge does not encompass the knowledge o f the unsem
( ‘ilm al-ghayb) .IS5
This term “knowledge o f the unseen” ( ‘ilm al-ghayb) derives from the divine title
“Knower o f the unseen and the manifest” ( ‘A lim al-ghaybi wa al-shahada)156 While
the use o f the terms batin and ‘ilm al-ghayb do not establish al-Tabari as a Sufi exegete,
these terms establish a bridge joining the traditions o f commentary based on received
tradition (tafsir bi ’l-ma ’thur) and commentary based on symbolic allusion (tafsir al-
isharat), or Sufi commentary. As we shall see, Ruzbihan describes Khidr’s knowledge
as “wisdom o f the unseen” (hikam al-ghayb). In fact all three o f our Sufi commentators
engage a raft o f terms which conceptually involve the unseen and the inward. Ruzbihan
and al-Qashani both use the m otif o f the two sons’ retrieving their buried treasure to
I5S Ibid., p. 256, 23209.
ISS Surat al-Hashr (59. 22)

93
symbolize a movement from the outer to the inner and, as al-Qashani puts it, as a
gnosis known only within the “station o f the heart (maqam al-qalb).”157
In his concluding statements al-Tabari touches on themes which are more fully
developed in the Sufi commentaries. Unlike the Sufi commentaries, al-Tabari has taken
the story’s imposition o f the limits to Moses’ knowledge as a lesson that Moses
should not wish for swift punishment. In a move in some ways more radical than any
which the Sufi exegetes will make, al-Tabari suggests that even God’s enemies are
doing God’s work. This ambiguity o f agency and the deeper, hidden logic o f the
postponement o f divine punishment suggests the reversal of the obvious meaning,
implicit in the allegorical readings o f the Sufi commentators. Most significantly al-
Tabari identifies the lessons in this story about God’s punishment as a lesson which
only the saints (awliya *) would understand. While al-Tabari’s reference to saints does
not place him in the direct realm o f Sufi commentary, his introduction o f an exclusive
and elusive ‘hermeneutics o f the saints’ paves the way for the Sufi commentators to
progress on that exegetical path which is lined with signs seen only by the saints.
And His statanent: “T h at is the ultimate interpretation (ta ’wS) o f w hat you could
n ot bearw ith patience.” (18.82) That is to say, ‘This is what I mentioned to you o f
the causes on account o f which I performed the deeds for which you criticized m e.’
“ Ta’wS” means what returns to itself and returns o f the deeds [about] which you could
not leave o ff questioning me conconing [these deeds] and you refused to be patimt
about it.
157 Al-Qashani, Tafsir al-Qur 'an al-Karim (The Interpretation o f the Noble Qur 'an), ed.
Mustafa Ghalib (2 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), vol. 1, p. 771 (ad. 18.70).
94
These are the stories which God, the Great and Majestic, revealed (akhbcra) to His
Prophet Muhammad (S.) concerning Moses and his compaiion. [These were intended
as] God’s training for Moses. God instiucted him to desist from hastiness in seeking to
punish the idolaers who reviled him and derided both him and his book. And God
infbimed him that He was acting through them both in what you see with the eyes and
what occins in a similar way [to what you see with the eyes] as sometimes o c c u e for
the saints (awliya").
Indeed God’s deeper meaning becomes evident to His saints (awliya ) with respect to
the states o f his enemies through the deeds which He does to them just as the deeds o f
Sahib Musa [i.e., Khidr] convêd a meaning contrary to what seemed outwardly
evident as right (s/Ma) to Moses since he [Moses] did not know what their outcomes
were; in feet, they were performed correctly [by Khidr] on the level o f the real; and they
[the outcomes] were on the mark. And the saying o f God Almighty attests to the truth
o f this: “And your Lord is the Forgiver, the Possessor o f Mercy. If He were to take
them to account for what they have earned, then He would have hastmed their
punishment. But they have an appointed time beyond which they w ill find no refuge.”
(18.58) Then he followed it up with the story o f Moses and his companion where God
made known to His Prophet [Moses] that He did not make evidoit to the idolaers His
not hastening their punishment. Indeed that is the case, as those who do not know God
reckcn what He does as what God had planned for them. Yet the deepo- meaning
(ta ’wiT) occurs through their [eventual] destruction and ruin by the sword in this world
and their deserving from God in the next world eternal punishment.158
Al-Tabari reminds us that ta ’w il involves returning to the source. Ta ’wil is “what
returns to itself, and returns o f the deeds...” It traces a path from manifestation to
origins. At that point o f return a “meaning contrary to what seem[s] evidently right” is
disclosed. And what powers that return is patience. Al-Tabari identifies ta ’wil as a
kind o f ‘hermeneutics o f the saints.’ This association between Khidr and sainthood
will become more explicitly and fully developed in Sufi tafsirs.
In sum, al-Tabari enriches the narrative deeply at the literal level, and initiates
some interpretations at the analogical level (ishara). However his preliminary exegesis
o f symbolic allusion (isharat) is implicit in the hadith, and his horizons o f
interpretation only suggest the radically inner and existential orientation that we will
158 Al-Tabari, Jam ' vol. 8, 23274, p. 270.

95
find in the Sufi tafsirs. While al-Tabari provides extensive and detailed background on
Khidr and Moses as figures, he devotes little attention to analyzing the nature o f their
relationship. Even more striking, al-Tabari does not consider if or how the relationship
between Khidr and Moses might serve as a literary model for actual social or
institutional relationships. He reserves the companionship o f Moses and Khidr
reserved uniquely to its own status as a relationship among exemplary beings. It is left
to the Sufi commentators to adopt this story as a paradigm and precedent for the
master-disciple relationship (suhba), for the training it produces, and also for the
special forms o f knowledge and experience which are imparted on the journey o f moral
training (safar a l-ta 'dib).
Preliminary Observations on Intertextuality Am ong Sufi Tafsirs
Like their counterparts in the stream o f received traditions (tafsir bi 7-
ma ’thur), Sufi commentators followed a lineage o f interpretation traced back to Ibn
‘Abbas and the Prophet Muhammad. Sufi exegetes especially valued traditions
received from, or ascribed to, the Prophet’s close companion and son-in-law, ‘Ah ibn
‘Abi Talib (598-661), and his descendents, most importantly: Husayn (5-61/624-680),
Muhammad al-Baqir (d. 113/731) and Ja’far as-Sadiq (d. 148/765), the sixth Shi‘i
Imam. A tafsir sttributed to Ja’far al-Sadiq stands prominently as a work transmitted
by both Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri (180/796-245/860) and Ibn ‘A ta’ al-Baghdadi (d.
96
309/921).159 What we know o f Ja ‘far’s text comes through its citations in later Sufi
tafsirs.160 We find the ideas o f Ja‘far al-Sadiq and Ibn ‘Ata’ clearly cited and identified
by Ruzbihan. The interpretations o f Ja‘far al-Sadiq, Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri, and Ibn ‘Ata’
also inform the tafsir o f al-Qushayri and the tafsir o f al-Qushayri’s spiritual forbear
‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami (d. 1032), H aqa’iq al-Tafsir. This stream o f transmission
provided a foundation from which both the tafsirs o f al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan
derived information, inspiration, and authority.
An early commentary valued in Sufi exegesis is that o f Muqatil ibn Sulayman
(d. 150/767). Muqatil asserted five points about the narrative o f Khidr and Moses: (1)
Moses’ journey with Khidr happened after he had received the Torah; (2) Khidr’s
second name was Elisha, derived (playfully) from wasa ‘a (to envelope) signifying that
his knowledge “enveloped six heavens and six earths;” (3) Khidr is not only an elevated
or distinguished prophet, but also a saint ('wali). This statement represents a very early
identification o f Khidr as a saint (wali), and the suggestion o f sainthood (walaya;
wilaya) as in some way superior to prophecy; (4) Rahtna is grace (ni ’ma) and this '
grace is prophethood (nubuwwa). This statement extends the determination o f Khidr
as a prophet, since it relates to the Qur’anic m otif that Khidr had received compassion
159 Gerhard Bowering. The Mystical Vision o f Existence in Classical Islam: the Qur’anic
Hermeneutics o f Sufi Sahl al-Tustari (d 283/896). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980, 43, 51, 55, 129,
265; Paul Nwiya, Exegese coranique et langage mystique. (Beirut: Dar al-Machreq Editeurs, 1970;
Michael Sells, Early Islamic Mysticism: Sufi, Q ur’an, M i ‘raj, Poetic and Theological Writings. (New
York: Paulist Press, 1996), pp. 75-89.
160 Sells, ibid., p. 329, n. 1. Paul Nwiya, “Le Tafsir Mystique Attribue a Ga ‘far Sadiq:
Edition Critique,” Melanges de I ’Universite Saint Joseph 43 (Beirut, 1968): 181-230.
97
from God (rahma min ‘indina); and (5) Khidr acheived immortality based on his
obedience, selfless motives, and adherence to divine unity (tawhid).161
Sufi Qur’an commentaries (tafsir) have served as a foundation for linking and
legitimating mystical experience and spiritual training with the authority o f Quranic
revelation. As a genre, Sufi tafsirs reflect the accumulation and evolution of a corpus of
knowledge and experience related intentionally to Quranic contexts.162In particular, the
case o f the Quranic narrative o f the companionship between Moses and his guide
Khidr provides an exceptionally rich locus for considering relative roles o f spiritual
authority, patterns o f guidance, and systems o f training. By examining four tafsir
treatments o f this narrative, we will explore some o f the ways the later Sufi tafsirs of
Ruzbihan (d. 1209) and al-Qashani (d. 1329) extend certain possibilities implicit in two
earlier tafsirs: the mainstream encyclopedic tafsir o f al-Tabari (d. 923) and the Sufi
tafsir o f al-Qushayri (d. 1072). Then we may be able to suggest a relationship between
the developments reflected in these tafsirs to the development o f narratives of Khidr in
hagiographical citations.
In their discussions o f the story o f the companionship (suhba) between Moses
and Khidr, these four tafsirs examine categories of knowledge, mystical experience, and
161 Paul Nwiya, Exegese Coranique et Langage Mystique. (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1970), 88-
90.
162 Carl Ernst, The Shambhala Guide to Sufism. (Boston and London: Shambhala, 1997), p.
40. Fritz Meier, “The Transformation o f Man in Mystical Islam,” in Man and Transformation: Papers
fro m the Eranos Yearbooks. (Bollingen Series XXX.5.) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964),
p. 64.
98
spiritual training. The lexicon o f terms from the Quranic narrative offers rich
possibilities for these exegetes. Companionship (suhba) emerges as the vehicle for the
disciple’s journey into the realm o f knowledge, experience, and training characterized
by states o f unveiling (kashj) and witnessing (mushahada). In the companionship o f
suhba, mentoring is a bridge to inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni). Beyond words, or
concepts, it requires states cultivated through a mentoring relationship of
companionship (suhba). This notion to which al-Qushayri, alludes is directly asserted
by al-Qashani: “All o f the dialogues are in the language o f a [spiritual] state.”163
Earlier we examined the Prophet’s criticism o f Moses’ actions: “We would
have wished that Moses had been patient; then Allah would have narrated more o f
their story.” and: “He [Moses] intentionally asked Khidr and caused the condition [of
Moses’ excuse] to be applied.”164 As we see from the Prophet’s remarks suhba
requires the double recognition o f the respect for the status o f one’s teacher and
patience. Specifically this patience involves resisting early closure; it is a patience
which is resists rushing to “conclusory” judgments, conclusory meaning, or an illusion
o f finality.
Khidr’s teaching acts occur within a journey (safar) testing the patience o f his
fellow-traveler Moses. Teaching and training require building tensions, raising and
challenging expectations, and ultimately, shocks and surprises. And learning occurs in
163 Al-Qushayri, ibid., 768.
99
action, relationship, and submission. It is in the context o f relationship —entering the
place where two seas meet —that the concepts and content spring to life and reach the
completeness and integration called “true meaning” (ta ’wil).
Our examination o f Sufi tafsirs in comparison with al-Tabari’s tafsir, and
Hadith situates the contribution o f the explicitly Sufi tafsirs, not as distinctly different,
but rather along a continuum among earlier exegetical voices. While the contribution of
the Sufi tafsirs is continuous with the m ain stream o f the tafsir tradition, the
development o f themes o f companionship, training, and knowledge is deepened in the
Sufi commentaries through their application to the murshid-murid relationship, Sufi
metaphysics and Sufi psychology.
Sufi commentators engage in a “hermeneutic o f recognition” in which the
Qur’an provides not only a light which illumines, but also a mirror which reflects
authentic mystical experience. Such experience, in their view, is the fruit o f disciplined
and supervised training, not subjectivity. In this view such rigorous engagement
validates their hermeneutic and its exegesis as objective because it is based on authentic
and systematic spiritual training and experience.
We can now glimpse the process by which Sufi commentators develop Quranic
narrative to legitimate not only mystical experience and knowledge, but also spiritual
guidance (rushd) and companionship or mentoring (suhba). To this end, we need to
trace the ways in which exegetes mined the narrative o f the companionship between
164 Sahih Bukhari vol. IV. book 55. Chapter 23. Section 613, p. 405.
100
Khidr and Moses. They unearth the potential o f the figure o f Khidr to encode, inform,
and authorize both the role o f the murshid and the training o f the murid. It was
especially through reference to the figure of Khidr that they could describe and
legitimate spiritual companionship or mentoring (suhba).
101
C hapter T hree
S u f i T a f s ir s in T r a n s l a t io n :
T r a n s la t io n s o f t h e S e c t io n s o f T h r e e S u fi T a fs ir s ’
T r e a t m e n t s o f t h e S t o r y o f K h id r a n d M o se s
( Q u r ’a n 18.60-82)
This chapter offers translations o f the full text o f the sections o f three significant Sufi
tafsirs which discuss the story o f Moses and Khidr (Qur’an 18.60-82). The three
translated tafsirs and the textual sources for them are as follows:
Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri, Lata ’i f al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim Basyuni (6 vols.;

Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Arabi, 1968-71). Vol 2, pp. 406-412.
Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi, Sadr al-Din

Abu Muhammad, ‘A ra ’is al-bayan f i haqa ’iq al-qur 'an / The Brides o f
Explanation on the Realities o f the Q ur’an. Cawnpore (1285/1868-9)
Calcutta 1300/1883; Karachi (1310/1892-3) (Arabic Lithographs)
Lithograph supplied by Alan Godlas.
‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (attributed to Muhyi al-Din ibn ‘Arabi), Tafsir al-
Qur ’an al-Karim, ed. Mustafa Ghalib (2 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Andaius,
1978), vol. 1, pp. 766-773.
All o f these works, and the sections offered here in translation have not been
previously translated. I note here correspondences among the three texts, but I treat
these correspondences more fully in the subsequent chapter, where I also provide an
extended analysis and interpretation o f major themes within the texts. Because hadith
102
references are also crucial, I give them in my presentation o f the translations. I also
provide the source paginations interalia and identify all quotations wherever possible.
Abu al-Qasim ibn Hawazin al-Qushayri (376/986-465/1072), L a ta ’i f al-ish a ra t
[p. 406] The statement o f Allah, Exalted be His Mention: “And when Moses said to
his young servant (fatahu ), ‘I will not cease until I reach the meeting o f the two
seas (majma ’ al-bcuhrain ) or I will continue for ages. And when they reached the
meeting between them, they forgot their fish and it took its way (sabilahu) into
the sea through an opening (saraba).” (18.60-61)
When the companionship {suhba) o f Joshua with Moses (upon whom be peace) was
confirmed, then he deserved the title o f al-futuwwa (noble servanthood). As it says:
“And when Moses said to his young servant (fa ta h u )..” It is a name bestowed for
honor (fcarama), not as a designation ( ‘alama). He made the entrance o f the fish into
the water as a marker ( ‘alama) for fin d in g K h idr. There he made forgetfulness enter
into both [Moses and Joshua] so that it might extend [ablugha ] the sign (aya) and
place it beyond human choice.
1 Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri, L ata’i f al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim Basyuni (6 vols.; Cairo: Dar al-
Kutub al-‘Arabi, 1968-71). V ol 2, 406-412.
103
The statement o f the Exalted: “And when they had passed on [Moses] said to his
young servant, “Give us our meal. We have encountered on our journey [at] this
[point] fatigue.” (18.62)
Moses was burdened [mutahammal] in this journey. It had been a journey o f moral
training (tcfdib ) and the endurance o f hardship. This is because he went to increase his
knowledge. The state (hat) o f seeking knowledge is a state o f moral training and a time
o f enduring (tahammul) hardship. And for this [reason] he was stricken by hunger.
Thus he [Moses] said, “We have encountered on our journey [at] this [point]
fatigue.” (18.62) [On Mount Sinai] when he fasted during the period o f waiting to
hear Divine Speech, he was patient for thirty days and he did not get stricken by
hunger and hardship. Since his travel was to Allah, he was carried along [i.e.,
sustained].
The Statement o f God, Exalted be His Mention: “He said, ‘Did you see when we
came to the rock? Indeed I forgot the fish and it was only Satan that caused me
forget to mention that it took its way into the sea wondrously.’ He [Moses] said,
‘ That was what we were seeking.’ So they went back over their footsteps
retracing [them].” (18.63-64)
[p.407] Their journey was prolonged because they needed to turn away from their
place. Then Joshua said, “It was only Satan that caused me forget to mention
104
[it].” (18.63) Allah, may He be Glorified, made forgetfulness enter him so that fishing
would be one o f his burdens. Then he [Moses] said, “This is what we were
seeking.” (18.64) This means the entrance o f the fish into water [even though the
fish] was grilled. And that became for him [Moses] a miracle (m u ‘j i z a ). When they
arrived at the place where the fish entered the water, they encountered Khidr.
The Statement o f Allah, Exalted be His Mention “And he found a servant from
among Our servants; We gave him Mercy (Rahma) from O urself. And We
taught him Knowledge from Our Presence [‘allamnahu min ladunna ‘ilma ].”
18. 65
When Allah designates a person as His servant, then it makes him among the elect of
the elect [fumlat min khass al-khawass]. When he said “ My servant [labdi\2,n he
indeed made him among the elect o f the elect.
“...W e gave him Mercy {Rahma) from O urself...” (18.65) That is, he became
bestowed with compassion [marhum] from Our direction through that Rahma reserved
especially for him from Us. From this Khidr becomes bestowed with compassion, and
with it he will be a bestower o f mercy upon Our servants.
“And We taught him Knowledge from Our Presence.” (18.65) It is said that this
knowledge is from the realm {ladunri) o f Allah, that which is acquired by way o f {bi-
105
tariqi ) divine inspiration (Jlham) without intentional effort.3 It is also said that it is
that by which God (al-Haqq) —May He be Glorified —makes known the elect from
among His servants. It is said that it is that by which through its righteousness (salah)
God (al-Haqq) makes known His saints (awliya *) from among His servants.
[p. 408] And it is said [that] it [ ‘ilm al- ladunni] is that which gives no benefit to its
possessor (sahibihi) Rather, its benefit is to His servants from what he possesses o f
God’s Truth (Haqq), May He be Glorified. And it is said that it is the thing which its
possessor [sahib ] will not be able to deny. And evidence [dalil ] for the validity o f
what he discovers [through ‘ilm al-ladunm\ is unconnected to it. If you were to ask
him concerning proof (burhari) he would not find any evidence. The most powerful o f
all knowledge is that which lies beyond proof (dalil).4
The statement o f God, Exalted be His Mention: “H e [Moses] said to him [K hidr],
‘M ay I follow you th at you m ay teach m e o f w h at you have learned of guidance
(irushd).’ ” (18.66)
2 Al-Qushayri has paraphrased the Quranic text which reads literally, “Our servant ( 'ibadina).”
3 This explanation is quoted by Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi,
Sadr al-Din Abu Muhammad, ‘A r a ’is al-bayan f t h a q a ’iq a l-Q u r’an (The Brides o f Elucidation on the
R ealities o f the Q u r’an. Cawnpore (1285/1868-9); Calcutta (1300/1883); Karachi (1310/1892-3) (Arabic
Lithopgraph), p. 592.
4 Ruzbihan quotes al-Qushayri in a paraphrase o f these ideas: “[Abu] al-Qasim [al-Qushayri]
said, ‘The science o f discovery (istinbat) is by effort (bi-kulfatl) and intermediaries (w asa’ii) but, the
direct knowledge ( 'ilm al-ladunnt\ is without effort or intermediaries.’ ” (Ruzbihan, ‘A ra ’is al-bayan,
p. 591)
106
He showed discretion (talattufa ) in his address by taking the way o f asking
permission. Then he openly explained his intention (m aqsudihi) toward
companionship (suhba) through his statement “..that you may teach me w hat you
have learned of guidance (rushd) .”
And it is said that the knowledge for which Khidr was selected was not taught to him
by a teacher (ustadh), nor from a person. So if no one has taught him, then how would
he be able to teach it to another?
The statement o f God, Exalted be His Mention: “ He said, ‘You will not be able to
have patience with me. How can you be patient concerning what your
understanding does not encompass?’ He [Moses] said, ‘You will find me, God
willing (in sh a ’ Allah), a patient [person], and I will not disobey you in
anything.’ ” (18.67-68)
A question on that side and an answer on this side! So he [Khidr] discerned \ tadarak]
his heart in his saying, “How can you be patient concerning what your
understanding does not encompass?” (18.68) And Moses answered, “H e said you
w ill find me...” (18.69) From the soul (nafs) o f Moses are enumerated two things:
[1] patience (sabr) and [2] that he w ill not disobey what he [Khidr] commands. As for
107
patience (sabr), he linked it with seeking the will of God (istinsha ’ ).5 And he said:
“You will find me, God willing, a patient [person].” (18.69) And he was patient as
long as he was found to be one who is patient In doing this he did not restrict Khidr’s
hands, in terms o f [limiting] his action.
As for the second, his statement: “I will not disobey you in anything.” (18.69) He
declared it independently (atlaqahu) and did not connect it to seeking the will o f God.
And he did not betray what he sought [with God’s will]. And what was declared
independently became a [point of] difference (khulf).
[p. 409] His statement, Exalted be His Mention: “He said, ‘If you would follow me,
then do not ask me about anything until I mention it to you.” (18.70). The
disciple (murid) does not [have the right] to say “No” to his master (shaykh), nor the
pupil (tilmidh) to his teacher (ustadh), nor the lay person to the learned jurisprudent
(al- ‘alim al-mufti) in his rendering o f legal determinations iyafta’) and judgments
(yuhakimu) .
His statement, Exalted be His Mention: “So they proceeded until they rode in the
boat, he broke it. And he [Moses] said, ‘Did you break it to drown its people?
You have done a strange thing.” (18.71) And when they rode on the boat (fu lk ) he
s cf. Ruzbihan, p. 593. The Qur’anic paraphrase is from 16.127: “Be patient for your patience
is only in God.”
10S
damaged it. He did that in preservation (ibqa *) o f its owner (sahibihi), so that the. king
who coveted ships would not desire a damaged ship.
His Statement “...to drown its people...” (18.71) This means, the outcome o f this
deed will lead to the drowning o f its people, for he knew that this was not done with
the purpose o f drowning the people in the boat.
His Statement, Exalted be His Mention: “He said, ‘Did I not tell you that you would
not be able to have patience with me?’ ” (18.72) That is, you are looking at this
from the point o f view o f knowledge. We are proceeding from the point o f view o f
divine commandment (hukm).
His statement, Exalted be His Mention: “He said, ‘Don’t take me to task for
forgetting and don’t grieve me in my affair with difficulty.’ ” (18.73)
He appeals to him with the stipulation o f knowledge \shart al-'ilm ] in saying “
‘Don’t blame me that I forgot...’, ” because one who forgets is not held responsible
(taklif).
He supported this when he linked it with his statement: “And don’t grieve me with
difficulty.” (18.73)
109
[p. 410] And one who is capable o f having rights is under obligation (jtaklif). But one
who is not sound in action and exempt (tarJc) is not faced [with blame].6 The person
who forgets is o f this category.
His Statement, Exalted be His Mention: “They journeyed until when they
encountered a youth and he [Khidr] killed him. He [Moses] said, ‘Did you slay a
pure soul [who had not slain] another soul. Truly you have done a
reprehensible thing.” (18.74) It was in the nature o f knowledge (Jchuluq al- ‘ilm) and
incumbent upon Moses, upon him be peace. His shortcoming was inevitable: he sees
injustice on the surface (zahir ). But concerning that which he knew from the state o f
Khidr, it was within his right to stop until he had determined whether it was
prohibited ([mahzur) or permissible (mubah). It was the overturning o f the norm
(qalaba al- ‘add).
His Statement, Exalted be His Mention: “He [Khidr] said, “Did I not tell you that
you would not be able to have patience with m e?” (18.75) He repeated his
statement “..that you would not be ab le...” because he [Moses] stopped at the
condition o f knowledge (short al- ‘ilm). But on the contrary it has to do with the state
o f unveiling (kashf), so Moses, upon him be peace, imposed conditions (sharata) on
him, saying, “He said, ‘If I ask you anything after this, then do not keep
6 A lacuna in the text occurs here. The editor conjectures that the missing words are “with
blame.”
110
companionship (la tusahibni) with me. You have received directly from me an
excuse.” (18.76) He showed his disobedience three times. Since three is the outer limit
o f few and the inner limit o f many, he could not find any kind o f forgiveness after that.
His Statement, Exalted be His Mention: “So they proceeded until they came to the
people o f the village. They sought food from its people, but they refused them
hospitality. And they found in it [the village] a wall verging toward (yurid)
destruction and he raised it up. He [Moses] said, ‘If you had wished you could
have taken a reward for it.’ ” (18.77)
[p. 411] It was incumbent upon the people o f the village, based on their religious
community (milla) that they should feed them [Moses and Khidr]. Moses did not
know there would be no use in reproaching them. It would have been better had he
disregarded it. So when Khidr raised their wall and didn’t ask for a reward (ajr), Moses
did not tell him, “You have done something prohibited (mahzur ), but he said to him,
“I f you had wished you could have taken a reward (ajr ).” That is, “if you [Khidr]
don’t take it for your sake, [then] i f you were to take it for our sake, your taking it
would be better for us than leaving it. If they are entitled to their rights, then why did
you forsake our rights?”
And it is said that his travel was a journey o f moral training (ta ’dib) so it was repeated
to make him endure hardship (<mashq). Except when he gave drink to the daughters o f
ill
Shu‘ayb what struck him o f exhaustion and hunger was greater. At that time he could
bear it and it was bearable. And when Moses said this Khidr said to him:
“This is the parting between me and you. But I will tell you the ultimate
meaning (ta ’wil) of what you were not able to bear with patience.” (18.78)
That is, after this, “Then there is no companionship (suhba) between us.”
And it is said Khidr said, “You are indeed a prophet...However, whatever compels you
in what I said, you are obligated (sharatta) by the stipulations [of knowledge] (short)
[as] you said, ‘I f I ask you about anything after this, then do not keep
companionship with me’ Nonetheless I am acting on your statement.” And it is said
when Moses did not remain patient with him in refraining from asking, Khidr was also
not patient with him in continuing [their] companionship and [Khidr] chose separation
(firaq).
And it is said that as long as Moses, upon whom be peace, asked on behalf o f others --
in the matter o f the boat which was on behalf o f the poor ones and the killing o f the
soul without right (haqq), Khidr did not separate from him. When he spoke the third
time, in seeking a gift o f food for himself, he was afflicted in separation. So Khidr said
to him, “This is the parting between me and you.” And it is said that just as
Moses, upon whom be peace, desired the companionship (suhba) o f Khidr for the
purpose o f increasing o f knowledge, Khidr desired to leave the suhba o f Moses, upon
112
whom be peace, from his propensity for seclusion (khalwa ) with Allah [apart] from
the created ones.
[p. 412] The statement o f God, Exalted be His Mention: “As for the boat, it
belonged to poor people who worked on the sea and I wanted [aradtu ] to make it
useless, for there followed them a king who took every boat by force.” (18.79)
When Khidr parted from Moses, upon him be peace, Khidr did not want [lam yurid ]
that there would remain [yabqa ] in Moses’s heart even a semblance o f objection
[shibhu a l-i'tirad ]. So he removed that from his heart with what he clarified to him o f
his state [hal\. He unveiled [kashafa\ to him that the secret o f his intention in damaging
the boat was its wholeness [salamatuha ' ] and its preservation [baqa ’uha ] for its
people so that the usurping king would not have any desire for it. And the
preservation o f the boat for its people while it was defective was better for them than
if it were whole in the hands o f the usurping king.
The statement o f God, Exalted be His Mention: “As for the youth, his parents were
believers and We feared that he would oppress them with rebellion and
disbelief” (18.80)
He clarified to him that the killing o f the youth, because it had already been made
known and decreed by God as a commandment (hukm ) that his continuing to live
113
would be a trial (fitna) for his parents, and that the exchange o f a replacement (khalaf)
for him would be a happiness for them.
The Statement o f God, Exalted be His Mention “As for the wall, it belonged to two
youths. They were orphans in the town and under it was a treasure belonging to
them. Their father had been a righteous man. So your Lord desired that they
reach maturity and take out their treasure —a mercy from your Lord; and I did
it not from my own command. This is the ultimate meaning o f the events you
could not bear with patience.” (18.82)]
As for the repairing o f the wall, it was for the purpose o f making permanent [istibqa ’ ]
the treasure o f the two youths [which involves] ceasing to seek friendship \rifq ] from
creatures [khalq].
Ruzbihan Baqli, (522/1128-606/1209)‘A r a ’is al-bayan al-haqa’iq al-qur’an (The
Brides o f Elucidation o f the Realities o f the Q ur’an, pp. 590-595)7
7 Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi, Sadr al-Din Abu Muhammad,
'Ara ’is al-bayan f i haqa 'iq al-qur ’an / The Brides o f Explanation on the Realities o f the Qur ’an.
Cawnpore (1285/1868-9) Calcutta 1300/1883; Karachi (1310/1892-3) (Arabic Lithographs) Lithograph
supplied by Alan Godlas.
114
[p. 590] “When they had passed on, he [Moses] said to his servant, ‘Give us our
meal; w e have encountered on our journey [at] this [point] fatigue (nasab ).’ ”
(18.62)
When they lost their way (tariq), they did not undertake the journey (yasra ’ )
according to the heart, and fatigue (nasab) weighed them down. And that was through
Allah’s instruction to them (ta ‘lim Allah) to go beyond the limit. The inner sense
( s ir r f in the heart may apprehend wisdoms o f the unseen (hikam al-ghayb), but the
heart and the intellect did not know these [wisdoms]. The soul (nafs'f was brought to
suffering in injury (adha") through its ignorance o f this [i.e., the wisdoms o f the
unseen (hikam al-ghayb)]. Had the heart and the soul known [this] as much as the
inner sense (sirr) did, they [heart and soul] would not have been overcome by the
dictates o f exhaustion (ahkam al-ta ‘ab) or been enveloped by fatigue (nasab), no
matter how much they were in the station o f struggle (mujahada) and testing. Had
Moses (Moses) been given the burden (mahmulan) o f the share o f witnessing at that
point, then he would have been as he was on the mountain \tur (i.e., tur sinin, Mount
8 The term sirr, literally “secret,” involves the notion o f a faculty o f divine awareness
“secreted” in the human heart. It is often translated as “secret” and “conscience.” The first term offers
literal accuracy while missing the sense o f a faculty o f awareness. The second term “conscience”
captures the archaic philosophical sense o f scintilla conscientiae, the “spark o f knowledge” and its
Greek counterpart synteresis/synderesis which carries the etymological connotations o f “careful
guarding” and “preservation.” (These issues are addressed in Carl Ernst, Ruzbihan Baqli: Mysticism and
the R hetoric o f Sainthood in Persian Sufism (Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996), 18, 101.) Since the faculty
o f the sirr apprehends divine knowledge by a subtle and inner sense, and since the term “sense” applies
to both understanding and a human faculty, w e w ill adopt the translation “inner sense” for sirr in most
cases.
9 The term nafs w ill be translated according to its context as “soul,” “self,” and “ego,” since
ncfs means the s e lf while suggesting “breath” (ncfas), in a sense roughly analagous to the shared
connotations o f “soul” as “self” and “anima /animating principle.”
115
Sinai)], where he did not eat food for forty days and exhaustion did not overtake him.10
This latter [condition o f Moses on Sinai] is the state o f the people o f intimacy (uns)
while the former [condition o f Moses on this journey] is the state o f those who aspire
(irada) . Don’t you see how he [Rasul Allah\ said “I pass the night with my Lord; He
feeds me and gives me drink.”11 When he [Moses] was seeking mediation (wasita), he
was veiled from the station o f the witnessing (mushahada) and suffered in his striving
(mujahada). And it was Truth12 that trained him (addabahu al-haqq) in this [matter]
so it did not occur to him that he had something o f the knowledge o f divine realities
( ‘ulum al-haqa ’iq ), because the Exalted is jealous o f whoever pretends to attain the
secret o f secrets. For that reason God sent him to learn (ta ‘allum) the knowledge o f the
unseen ( ‘ilm al-ghayb). The Teacher [al-Qushayri] said Moses was burdened
(mahtamal) in this journey.13
[p. 591] And it is a journey o f cultivation (ta ’dib) and the enduring (ihtimal) of
hardship (mashaqqa) because he went seeking the increase o f knowledge. And the
condition o f seeking knowledge and the state o f being trained is the time (waqt) o f
bearing hardship (mashaqqa), and for this reason he was stricken by hunger.14 He said
“We have encountered on this journey o f ours overwhelming fatigue.” (Qur’an 18.62)
10 Cf. Qur’an, Sura al-A‘raf (7.142-145).

11 “...I sleep and my Lord makes me eat and drink.” Sahih Bukhari Bk. 82; Ch. 29; Hadith
834.
12 The Divine Name al-Haqq which may also be translated as “the Reality,” is here translated,
“Truth.”
13 al-Qushayri, Lena’if, p. 406
14 These two sentences paraphrase al-Qushayri, ibid.
116
When he stood in need o f waiting to hear the word from Allah, he (Moses) bore it
patiently for thirty days and neither hunger nor hardship (mashaqqa) touched him,13
because on this journey he was going to God and he was carried along [i.e., sustained].
[Then follows] the saying o f the Exalted One:
“And he found a servant from among Our servants.” (18.65a)
In this there is a hidden indication that God, Glorified be He, has certain selected
[khawass0*] servants. They are those whom He selected for gnosis (ma ‘rifa) from the
sciences o f Lordship ( ‘ulum al-rububiya), the secrets o f unicity, the realities o f
wisdom and subtle graces o f His angelic and majestic realms (malakutihi wa jabarutihf)
that He reserves for himself.16 They [these selected ones (khawass)] are the people o f
the unseen, [the people of] the unseen o f the unseen, [the people of] the secret, and
[the people of] the secret o f the secret. [They are] the ones whom Allah has concealed
in His concealment, veiled from His own creation out o f compassion (shafaqa) for
them due to the secret o f God that they display. They are the servants in reality
(haqiqa), those who reached the reality o f servanthood, in the sense that Allah made
their servanthood parallel (muhadhiyan) to His Lordship (rububiyatihi). Otherwise all
[of His servants] are His servants from the viewpoint o f creation, but they are servants
in reality from the perspective o f gnosis (ma ‘rifa).
15 See Qur’an Baqara (2.51) and aI-‘Araf (7.142-154).

16 According to Carl Ernst, Ruzbihan generally conceives o f these two terms as follows:
malakut (the heart o f the gnostic); jabaru t (the imaginal realm). Ernst, Ruzbihan, p. 3 1.
117
Were it not for that pure characteristic (al-khassiya al-mahda), [i.e., that they
are servants in truth] he [the Prophet Muhammad] (upon him be peace) would not
have said, “I am indeed the servant — la ilaha ilia Allah. I am the servant in Truth, and
no other.” What honor is more honorable for Khidr (upon him be peace) than this
distinction that [Allah] called him a “servant.” And who in reality can be His servant?
W ere it not for His sufficient compassion (law la rahmatahu al-kaftya) which proceeds
from pre-eternity (azal) to His servants? Otherwise it would not have been
permissible for His servant to say “I am your servant,” for He [Allah] transcends
(munazzaK) the need to have the temporal (hadathari) truly serve Him.
And His Saying, be He Exalted:
“W e gave him mercy (rahma) from Us” (18.65b)
[That is to say rahma means] sainthood (wilaya), nearness, witnessing.
“And We taught him knowledge (7/m ) from Our Presence.” (18.65b)
This is a perfect gnosis (ma 'rifa) and a knowledge from among the types o f knowledge
[which is] an unknown, hidden knowledge ( 7/m) of His which is concealed from many o f
the elect (alchyar [“best ones”]). It is the special direct knowledge (7/m al-ladunni) which
Allah has reserved for himself, and [for] the elect o f His elect. And that knowledge [of
God] is the wisdom o f the unseen in an unknown form. Its realities correspond to the
benefits (manafi ‘) o f creation. And this is connected to the knowledge o f the world of
divine actions whose proofs are intended to establish the [state of] servanthood. More
118
exceptional than this is the understanding (ym quf) o f part o f the secret of destiny (sirr al-
qadar) before it happens; more special than that is knowledge o f the [divine] names and
the special qualities (al-nu ‘ut al-khassa) and more exceptional than that is the knowledge
o f the attributes (sifat) and more exceptional than that, the knowledge o f the essence
(dhat).
The knowledge o f ambiguous [verses] (mutashabbihat) is a special [subset] within
knowledge that is unknown. Everything linked to these [types of] knowledge (ai- ‘uluni) is
through unveilings and the appearance o f what is unseen (mughayyabat). The primordial
knowledge (al- ‘ilm al-qadim) which is a characteristic o f the Truth (Divine Truth),11 the
Exalted, is part o f the science o f Lordship. This [primordial knowledge] is connected with
special inspiration (al-ilham al-khass) and hearing the eternal speech (al-kalam al-qadim)
without intermediary. And above this is what the Truth reserved for Himself especially
(li-nafsihi khassaf"). Creatures do not have access to this by any means (bi-hal).
Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri [180-245/796-859] said: “Direct knowledge (al- ‘ilm al-
ladunni) is decreed for people in situations o f divine assistance and abandonment.”18
Ibn ‘Ata [Abu’l ‘Abbas Ahmad b. Sahl al-Amuli al-Adami (235-309)] said, “A
knowledge without intermediary belongs to unveiling and is not gained through teaching
17 The Divine Name al-Haqq which may also be translated as “the Reality,” is here translated,
“the Truth.”
18 Cf. Deladriere, La Vie Mervielleuse d e Dhu’l-Nun I ’Egyptian (Paris: Sinbad), 145.
119
letters [i.e., not learned intellectually], for it is the meeting with Him through witnessing o f
spirits.”
Husayn [ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (244-309/857-922)] said, “Direct knowledge is a
divine inspiration (ilham) by which God makes the inner senses eternal (akhlada) and is
not subject to reversal.” 19
Al-Qasim [Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri] said, “The science o f discovery (istinbat) is
by effort (bi-kulfati) and intermediaries (wasa ’it) but, the direct knowledge [al- ‘ilm al-
ladunni] is without effort or intermediaries.”20
[Abu’l-Qasim Muhammad al-] Junayd [d. 910] said, “Direct knowledge is decreed
for the inner senses free o f location or actual opposition [i.e., dualities]. It is rather the
unveilings o f lights from the hidden absences (maknun al-mughayyabat) and this happens
to the servant when he admonishes his limbs for all their deviations and extinguishes (afna)
all desire (irada) from his movements. It becomes forms embodied (shabhan)21 [p. 592] in
the presence o f the Truth without w ish (tamann) and without intention (murad).
Sahl [al-Tustari (d. 896)] said inspiration ([ilham) derives (yanubu) from
Revelation (al-wahy) as he said “your Lord revealed (awha) to the bee...” [Qur’an 16.68]
and “We revealed to the mother o f M oses...” [Qur’an 28.7]. Both are inspiration (ilham).
19 cf. Louis Massignon, Essay on the Origins o f the Technical Language o f Islamic Mysticism
(trans. Benjamin Clark) (Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press, 1997), s.v., .s-r-f p. 20.
20 Cf. al-Qushayri, Lata 'if p. 408.
21 a typical term o f Junayd’s for “body” (conversation with Carl Ernst, November 1998).
120
And the Teacher [al-Qushayri] said that when God named the human being [al-
insan] as His servant, He made him a member o f the elect (fchawass). And when He called
him, “My servant,” he made him one o f the elect o f the elect. Then he [al-Qushayri] said,
“The direct knowledge (al- ‘ilm al-ladunni) is what is attained by way (tariq) o f divine
inspiration (ilham) without intentional effort.”22 And it is said that [direct knowledge] is
the condition (mimma fih i) o f the uprightness o f his servants (salah ‘ibadihi). which the
Truth taught to His friends (awliya’ahu).
The saying o f Allah, the Glorified and Exalted [as He went on to say through Moses]:
May I follow you so that you may teach me o f the guidance (rushd) you have learned
[18.66 ]
Moses made his conduct beautiful (ahsan al-adab) when he sought permission to follow
(mutaba ‘a). Moses (upon him be peace) knew that the knowledge o f Divine Truth has no
limit. He yearned for what was beyond his knowledge. He sought the hidden part o f it
[knowledge] from the places o f God’s manifestation (tegalii) and the characteristic o f His
speech (khitabihi). That is the most exalted guidance (rushd) in as much as when he
learned it he knew Divine Truth \al-Haqq\ within him self (fi-janibihi) with a special
quali ty apart from the knowledge o f a traveler (sayyar) or swimmer in the ocean o f His
oneness and the fields (mayadiri) o f His predestination (qadar), hungry for the knowledge
22 cf. al-Qushayri, L a ta ’if, p. 407 (ad. Qur’an 18.65).

121
o f His divinity. There is no harm [in such a pursuit], for Moses did not have that
knowledge which Khidr had. Then God, Glorified be He, wanted (arada) Moses to know
this secret knowledge, the hidden light. So He [God] tested him through companionship
with Khidr, in order to straighten the way (tariq), to establish the tradition (sunna) in
following the masters (masha ’ikh) so that he would be a model (uswa) for the aspirants
(muridiri) and for those who seek by serving the masters o f the way (ashyakh al-tariqa).
Moses was more knowledgeable than Khidr in [terms of] what he had received from
Divine Truth. But he did not possess what Khidr possessed at that time. [Divine] success
(tawfiq) helped him and he knew by it the gates o f those concealed secrets. Then Moses
entered through the door o f Khidr’s knowledge to the realm o f unknown knowledge. Then
he reached a station (maqam) in which the knowledge o f Khidr and the knowledge o f all
creation became hidden.”23 And this [station] was abundant divine grace (fadl-Allah) for
Moses.
Faris [Faris Dinawari, a disciple o f al-Hallaj] said, “Moses indeed was more
knowledgeable than Khidr in [terms of] what he obtained from Allah, but Khidr was more
knowledgeable than Moses about the events that happened to Moses.” [Faris] also said,
“Moses remained constant (mubaqa ’ ) in his characteristics so that the other could adopt
his manner (adab).” When someone leaves off (inqata ‘a) from [spiritual] discipline
(riyada), he is reckoned in terms o f the purity ( ‘isma) and stability (tamkin) that are in
23 Two readings may be represented here. The above reading interprets 'ilm as “knowledge” and
the w a as a simple conjunction. However, i f one reads ‘alima as a verb and wa as the introduction o f a
new sentence, then the alternative reading yields as follows: “ ...h e reached a station (maqam) in it
where the knowledge o f al-Khadir became absent (ghaba). He received the knowledge of all creation there.”
122
him. Al-Khidr was annihilated (fani)fzn) and consumed (mustahlak). One who is consumed
(mustahlak) does not exercise authority (hukm). Moses was made constant in the Truth
(baqiyan bi- ’l-Haqq) but Khidr was annihilated in Truth (faniyan bi- ’l-Haqq); there is no
distinction between these two because they spoke from the same source (ma ‘adin
wahida). Then Khidr made excuses and resisted the companionship [suhba] o f Moses,
accusing Moses o f being impatient (sabr) toward him and o f lacking his knowledge. He
knew that Moses was the most noble (akram) o f creation to Allah in his time and that he
[Moses] was a boldly stubborn man (rajul munbasit mu ‘arbid). That frightened Khidr
from his [Moses’s] companionship (suhba). He rejected that companionship with his
saying:
Indeed you will not be able to have patience (sabr) with me. (18.67a)
He [Khidr] combined patience with knowledge and then he showed that lack o f patience
comes from ignorance. Moses was patient and knowledgeable, but [his knowledge was
based on] the protection [hamiya] o f his religion and his religious law (shari‘a). He did not
accept anything that is not in accordance with religious law (shar'). This was not [due to]
lack o f patience nor lack of knowledge, but rather [follows the principle], “Command the
good (al -ma ‘ruf) and forbid evil (<al-munkar),”24 protecting the limits [set by] Allah.
Moses was drowned in the sea o f the beauty of Divine Truth and in listening to His
[divine] eternal discourse (kalamihi al-musarmad) without intermediary, that divine
24 cf., e.g., Qur’an, Sura Al ‘Imran (3.104); Sura Luqman (31.17), et al.
123
discourse informed him o f the secret o f secrets, and o f the mysteries o f the sciences o f
Lordship (ghara 'ib ‘ulum ar-rububiyya) and he was finished with the form o f outward
observances, from quantitative knowledge (al- ‘ilm al-muqadir), which is related to
evaluating benefit and harm. So the shaykh [Khidr] knew his [Moses’] condition (sh a ’n):
despite his state (hat) and his intoxication (sukr) in attaining Divine Truth (al-Haqq), he
would not be able to bear anything not25 connected to those unveilings (kushufat). There is
no objection; even if he did not know that knowledge, [however], because indeed the ruler
(sultan) does not beat one who does not know knowledge o f commerce (tijara).
Ja‘far [as-Sadiq (80-148 A.H./699-765 C.E.)] said, “You will never endure one who
is below you (dunaka), so how can you be patient with one who is above you?”26
And one o f them said, “Al-Khidr said to Moses, [p. 593] ‘Indeed you will not be
able to have patience (sabr) with m e.’ [Qur’an 18.67a] and indeed he was not patient with
Khidr [as shown by] his [Khidr’s] statement, “This is the parting between me and you.”
[Qur’an 18.78] He said this to make it known that it is not the role o f a saint (wait) to
impart insight (yatafarisa) to a prophet.”
Another [al-Qushayri]27 said, “He [Khidr] distanced himself from him [Moses] so
that he would not busy him self in [physical] companionship (suhba) at the expense o f the
25 I suggest that the negation here may be a copyists error. In the context o f this work, it
would seem that unveiled knowledge challenges M oses’ capacities.
26 Cf. Paul Nwyia, “Le tafsir mystique attribue a Ja ‘far Sadiq,” Melanges de I'Universite
Saint Joseph, X L m (1962): 181-230.
27 Ibid., p. 411.
124
companionship o f Divine Truth.” When the m atter was determined, he asked for increase
on behalf o f Moses.”
He said, ‘You will find me God willing (in sha* Allah) a patient [person]. [18.69]
Moses acted with courtesy (adab) and sought his approval because he knew that
patience (sabr) is not attained except through Allah.28
Faris Dinawari [a disciple o f al-Hallaj] said, “Moses sought his approval by
saying, ‘...you will find me patient, God willing,’ [Qur’an 18.67c]) but Khidr did not try
to get M oses’ approval with his statement, ‘Y ou will not be able to be patient with
me.’29” He [Faris] said, “The knowledge o f Moses at that time was a knowledge attained
by effort (taklif) and proof (istidlat), while the knowledge o f Khidr is direct inner
knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni) [extracted] from one unseen [realm] to another unseen [realm].”
[Faris] said, “Moses was in the station o f cultivation (maqam al-ta ’dib), while Khidr was
firmly established in the station o f unveiling and witnessing (maqam al-kashfw a- 7-
mushahada). W hen he was made an instructor to [Moses], then Khidr considered Moses
to be little in his eyes. He knew [everyone] who was on the face o f the earth, but he did
not turn away from his station, which is the witnessing (skuhud) o f what is witnessed
(mashhad) o f the vision o f the essence (ru ’y a al-dhat) and the attributes (sifat) toward the
destinies that appear in the world o f physical forms which are related to the benefits o f the
28 cf. al-Qushayri, p. 408. This statement is a paraphrase o f Qur’an 16.127: “B e patient for
your patience is only through God.”
125
creation.” This was due to his [Khidr5s] exalted status with God and the greatness o f his
knowledge o f the divine characteristics (na ‘at) and attributes (sifat).30 So he confirmed the
matter, saying:
“If you would follow me, then do not ask me about anything until I mention (dhikr)
it to you.” (18.70)
He deflected his question [“May I follow ...’5 18.66], for the truthful one (sadiq) should
know the actual situation (waqi ‘a). As he is experienced (mutahaqqaq an), he explains to
[Khidr] what he seeks by his truthfulness and sincerity. But Moses does not need this
question, and it is the duty of discipleship to remain still during the spiritual exchange
(tasarruf) with the teacher.
Al-Husri [Abu-’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Fihri (420/1029-488/1095)] said
Khidr knew the insufficiencies (qusur) o f [Moses5] knowledge from the nature o f Moses’s
questioning and indeed [Moses] asked him [urgently] for cultivation (ta ’dib), not for
instruction (ta ‘lim). So [Khidr] said to [Moses], “If you follow me, don’t ask me
concerning anything,’ [i.e.,] because your knowledge [i.e., prophethood] is higher and more
complete and indeed you sought me for cultivation (ta ’dib), not for instruction (ta ‘lim) in
an exceptional (Jchass) state.
29 Qur’an Sura al-Kahf 18.67; these words are repeated in. 18.72, 75; this thought is rephrased
in 18.78, 82
30 See the related discussion on p. 591, s.v. 18.65b.
126
His Statement may He be Exalted:
They sought food from its people, but they refused them hospitality. (18.77b)
They traveled by the path o f asking (su ’al), which is connected to reducing the lower self
(nafs) in the path (tariqa) and when “they refused them hospitality” they descended from
a station (maqam) o f asking to acquiring (kasb). Acquiring (kasb) is one o f the
characteristics o f [sober] travelers (salikin) and the asking is one o f the characteristics o f
the intoxicated (majdhubiri) who are not able to work for a living (makasib) or to waste
their breath (an/as) in being busy with acquisition. Rather they ask only for what they
need to sustain themselves for the moment (bi-lahzatin) and they free themselves
(yafraghuna) o f this [asking] in a moment. The way o f asking in reality (haqiqa) is for
stability. I f the one who is asked is present, it is God, the Great and Majestic. The asking
is an indication o f weakness. When the state (hat) becomes perfect, both asking (su ’al) and
acquisition (maksab) are abandoned. In [this] it is clear that asking and acquisition do not
prevent the gnostic (al-'arif) from atta in in g the station (maqam) o f divine satisfaction
(rida) and trust (tawakkul), since despite their exalted status (qadar), they [the travelers]
still ask and take, and they were in a state o f trust (tawakkul) and divine satisfaction
(rida), in the best o f [spiritual] states.
Al-Wasiti [Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Wasiti, d. 932] said: “ ‘...they refused to give
them hospitality’ [Qur’an 18.77b] [means that] Khidr witnessed (shahid) the lights o f the
kingdom, and Moses witnessed the intermediaries (wasa ’it).' ” Al-Khidr informed Moses
that asking from humanity (nas) is [really] asking from Allah, so [Khidr said] do not be
127
angry if you are refused because the one who refuses (al-mani “) and the giver (al-mu 'tf) are
one (ahad). Therefore do not look at the causes (asbab), but look at the Cause
(Musabbib). This is an explanation (tashrih) o f the inner voices (hawajis) o f the soul
(nafs).
When Khidr raised up the wall, and rejected (taraka) the reward o f his deeds, Moses said:
If you had wished (shi’ta) you could have taken a reward for it. [18.77c]
Moses did not strive after a reward for the deed but found the people o f the village
blaming and stingy. He wanted to take a reward for the deed to have it contributed as
charity (yatasaddaqaha) [p. 594] for two reasons: [one,] to craft an example to the eyes o f
the stingy to punish them in this way. He [Moses] said (peace upon him) concerning this
village, “This is the village o f blame.” [and secondly,] he said the food o f the stingy is a
punishment and it may be that he wanted to take the reward so the prophets could eat.
Thus could God forgive the people o f the village their sins and make them generous in their
blessing o f them. Moses was in the station (maqam) o f well-being and intimacy (rafahiya
wa ’l-uns), and he was injured by striving (mujahada). And afterwards it was Khidr who
stayed (baqiy) in the stations o f the way (manazil al-tariqa) and Moses who was in the
ocean o f the fires o f longing (bahr niran al-ishtiyaq). He showed no patience concerning
the food (for this is [an indication of] the state o f the people who reached the goal) and he
was —peace upon him —at the beginning stage. In the station o f hearing (maqam al-sama ‘
) and witnessing, he had been patient concerning food and drink for forty days. Our
128
Prophet [Muhammad] —Blessings o f God and Peace be upon him —in the ascension
(mi ‘raj) narrated that he was hungry at that time, and this was due to his state (sawlat al-
hat). It was the inclination o f Khidr to forego the reward for the deeds and this was one o f
the habits o f the chivalrous (da’ba al-fityari).
Ihn ‘Ata said, “Vision o f the act (ru ’y a al- ‘amal)21 and seeking reward from it
nullify the act.” Have you not seen that when al-Kalim [the one to whom God spoke, i.e.,
Moses] said to Khidr, “I f you wanted you could have taken a reward,’ [18.77] he
separated from him?
[Abu ’1-Qasim Muhammad] al-Junayd [d. 910] said, “when the oppressiveness
(zulrri) o f greed falls upon the hearts, the souls (nufiis) are veiled from their shares of them
[hearts] in the inner aspects o f the decree. When the knowledge o f Khidr reached its
perfection, and Moses knew his value (sha ’nahu) and the limit (hadd) o f his knowledge,
he was at the point o f overtaking Khidr by asking him the secrets o f the [types of]
knowledge o f the lordship o f [both] the attributes and the essence (asrar al- ‘ulum ar-
rabbaniya as-sifatiyya adh-dhatiya). Al-Khidr knew that he by himself was not able to
answer him concerning what Khidr refused him, and therefore he finished with him. He
justified himself by saying:
He said, ‘This is the parting (firaq) between me and you. [18.78]
31 i.e., consciousness
129
Al-Khidr knew the inner sense (sirr) o f Moses and his intimacy with the beauty o f Divine
Truth (unsahu bi-jamal al-haqq) and [knew] that he [Moses] was being tested in his
companionship (suhbatihi), so he wanted to divert him [Moses] from the form o f
knowledge and action (surat al- ‘ilm wa- ‘I- ‘amal). He also knew his severity (hiddatahu),
so he feared the answer to his asking which [was] from the realm o f the secret o f the secret
o f the exalted [realm of] lordship (ar-rububiyat al- ‘aliya), fearing that he [Moses] might
act presumptuously with one of the masters [of this] narrative (qissa). How could he not
dispense with him, knowing his blow which took away the eye o f ‘Azra’il32 [the angel of
death], on whom be peace.
[AbuT-Qasim Ibrahim al-] Nasrabadi [d. 367/977-8] said, “When Khidr knew the
limit (intiha’) o f his [own] knowledge and Moses’ attainment (bulugh) o f the extent
(muntaha) o f [spiritual] formation (ta ’addub), he said, ‘This is the parting (firaq) between
me and you,’ lest Moses might still ask him after [all this] about a knowledge or a state
[which he might lack] and he would be embarrassed.”
And Abu Bakr ibn Tahir [Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ishaq ibn Tahir (d. 1119)] said,
“Moses forbade Khidr against doing what is prohibited (manakir) in the outer realm
(zahir) and even if Khidr had had knowledge o f it, it was by the outer form o f the
knowledge that Moses commanded him. And when he forbade him against doing the good
32 “The angel o f death was sent to Moses and when he went to him, Moses slapped him
severely, spoiling one o f his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord and said, ‘You sent me to a servant
who does not want to die.’ God restored his eye and said, ‘Go back and tell him (i.e., Moses) to place
his hand over the back o f an ox, for he will be allowed to live the number o f years equal to the number
o f hairs coming under his hand...” Sahih Bukhari Vol. II, Bk. 23, #423
130
(ma ‘r u f f 3 in his saying, “I f you wanted you could have taken a reward,” he attributed this
to greed. [Then] he said, “This is the parting (firaq) between me and you.”
[Next follows] the Exalted’s saying:
As for the youth, his parents were believers (m u’minain) and we feared that he
would grieve them with rebellion (tughyan) and disbelief (kufr). [18.80]
I was amazed concerning this matter since indeed Allah, Glorified be He, in pre-eternity
(azat) knew about this, and was able to create him [the youth] as a believer, to avoid
imprinting upon his heart disbelief (kufr) so that his parents would not be disbelievers
because o f him. But His pre-eternal wisdom flows beyond the awareness o f those who
understand (idrak afham al-fuham ar). He did not need to kill the youth without sin
(farm), rather He could have guided him to the way o f truth (tariq al-haqq) so that the
oppressiveness o f disbelief (zulmat al-kufr) would cover neither him, nor his parents.
Allah does what He wills and He commands what He wants.
In the explicit meaning o f the verse it is as if it reveals (tunabbi ’u) that acquisition
(iktisab) by the human being (bashar) inteferes with the destiny (qadar) (just as] Khidr’s
killing o f the youth prevents his parents from succumbing to disbelief (kufr). The issue is
greater than anyone imagines, because that insight describes “essential union” ( ‘ayn al-
ja m ')34 in the world. Al-Khidr was the act o f Allah, the youth was the act o f Allah, the
33 cf. ftn. 12 above.

34 'Ayn al-jam ' is a Hallajian term o f great importance to Ruzbihan who uses it to explain the
basis o f ecstatic utterance (shatfi). Junayd also employed the term to describe the state o f Bayazid. (cf.
131
slaying was the act o f Allah, the command was the command o f Allah, [p 595] and the
destiny (qadar) was the destiny (qadar) o f Allah.
From the perspective o f destiny (qadar) God establishes it, but from the
perspective o f the action (fi 7), He deletes what He decreed. Allah deletes what He wishes
from what He decreed (qaddara) in pre-eternity (azal), by a destiny (qadar) which
preceded that [previous] decree (qadar). It is the knowledge o f the knowledge, the unseen
o f the unseen, the secret o f the secret, and the command o f the command. He establishes
that destiny (qadar) as [He] wills which does not precede the ultimate destiny (qadar al-
qadar), and it is one in all aspects (wujuh). The cause emanates from the one who causes
(musabbib) and [both] the cause and the one who causes “essential union” ( ‘ayn al-jam *)
are one.
Hence K hidr was looking at the outer destiny (al-qadar al-zahir), and Moses was
looking at the ultimate destiny (qadar al-qadar). Moses argued with Khidr over the point
that destiny (qadar) precedes the abiding o f both the faith o f the parents and the [abiding]
faith o f the one killed simultaneously. Even if the killing had not occurred, Khidr argued
with Moses that the killing o f the youth was also destined (maqdar) from the pre-eternity
o f pre-eternity (azal al-azal), and in its essence it was an act o f Allah (fi ‘I Allah)
Carl Ernst, Words o f Ecstasy in Sufism [Albany: SUNY, 1985], 17, 27, 37, 93.) 'Ayn al-Jam ‘ involves
an achievement o f primordial unity and non-duality in which the individual s e lf does not project itself
as a separate other against the exclusive existence o f God. Ruzbihan describes Hallaj in the state o f 'ayn
al-jam': “ ...H e was drowned in the limitless ocean o f eternity, pure ecstasy overcame him. He entered
into that sea with the quality o f creaturehood, and he departed with the character o f lordship. From the
depths o f that ocean he brought forth the pearls o f everlastingness...” Ruzbihan, Sharh, p. 45, quoted
in Ernst, ibid., p. 17. The m otif o f the ocean or sea as a metaphor for eternity is used by al-Qashani,
Tafsir, p. 772.
132
proceeding directly (mubashirpn) from the command o f Allah. When his knowledge o f
destiny (qadar) exceeded the knowledge o f Moses, he said “This is the parting (firaq)
between me and you.”
And I suspect in this [matter] that the youth had the most beautiful face, and there
was in him a light [shining] from the garment (kiswa) o f God’s beauty and that Khidr was
afraid that the people o f divine truth (al-haqq) and His knowledge (ma ‘rafa) would look
upon him and become intimate35 with the light o f Allah that they find in him, and they
would be stopped from gazing upon Allah by intermediaries. He killed [in him] what was
other than Allah in him and removed the intermediaries from between him and His lovers
(ahibbar), [His] prophets, and His friends (awliya ’). Someone said, “Al-Khidr discerned
(tafarrasa) in the youth what his destiny led him to from disbelief (kufr). One who
discerns (tafarisa) by the light o f Allah cannot be wrong. [Next follows] the Statement of
the Exalted:
...So I intended (fa-aradtu) to render it useless (a‘ibaha) [18.79]...
and His Statement: So We intended (fa-aradna) that their Lord would substitute [one]
better in purity and nearer in compassion (ruhma). [18.80]
and His Statement: So your Lord intended... (fa-arada Rabbuka) [18.82]
35 For this term and its connection with beautiful faces, see Carl Ernst, “Ruzbihan Baqli on
Love as ‘Essential Desire’ ” in Alma Giesen, ed. G od is Beautiful and Loves Beauty (Festschrift in
honor o f Annemarie Schimmel) (Bern: Peter Lang, 1994) 181- 189. Ruzbihan w as the ch ief transmitter
o f a version o f a saying which he attributes to Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri (d. 859): “Whoever becomes an
intimate o f God ( ista ’nasa billah) becomes intimate with every beautiful thing (shay malih), every fair
133
These [three] intentions (iradat) seem to be different in their form (svcratiha) but in truth
are [only] one, because the intention (irada) in reality (haqiqa) is the intention o f Allah as
the intentions emerge in many aspects [to express] the single intention o f Allah. So His
saying “So I intended...” is a reference to “essential union” ( ‘ayn al-jam “) and unification
([ittihad). And His Statement “We intended...” is a reference to assimilating the divine
attributes (ittisaf) and expansiveness (inbisat). And His Statement “So your Lord
intended...” is a reference to “the isolation o f the eternal from the temporal (ifrad al-qidam
‘an al-huduth),”J<Sthe disappearance (talashi) and annihilation (fana *) o f the one
professing unity (muwahhid) in the one unified (micwahhad)?1 This [last] intention
(irada) describes the inner state (batin) o f will (mashi ’a). And the inner state (batin) o f
will (mashiya) is the hidden aspect o f the attribute which is the secret o f the essence
(dhat). And the essence is the hidden aspect o f all hiddenness. When one moves away
from the depiction o f unity, jealousy o f pure oneness restricts him to essential union ( ‘ayn
al-jam “); when he moves away from union it restricts him to merely assimilating the divine
attributes (ittisaf) and to expansiveness (inhisat). Then it drowns him in the sea o f divinity
(ilahiya) and it annihilates (afha *) him in its depths from all vision (ru ’y a), knowledge,
will, action, and intimation. Through his action God (al-haqq) spoke in the first [intention]
face (wajh sabih), every pretty voice (saw t tayyib), and every sweet fragrance (ra ’iha tayyiba).” ibid.,
184.
36 This is Junayd’s formulation o f tawhid: “Unification (tawhid) is the isolation o f the eternal
from the temporal.” Quoted in Ernst, Words o f Ecstasy in Sufism, p. 29.
37 Cf. the definition o f taw hid by Abu Muhammad al-Ruwaym (d. 303/915): “ Tawhid is the
effacement o f the characteristics o f humanity and the stripping bare o f divinity.” (quoted in Ernst,
Words o f Ecstasy in Sufism, p. 29.
134
and in the second [intention] and in the third [intention]. Only Allah exists among [these
expressions o f intention].
Ibn ‘Ata’ said, “When Khidr said, ‘So I intended...,’ he was inspired within [his]
inner sense (sirr) [with the question], ‘Who are you, that you presume to express your
own intention?’ He said in the second case, ‘We intend...’ [indicating that] he was inspired
within the inner sense [with the question], ‘Who are you and Moses, that you both
presume to express an intention?’ Thus he went back [i.e., retracted his statement] and
hence he said, ‘So your Lord intended...’ ”
And he [Ibn ‘Ata’] said about his statement, “So I intended...” it is compassion
(shafaqa) upon creation (khalq); and his statement “W e intended...” [is] a mercy (rahma)',
and his statement “So your Lord intended...” [is] a return to reality (haqiqa).
Husayn [al-Hallaj] said in reference to his statem ents], “So I intended...” [and]
“We intended...” [and] “Your Lord [intended] ...” -- the first station (al-maqam al-awwal)
is God’s ravishing [of the individual ego] (istila ’ al-haqq) and the second station is
discoursing with the servant, and the third station is a return to the inner [esoteric] through
the outer [exoteric].” The inwardness o f the inwardness becomes within it the outer o f the
outer. And the absence o f the absence becomes the visible ( ‘iyari) o f the visible. And the
visible ( ‘iyari) o f the visible becomes the absence o f the absence; just as nearness to
something through the lower selves (nufus) is distance, so the nearness38 to it in itself
[true] nearness to G od...
‘A bd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (d. 730 A .H ./1329 C.E.), Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karint39
[p. 766] “And when Moses said to his servant (fata), ‘I will not cease until I
reach the meeting o f the two seas or I w ill continue for ages.’ And when they
reached the meeting between them, they forgot their fish and it took its way
into the sea [through] an opening. And when they had passed on, he [Moses]
said to his servant, ‘Give us our meal; we have encountered on our journey [at]
this [point] fatigue.’ He [the servant] said, ‘Did you see when we came to the
rock, indeed I forgot the fish and it was only Satan that caused me to forget to
mention that it took its way into the sea wonderously” [18.60]
Its apparent meaning (zahir) is what was mentioned in the story. The miracles are
undeniable. And as for its inner meaning (batin), indeed it is said: ‘And when the
Moses o f the heart (qalb) said to the servant o f the soul (nafs) at the time o f its
attachment to the body: “I will not cease...” (18.60) This means I will not stop my
38 Carl Emst has proposed a copyist’s error here in which the manuscript’s reading o f “'qurb"
(near) should be replaced with “ba ’d ’ (distance). This substitution allows a parallelism which reads:
“So the distance from something through them [the lower selves ( rrufus)] is [true] nearness to G od...”
(Carl Ernst, personal conversation, November 2, 1998)
39 ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (attributed to Muhyi al-Din ibn ‘Arabi), Tafsir al-Qur’an al-
Karim, ed. Mustafa Ghalib (2 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 766-773.
136
walking or traveling or I will still walk “...until I reach the meeting of the two
sea s...” (18.60) This means the encounter o f the two worlds: the world o f spirit (ruh)
and the world o f the body. And they are the sweet and the salty [water] in the form
(surd) o f humanity and the station o f the heart, “...or I will continue on for ages.”
This means ‘I will travel for a long period.’
“and when they reached the meeting between [the two of] them” In the present
united form [i.e., the spirit and body conjoined] “They forgot their fish” It is the
[same species of] fish which swallowed Dhu-’l Nun (Yunus), upon him be peace —the
same in type, not specifically. [They forgot] because their food, before arriving at this
form [i.e., o f the spirit and body conjoined] was the external fish which he commanded
as provision for the journey at the time o f resolving [to make that journey]. “And it
took its way” into the sea o f the body, alive as it was at first, “through an opening
(saraban)n [into] a wide hole, as it is said, ‘Its path in the sea remained open; the sea
did not close upon it. “And when they had passed on” a place where they separated
from the fish, and Moses was burdened with fatigue and hunger, [p. 767] He did not
become fatigued during the journey and he had not been hungry before that, according
to what has been narrated: he remembered the fish and the sustenance from it.40 And
he asked his servant for food and he said: “Give us our meal..” because this state of
his was like daylight in relation to what preceded it in the womb [rahim ] “We have
40 Cf. Hadith Bukhari 4.55.23.613.

137
encountered on our journey [at] this [point] fatigue.” [This is] the fatigue o f giving
birth and its difficulty. “He said, ‘Did you see...* ” what had exposed me “ ...w hen
we came to the rock ...” That is the upper chest for the suckling. “...A nd indeed I
forgot the fish ...” Because we did not need it [self-sufficiency]. “What made us
forget it is Satan.” This means “Nothing made me forget except Satan” : Upon
substitution, this means it is consciousness (damir). And this is because Moses was
asleep when the fish took its way to the sea, based on what they say.41 But the
servant (fata) who is the soul (nn^y) was awake. So the Satan made insinuations (wahm
). The one who made the tree look beautiful to Adam mentioned to the soul (nafs) the
fish for Moses. It was a state, a state o f bewilderment and the way which struck awe
in him was the opening (sarab ) mentioned [previously].
“He said, ‘This is what we were seeking. So they went back over their footsteps
retracing [them]. And they found a servant from among Our servants. W e gave
him mercy (rahma) from Us. And W e taught him knowledge from Our Presence.
Moses said to him, ‘May I follow you so that you may teach me of what you have
learned o f guidance (rushd). He (Khidr) said, ‘Indeed, you will not be able to
have patience with me. How can you be patient concerning what your
understanding (khubr) does not encompass? He [Moses] said, “You will find me,
God willing (in sh a ’ Allah) a patient [person] and I will not disobey you in [any]
41 Bukhari narrates that Moses slept (4.55.23.613).

138
matter. He [Khidr] said, ‘I f you would follow me, then do not ask me about
anything until I mention (dhtkr) it to y o u / So they proceeded until when they
rode in the boat, he broke it. He [Moses] said, ‘Did you intend to drown its
people? You have done a strange thing. He [Khidr] answered, “Did I not tell you
that you would not be able to have patience with me?’ He [Moses] said, ‘Don’t
blame me that I forgot and don’t grieve me with difficulty.’ ” (18.64-72)
[768] “He said ‘That [was what w e were seeking]’ ” (18.64a) that is, the escaping
o f the fish and its taking its way according to its nature. “W hat we w ere...” seeking,
since here was the meeting o f the two seas (majma ‘ al-bahrain) o f which Moses was
informed that at it he would find someone more knowledgable than he. For the ascent
(taraqiyy) to perfection is through the pursuit o f sacred intellect (al- ‘aql al-qudsi) It
can only happen in this station (maqam). “And they retraced their steps” in rising
to the station o f the original nature (fitra al-ula) as they were initially.
They followed the steps [qasas ] which means they followed their footprints upon
descending in rising to perfection until they found the sacred intellect (al- 'aql al-
qudsi). He is the ‘servant from among God’s servants,’ specially selected with the
virtue o f caring ( ‘inayat) and mercy (rahma ). “And we gave him mercy (rahmd)
from ourselves” that is, it is a spiritual perfection (kamalan ma ‘nawiyyan) free o f
material things; it is sacred without parts, and is pure light (nuriyya m ahda) all which
are the signs (athar ) o f closeness and intimateness ( ‘indiyya). “And We taught him
139
knowledge from Our Presence,” (18.65) that is, o f sacred knowledge (ma ‘rifa) and
the realization o f complete inner knowledge without mediation of human teaching
(ta'lim bashari).
And His statement “May I follow you” (18.66) It is the explicit display o f the
intention to journey [suluk ] and rising to perfection. “Indeed you will not be able to
have patience with me,” for your being is not aware [matla j o f hidden matters [al-
urnur al-ghaybiyya] nor spiritual realities (haqa ’iq ma ‘nawiyya) because o f your lack
o f freedom and your being veiled by the body (bi- 7 badn) and its coverings. So you
will not be able to withstand my friendship [murafiqati ]. And this is the meaning o f
his statement “How will you be patient concerning what your knowledge (khubr)
does not encompass?” He [Moses] said, “You will find me, God willing, patient.”
Due to the power o f my preparation and my perseverance on the quest. “And I will
not disobey you in anything,” due to my directing myself toward you and due to
my accepting your command due to my purity and sincerity o f my intention. All o f
the dialogues are in the language o f a [spiritual] state [hal ]. “If you would follow me”
in traveling the path o f perfection (suluk tariq al-kam al) “So do not ask anything of
me.” That is, emulation (iqtida 0 is incumbent upon you and following in the way of
deeds and [spiritual] tra in in g (riyada ) [769] and ethics (akhlaq) and efforts
(mujahadat). Do not seek realities and meanings, “until” the time comes that “I make
mention o f it to you,” that is, from that knowledge, “a mention [or, remembrance]
140
(dhikr )” and I inform you o f the unseen realities upon your freeing yourself (tajarrud-
k a ) through works o f transformation and heartfulness (bi-l-mu ‘amalat al-qa ’labiyya
wa-l-qalbiya).
“So they proceeded until when they rode...” in the boat of the body, the vehicle [al-
baligh ] to the farthest extent o f spiritual training (riyada), the righteous one for
servanthood, to the sacred realm in a sea o f primordial matter (hayula; Gk: hyle )42 on
the journey toward Allah, breaking it [the boat o f the body] through training and eating
less and weakening its jurisdiction, causing a crack in its structure and weakening it.
[awhanaha ]. “So he said: Did you break it to drown its people?” that is did you
break it so you will drown its a n im al nature and vegetable nature which is in it and
[drown them] in the sea o f primordial matter (hayula) and thus destroy [them]. “You
have done a strange thing.” And this is the denial (inkar), tantamount to the
manifestation o f the ego (nafs) in its attributes and the inclination o f the heart to it, the
irritation o f the deprivation o f fortune in training, and the lack o f satisfaction in
possessions. “And he said: Did I not tell you that you would not be able to have
patience with me?” —a spiritual warning and a sacred caution for resolution [ ‘azima
] in journey needs to be stronger than that. “He said: ‘Do not blame me that I
forgot...” (to the end [of the aya\ ) [This is] an excuse from the station [maqam ] o f
the blaming soul (al-nafs al-lawwama) .
42 Hayula is a Greek loan word translated in Latin as prim a materia.

141
“And they journeyed until they encountered a youth and he [Khidr] killed him.
He [Moses] said, ‘Did you kill an pure soul [who had not slain] another soul?
Truly you have done a reprehensible thing.’ He [Khidr] said, ‘Did 1 not tell you
that you would not be able to have patience with me?’ He [Moses] said, “I f I ask
you about anything after this, then don’t keep company with me. You have
received from me an excuse.’ So they proceeded until when they came to the
people o f the village. They sought food from its people, but they refused them
hospitality. And they found in it [the village] a w all verging toward (yuridu)
destruction and he raised it up. He [Moses] said, ‘I f you had wished you could
have taken a reward for it.’ He [Khidr] answered, ‘This is the parting between
me and you. But I will tell you the ultimate meaning (ta ’wil) o f what you did not
have the patience to bear.’ ” [18.74-78]
[p. 770] “And they journeyed till they encountered a youth” He is the ego (nafs)
which is manifested through its attributes and veils the heart. It commands to do evil.
He killed him by suppressing wrath and desire and all its attributes. “Did you kill a
pure sou l...?” This is an objection to [by?] an [overly] compassionate heart (//-
tahannun al-qalb ) toward the ego and “Did I not tell y o u ...” is a reminder (tadhkir )
and spiritual expression (ta ‘bir ruhi). “If I ask you anything...” (to the end o f the
aya) It is an excuse, a confirmation (iqrar) o f sin (dharib), and a recognition, all o f
which are from the transformations (talwinat) [at the stage] o f being a blaming soul (al-
142
nafs al-lawwama). “And they continued until they came to the people o f the
village” They are the bodily powers and they [the two] sought food from them [the
people o f the village]. That is the request for spiritual food from them, that is, through
them. This is like extracting the universal meaning (al-ma ‘ani al-kulliya) from partial
cognitions o f it (juzi’y a f f 3. And indeed they [the people o f the village] refused to
provide hospitality and to provide them food before this. For their meal at that time
was from above them, from the sacred lights and [from] the manifestations in their
beauty and majesty [from] the divine gnosis (al-m ‘a ‘a r if al-ilahiya), and the unseen
meanings. It [their desired food] was no longer under their feet as it was before
breaking the boat and killing the youth [were accomplished] through spiritual training.
A ll the [bodily] power and the senses (al-hawas ) were an obstacle to that, not a
support. On the contrary, one is not ready until they are quieted down and [until] one
directs them, just as Moses said to his people, “Stay [here].” (Amkuthu.)'”44
The wall which “was verging toward (yuridu) destruction” is al-nafs al-mutma ’inna
(the soul o f contentment), but He designates it as “the wall” because it happened after
killing al-nafs al-ammara (the commanding soul) and its death through spiritual
training, so it became solid, without movement in its soul (nafs) nor in its will. Due to
the intensity o f its weakness, it almost dies. He thus designates its state through the
4J Cf. s.v. 18.82, near the end o f p. 772 where universals and particulars are discussed more
explicitly. A lso see s.v. 18.78, near the end o f p. 771 where gnosis is described as exceeding discursive
lim its.
44 Qur’an Sura Ta Ha (20.10) M oses utters this command to his people before he approaches
the fire where he hears God address him and confer the divine commission.
143
will to demolish it and to build it with it [the soul o f contentment] straightening it
(iqamatihi) with created perfections and beautiful virtues in the light o f the power o f
speech (al-natiqiya ) until the virtues (fada ’i l ) undertook the station o f their attributes
instead o f vices.
[p. 771] And [as for] the statement o f Moses, upon whom be peace, Moses said: “If
you had wished, you could have taken a reward.” (18.77), [It means] the
transformation o f the heart, not [the transformation] o f the soul (nafs). He [Moses]
sought the reward and recompense [thawab] through acquiring virtues and by the work
o f [spiritual] training \riyada\. And for this reason he [Khidr] answered him [Moses]
with his statement: “This is the parting between me and you.” (18.78), that is,
this is the separation between my station (maqam) and your station (maqam), and
their contradictions and the difference between my state (hal) and your state.
And indeed the building up o f the soul (nafs) through training and the cultivation
(takhalluq) o f praiseworthy ethical behavior (akhlaq) are not for the expectation of a
reward and recompense. Otherwise, then they would be neither virtues nor
perfections, because virtue is the cultivation o f divine ethics (al-takhliq bi-l-akhlaq al-
ilahiyya) from whence the desired actions proceed from their owner for their own sake,
not for an [interested] motive. That which is done for a motive is a veil (hijab) and a
vice (radhila), not a virtue. And the goal is removing the veil, the unveiling (inkishaj) o f
the covering o f the characteristics o f the soul (nafs), and the exposure to the realm o f
144
light in order to receive (talaqiyya) hidden meanings (al-ma 'ani al-ghaybiyya).
Moreover, [the goal is] to be characterized with the Divine Attributes, It is also coming
to reality in God after passing away in God [fana fi-hi], not for the recompense as you
have alleged.
“Now I will tell you the ultimate meaning (ta’wil) of what you did not have the
patience to bear.” (18.78), that is, when the soul (nafs) is contented [itma "mat ] and
the [bodily] powers come to rest, then you are able to accept the meanings and you
will meet [talqiya\ the Unseen about which I have forbidden you to ask “...until I
mention it to you.” (18.70) And I will mention it to you and tell you through
interpretation o f the deepest meaning (ta ’wil) these matters if you are ready to receive
the meanings and the forms o f gnosis.
“As for the boat, it belonged to poor people who worked on the sea and I wanted
(aradtu) to make it useless, for there followed them a king who took every boat
by force. As for the youth, his parents were believers (mu ’minain) and we feared
that he would oppress them with rebellion and disbelief. So we desired (aradna)
that their Lord would give them one better in purity and closer in mercy.”
(18.79-81)
145
[p. 772] “As for the boat It belonged to poor people” (18.79) in the sea o f
primordial matter, that is, the bodily powers o f the external senses and the natural
vegetative powers. However, God has named them “poor ones” (masakiri) because o f
the endurance o f their passivity (sakun), their clinging to the dust o f the body, their
being too weak to oppose the heart on the journey, and their dominating o f it [the
qalb] like all the animal powers. It is related: “Indeed they were ten brothers, five o f
them temporal (zamani ) and five worked in the sea [o f eternity].” This is an allusion
to the senses, external (al-zahira) and internal (al-batina )45 “And I wanted to break
it” in training so that the king, the commanding soul (al-nafs al-ammard) would not
take it by force. He is the King who was behind them, that is, before them. “He took
every boat by force” in seeking the ravishing (bi-l-istila ’) o f them and the use o f them
in his passions and his wishes. “As for the youth, his two parents...” who are the
spirit (ruh) and the bodily nature “were believers” established in belief in G od’s
unity (tawhid), to their compliance to the profession o f obedience to Allah, their
following (imtithal) the command o f Allah, and their submission to what Allah wants
o f them. “And we feared he would grieve them,” that is, he covered them with a
deluge upon them, by his appearance (bi-zuhurihi ) in “I-ness” (bi 7- ana ’iyya ) upon
45 This is an allusion to the Avicennan model o f the faculties o f the soul. External senses are
the five physical senses o f sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. The five internal senses are these: (1)
common sense (al-hiss al-mushtarak ) also called fantasy (bantasiya ); (2) retentive imagination ([khayal)
also called representation (mnsawwira)-, compositive imagination (mutakhayyila or mukhayyila );
estimative faculty (wahm ); and memory, or the preservative Qiafiza) or recollective (dhakira,
mutadhakkira ) faculty. See Peter Heath, A llegory a n d Philosophy in Avicenna (Ibn Sind) Philadelphia:
University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1992, p. 62-63.
146
the witness o f the spirit {ruh) “and an unbeliever” to their graces {ni ’m a t) with his
recalcitrance and his evil actions or a coverer in veiling, so he would corrupt them,
themselves and their religion. And he would abolish their worship o f God.46 “And we
desired that their Lord would substitute one better than him in purity [zakat ]”
ju st as He substituted for them the soul o f contentment {nafs mutma ’inna), which is
better than him in purity {zakat), that is ritual purity {tahara ) and cleanliness (naqa ’ )
“and closer in mercy {rahma)” extending compassion {ta ‘tifa ) and “mercy {rahma
)” since its existence is more compassionate {a‘ta fu ) upon the spirit and the body,
m ore useful to them, more sympathetic {shafaqa ) and it [the soul o f contentment
{nafs al-mutma ’inna)] is permitted to be the desired object {murad ) for the two
fathers: the grandfather {al-jadd) and the father. It is an allusion to the spirit {ruh) and
the heart {qalb), and his being closer in mercy {rahma), more appropriate to them and
stronger in compassion.
“And as for the wall, it belonged to two youths. They were orphans in the town
and under it was a treasure belonging to them. Their father had been a
righteous man {salih). So your Lord desired that they reach their maturity and
take out their treasure —a mercy from your Lord. And I did not do it by my own
command. That is the ultimate meaning {ta’wil) o f what you could not practice
patience towards. (18.82)
46 Ruzbihan adopts and expands this idea that the youth’s beauty worked as a barrier against
the worship o f God. Cf. Ruzbihan, 'Ara’is, p. 772, e.g.: “...[T ]he youth had the most beautiful
face...al-Khadir was afraid...they would be stopped from gazing upon Allah by intermediaries.”
147
“And as for the wall, it belonged to two youths. They were orphans in the town.”
These are the two states o f mind: the theoretical (nazariya) and the active ( ‘amaliya).
Their severance from their father, who is the holy spirit (al-ruh al-qudus) [is] their
concealment from it in bodily adornment (bi- ‘l-ghawashi al-badaniyya) or the heart
which dies or is killed when the soul (nafs) is completely overpowered in the city o f
the body. “And underneath it was a treasure belonging to them.” That is to say,
the treasure is gnosis (ma ‘r ifa f7 which is not learned except in the station o f the heart
(maqam al-qalb) bringing about the combination o f universals (kulliyat) and particulars
(juzi ’y at) when it (the heart) is perfected.48 This is the state (hat) o f the strongest who
persevere and seek to extract this treasure. And some o f the literalistic exegetes (ahl al-
zahir min al-mufassiriri) say this treasure is a text containing knowledge ( 7/m). “And
the father o f the two of them had been...” refers to the two interpretations
(ta ’wilairi). “One who is righteous (salih)” It is said, the father is higher than both
o f them. God has preserved them for him. Indeed this is nothing other than the holy
spirit (ruh al-quds).
47 Al-Tabari transmits the interpretation that the treasure is knowledge ( ‘ilrri) either written on
pages ( suhuf) or inscribed on a gold tablet (Jawh min al-dhahab) [al-Tabari, Jam i’a al-bayan sections
23255-23266]. The majority consensus interprets the treasure as knowledge ( 7/m) in one form or
another.
148
The above translations represent the sections o f three Sufi tafsirs which discuss the
story o f Khidr and Moses. In the next chapter, we will consider the historical context
behind and intertextual relationships among these works.
48 See s.v. 18.77, p. 770 where the topic o f universals and particulars is first raised. Also see
ad. 18.78 and 18.70, p. 770 where gnosis is described as exceeding discursive limits.
149
C h a pter Four
I n t e r t e x t u a l it y among S u f i T a f s ir s :
C o m p a n io n s h ip , T r a in i n g , a n d K now ledge in S u f i R e a d in g s
of the Story of M o ses’ J o u r n e y w i t h K hbdr
A s we have seen, al-Tabari, in his tafsir identified a number o f Khidr’s characteristics
which associate him w ith th e role o f a teacher or guide (murshid). Al-Tabari also
described Khidr’s knowledge as the knowledge o f the unseen (7/m al-ghqyb). The
discussion in this chapter addresses the question o f how Sufi exegetes read the story o f
Khidr and Moses: What features o f the story o f Khidr and M oses evoked responses
from Sufi commentators? H ow did the story either reflect or shape their own mystical
experiences? And how did they apply the story to the practice o f Sufism?
This chapter provides a summary, correlation, and analysis o f the sections o f
three significant Sufi Q ur’a i commentaries which treat the narrative o f M oses and his
spiritual guide (sahib Moses) Khidr, “the Green One” (Qur’an 18.60-82):
Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri, Lata ’if al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim Basyuni (6 vols.;

Cairo: D ar al-Kutub al-‘Arabi, 1968-71). Vol 2, pp. 406-412.
Ruzbihan b. Abi N asr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi, Sadr al-Din

Abu Muhammad, ‘A ra ’is al-bayan f t haqa ’iq al-qur ’an / The Brides o f
Explanation on the Realities o f the Q ur’an. Cawnpore (1285/1868-9)
Lithograph supplied by Alan Godlas.
‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (attributed to Muhyi al-Din ibn ‘Arabi), Tafsir al-
150
Q ur’an al-Karim, ed. Mustafa Ghalib (2 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Andalus,
1978), vol. 1, pp. 766-773.
Sufi Tafsirs: the Unveiling o f Interpretation
As AlanGodlas has observed, Sufi Qur’an commentary (tafsir) as a genre applies
a hermeneutical strategy o f symbolic allusion (ishara).1 Quranic terms serve as symbolic
allusions to interior states, stations, and realizations. This is the “hermeneutic o f
recogiition” in which the Quranic lexicon mirrors the realized mystical experience o f the
exegete. Exoteric commentaries such as that o f al-Tabari adheie to transmissions
(riwaya) from conventionally authoritative sources such as the Prophet Muhammad, his
companions, and earlier commentators (mufassirun). These exoteric commentaries focus
on issues of syntax, grammar, historical context, and law (fiqh). Sufi commentaries
employ a hermeneutic steeped in individual experience —a direct intuition or vision o f
the relationship between the Qur’an and Sufism. This method is called “unveiling”
(kashf), or more fully “unveiled interpretation” (ta 'wU kashfi). In the Sufi commentaries
examined here, this methodology o f unveiling supplements rather than abrogates the use
o f conventional sources o f authority.
In addition to usingunveiling as an exegetical method, the commentators use the
concept o f unveiling to describe the experience and ty p e o f knowledge shared in the
companionship (suhba) between Khidr and Moses. All three commentators view that
‘Alan Godlas, “al-Tafsir al-Sufi,” Encyclopaedia Iranica

(www.arches.uga.edu/~godIas/sufitaf7tafsir/loc.html); accessed February 9,2000.
151
companionship as a training (ta ’dfb, riyada) through which a realm o f unmecfiated
knowledge beyond discursive inquiry is unveiled.
The exegetical method o f Sufi tafsirs is predicated on a model o f four levels o f
Qur’anic exegesis (ahriifj. The use o f a four-level model is traced back to the Prophet’s
companion ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas.2 Ibn ‘Abbas identified the four interpretive levels
as: (1) moral, (2) literal, (3) spiritual, and (4) symbolic.3 In a related explanation, Imam
al-Ghazali4 quoted the Prophet’s identification o f the levels as (1) literal (zahir), (2)
esoteric (batin), (3) a leg^l (hadd), and (4) transcendent (matla')} Al-Qushayri situated
his exegesis in a slightly different typology, that o f Imam Ja‘far al-Saddiq: (1) literal
meaning (‘ibara); (2) allegprical allusion (ishard), a level o f interpretation available to the
2 ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim (619-688) was the son o f the
Prophet’s paternal uncle. He was a prolific hadith collector and diligent scholar o f the Qur’an, its
interpretation, history and the Prophet’s biography (Maghazi). For his mastery o f these fields o f
knowledge he came to be known as the “Doctor (habr/hibr) o f the Community” and the “Ocean (bahr)
o f Knowledge.”
3Gerhard Bowering, The M ystical Vision o f Existence in Classical Islam (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1980), 139.
4 Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (450-505/1058-1 111). His contribution to the expression
o f Sunna-based Sufism will be discussed below.
H elm ut Gatje, The Q u r’an an d Its Exegesis (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1976),
229. Gerhard Bowering, The M ystical Vision o f Existence in C lassical Islam (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1980), 139.
152
elect among believers; (3) mystical subtleties (lata’if) addressed to the saints (awliya ”);
and (4) ultimate truths (haqa ’iq) discerned only by the Prophets.6
These models might be compared with their counterpart in European literary
theory m ost famously articulated by Dante: (1) literal or historical, (2) moral or
tropological, (3) allegpric (personification or a metaphor for the human situation), and (4)
anagogic, the spiritual, or mystical.7
Is interpretation limited to past traditions or open to new discovery?
Underiy ing these models is a contested discussion concerning the right to engpgp the kind
o f deeper or experiential readings which the hermeneutical mode o f unveiling (kashj)
represents in its most radical form. Al-Ghazali interprets the Prophet’s prayer for Ibn
‘Abbas’ interpretive acumen, “ God, instruct him in the religon and teach him the
interpretation,” as evidence that continual and diverse interpretation is legitimate and
necessary. 8 This debate turns on the words o f the Prophet: “whoever interprets the
6 Gerhard Bowering, The M ystical Vision o f Existence in Classical Islam (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1980), 141. Paul Nwiya, Exegese Coranique et Langage Mystique (Beirut: Dar al-Machreq
1970), 167) in Algar, ibid.
7 C. Hugh Holman, A Handbook to Literature. 4 th ed. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1981),

194, 11, 18,. Karl Beckson and Arthur Ganz, L:iterary Terms: a Dictionary (N ew York: Noonday
Press, 1989), 94. Dante articulated these levels in a letter to his patron Can Grande della Scala to guide
him in interpreting the D ivine Comedy. C. Hugh Holman demonstrates these exegetical styles with this
application: “Thus Jerusalem is literally a city in Palestine, allegorically the Church, morally the
believing soul, and anagogically the heavenly City o f God.” (ibid., p. 18)
8 Al-Ghazali, quoted in Helmut Gatje, The Qur ’an an d Its Exegesis. Ed. and trans., Alford T.
W elch. (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1976), 230.
153
Qur’an according to his own opinion (bi-ra’ihi) is to receive a place in the hell-flre.”9 Al-
Ghazali argues that this does not imply that interpretation can be limited to the literal or
explicit meaning. To defend this argument al-Ghazali cites the Prophet’s model o f four
levels o f meaning and related traditions describing 60,000 ways o f interpreting every
verse. Al-Ghazali quotes a commentator who suggests that each o f the Qur’an’s 77,200
words contains four levels o f meaning. This would yield 309,200 meanings! Less
hypothetically, Al-Ghazali poses a question about ‘Abd Allah Ibn M as‘ud’s statement,
“ Whoever wishes to obtain knowledge about his ancestors and descendants should
meditate upon the Q ur’an.” How, asks al-Ghazali, can an interpretation limited to either
the literal level or past tradition yield such ever-unfolding knowledge? Al-Ghazali
interprets reports by the Prophet, ‘Ali, and Ibn M as‘ud to argue that interpretation is an
ongoing process:
Indeed reports and traditions [of the Prophet and others] indicate that for men o f
understanding there is great latitude (mutass‘ ) in the meanings o f the Qur’an. Thus ‘Ali
said, “[The Messenger o f God did not confide in me anything which he concealed from
people], except that God bestows understanding o f the Qur’ai upon a man.” If there
were no meaning (tarjanan ) other than that which has been transmitted, what then, is
[meant by] that understanding o f the Quran. The Prophet said, ‘Surely the Qur'ai has
an outward aspect (zahr), an inward aspect (batn ), an ending (hadd), and a begiming
(matI').' This tradition is also related from Ibn Ma‘sud on his own authority and he
was one o f the scholars o f exegesis ( 'ulama al-tafsir). What, then, is the meaning o f the
outward aspect, the inward aspect, end, and beginning? ‘Ali said, ‘If I wished I could
loadseverty camels with the exegesis o f the Opening Surah (al-Fatiha) o f the Qur’an.’
What is the meaning o f this, when the exotoic interpretation o f [o f this surah] is
exceptionally short?...10
9 Al-Ghazali, ibid., p. 228.
10 Al-Ghazali, Ihya, 1 .260 in Nicholas Heer, “Abu Hamid al-Ghazali’s Esoteric Exegesis o f the
Koran,” in Classical Persian Sufism from Its Origins to Rumi., ed. Leonard Lewisohn. (London:
Khaniqahi Nimatullahi Publications, 1993), 238. The Prophet’s four levels o f meaning is here cited
from Ibn Hibban, Sahih, in al-‘lraqi, Mughni, I, 88.
154
Al-Ghazali’s sounding? o f the depths o f the levels o f Qur’anic meaning find a poetic
parallel in Jalalad-Din Rumi’s (1207-1273) metaphors o f intimacy:
The Koran is a two-sided brocade. Although some benefit from one side o f it and some
from the othei; they are both right because God wants both groups to derive benefit. It
is like a woman who has a husbaid and also a nursing infant: each derives a different
pleasure from her, the infant from the milk in her breasts and the husbaid from being
mated to her. People who take external pleasure from the Koran and “drink its milk” are
“infaits in the way,” but those who have attained perfection have a diflaent enjoyment
and undeistanding o f the meaning o f the Koran.11
Ruzbihan Baqli, whose tafsir we will discuss below, evokes the multi-dimensional sense
o f interpretive possibilities which define Sufi tafsirs:
When I found that the eternal Word had no lim it in the outer and the innei; and
that...underlying every one o f its letters is an ocean o f secrets and a river o f lights..., I
embadced upon the task o f scooping from these pre-etemal oceans handfuls o f pre-
etemal wisdom and post-etemal implications (isharat) o f which the undeistanding o f
the scholar and the mind o f the philosopher fell short1
To describe this method o f exegesis, Ruzbihan Baqli offers the image o f birds.13 In this
tropes the “birds o f [his] innennost being’ “soar on wings o f gnosis” and rise to the
uppermost gardens o f revelation. These birds o f the spirit “ seize the blossoms o f the
subtleties o f the Qur’an” which elude exoterically-oriented exegetes :
11 Jalal ad-Din Rumi, Fihi ma fihi. (Translated, Wheeler Thackston as Signs o f the Unseen)
(Putney, VT: Threshold Books, 1994), 172.
12 Ruzbihan Baqli, ‘A ra ’is al-bayan (Calcutta, 1883), I, 3. trans. Alan Godlas, quoted in A.
A . Godlas, “The ‘A ra’is al-bayan, the Mystical Qur’anic Exegesis o f Ruzbihan al-Baqli,” (Ph.D. diss.,
University o f California, Berkeley, 1991), 60.
13 For a discussion o f the variety o f ways Ruzbihan employs the symbols o f “birds” and
“flight,” see Carl W. Ernst, “The Symbolism o f Birds and Flight in the Writings o f Ruzbihan Baqli,”
in The Legacy o f Mediaeval Persian Sitfism, ed. Leonard Lewisohn (London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi,
1992), 353-366.
155
When the birds o f m y inneimost being (asrari) had finished flying in the states and
stations, risirg beyond the battlefields o f spiritual combzl (mujahadat) and self-
obseivation (jnuraqabaf), reaching the gardens o f unveiling (mukashafat) and
witnessing imushchadat), alighting on the branches o f the flowers o f nearness
(mudanat) and imbibing the wine o f union (wisal), from the dawn o f the Unmanfest
(gahyb) they seized the blossoms o f the subtleties o f the Qur’ai and the refinements o f
the truths o f the Critoion (furqai). They soared on wings o f gnosis (‘irfari), and in the
form o f the melodies o f paradise, in the best elucidation, they warbled with this tongue
the mysteries o f God, which He has hidden from the undeistanding o f the people o f
forms. But I did not become occupied with this affair until after gnosis (ma ‘rifa) and
divine wisdom (al-hikma al-rabbaniya ) had overwhelmed my heart14
Both o f these passages from Ruzbihan define Sufi tafsir as rooted in an experiential
knowledge which distinguishes it from the work o f “the people o f form” (exoteric
exegetes) and the scholars and philosophers. From this perspective one might describe
the Sufiexegete as one who both finds own mystical experience mirrored in the Qur’an,
while also recogrizing the Q ur’an as a light by which his mystical vision is illuminated.
In this sense Carl Ernst descibes Ruzbihan’s relation to the Q ur’an:
Koranic verses, to Ruzbihan, are not mere words, but verbal theophanies, which act as
catalysts for the transformation o f the listming soul.15
These evocations o f the role o f experience point to the basis upon which Sufi
commentators claim that their tafsirs are not merely based on personal opinion (ra ’y).
Through the modes o f unveiling (Jcashf mukashafa) and witnessing (mushahadat) to
which Ruzbihan alludes in the passage above, Quranic exegesis is developed based on the
14 Ruzbihan, 'Ara’is al-bayan (Calcutta, 1883), I, 3. trans. Alan Godlas, ibid., 59-60
15 Carl W. Ernst, “The Symbolism o f Birds and Flight in the Writings o f Ruzbihan Baqli,” p.
363.
156
certainty, not mere opinion, o f gnosis (m a 'rfa ) and divine wisdom (al-hikma al-
rabbaniya) experienced in the heart In this hermeneutic, the Q ur’an is an unending
horizon o f interpretation whose signs appear continually and boundlessly.
The Commentators
I. A bu’l-Qasim cAbd al-Karim b. Hawazin b. ‘Abd al-Malik b. Talha al-Qushayri

(376/986 -465/1072)
Al-Qushayri’s Lata 'ifal-Ishar a t (The Subtleties o f Allusion) is the earliest o f the
three commentaries considered here. It is, in the words o f Hamid Algar, “an elegant
summation o f the first period in the evolution o f Sufi/q/yr.”16 The tw o words in its title
“Subtleties o f Allusion,” invoke tw o o f the four levels of interpretation o f the Q ur’an
identified by Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765):
(1) literal meaning (‘ibara );
(2) allegprical allusion (ishara), a level o f interpretation available to the elect

among believers;
(3) mystical subtleties (lata ’if) addressed to the saints (awliya *); and
(4) ultimate truths (haqa’iq) discerned only by the Prophets.17
16 Hamid Algar, “Introduction,” in al-Qushayri, Principles ofSufism. (Trans., Barbara von

Schlegell) Berkeley: Mizan, 1990.
17 Gerhard Bowering, The Mystical Vision o f Existence in Classical Islam, p. 141. Paul
Nwiya, quoted in Algar, ibid.
157
Abu-‘l Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim b. Hawazin al-Qushayri (376/986-465/1072) was a
prominent scholar, teacher, and exegete in Nishôur who contributed to the emergng
confluence o f S haf‘i law, A sh‘arite theobgy and Sufi reflection. In addition to being a
prominent scholar ( ‘alirri) in the fields o f hadith study and jurisprudence, he was a Sufi
teacher and writer o f the most enduring influence and significance. His al-Risala f i ilm al-
tasam vuf(Episde on the Knowledge o f Sufism) is often-cited in later Sufi writings as a
classic, hailed for its mastery and breadth. The Risala was a landmark in the exposition
o f Sufism as system o f training and theoiy which fulfills, ratha- than contradicts, the
Sharfa. Al-Qushayri was the disciple (murid) and son-in-law o f the Sufi shaykh Abu
‘Ali al-Daqqaq o f Nay sap ur (d. 405/1015). Both al-Qushayri and al-Daqqaq studied
under Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman as-Sulami (325/937-412/1021), also the author o f a popular
Sufi tafsir which informed the work o f al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan, H aqa’iq al-tqfsir}%
A fter al-Daqqaq’s death al-Qushayri oversaw al-Daqqaq’s madrasa in Nishapur, and
there led assemblies o f divine remembrance ([majah's al-tadhkir) and later also taught
hadith. His Qur’an commentary, L a ta ’i f al-Isharat, was composed sometime before
410/1019. Al-Qushayri studied fiqh with the Shafi‘i jurist Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Bakr
al-Tusi (d. 420/1029) and kalam and usul al-fiqh with the Ash‘ari scholars Abu Bakr b.
Furak(d. 406/1015-16) and Abu Ishaq al-Isfara’ini (d. 418/1027). In conjunction with
his performance o f the hajj, he heard hadith in Baghdad and the Hijaz He began teaching
18 Gerhard Bowering, “The Qur’an Commentary o f as-Sulami,” Islamic Studies Presented to

Charles Adams, ed. Wael B. Hallaq and Donald P. Little. (Leiden, 1991): 41-56.
158
hadith from his madrasa in 437/1046. Al-Qushayri’s intention to demonstrate the
coherence o f Shari‘a and Sufism was not limited to his own personal conviction and
experience; it also reflects the controversies which were ignited near the time in which he
began writing his earlier exoteric commentary, Tafsir al-Taysir f i al-Tcfsir, in 1045.
Al-Qushayri’s prominence as an interpreter o f Sufism is almost as much a
product o f the challenges and opportunities o f his time as o f his own genius. Behind
the hermeneutics o f unveiling (Jcashf, mukashafd) unfurls a backdrop o f historical
developments pointing to a new direction in Sufism. This new direction is reflected in
two emerging tropes in Sufi writings: (1) demonstrating the integrity o f Sufism as an
expression o f Sunni Islam, a project which has been described as usulization;19 and (2)
acknowledging the central importance o f the directing shaykh (shaykh al-tarbiyya )
who more intensively supervises his disciples’ spiritual practice and daily life.
By al-Qushayri’s time Sufis in Nishapur belonged to the ulema and had
emerged as powerful figures beyond the subculture o f Sufism. In earlier centuries Sufis
had met in teaching circles (ta 'ifa / tawa ’if) in mosques and in private homes. In the late
10th century, Sufism became a part o f an emerging madrasa culture and Sufi
communities, now patronized by a ruling elite, began to meet in their own hospices
(khanaqah/khawaniq). Sufi institutions became integrated into the mainstream o f
Islamic society. Under Seljuq patronage, madrasas included courses in Sufism in the
teaching curricula and Sufis such as al-Sulami and al-Qushayri taught in the madrasas.
The Seljuq vizier Nizam al-M ulk founded a number o f Sufi hospices ('khawaniq)
throughout Seljuq lands. Abu Sa£d Abi Khayr, for example, received funding for a
khcmqah which housed 40 Sufis. Some khawaniq had hundreds o f cells for fuqara ’ and
were parts o f complexes including mosques. In the new setting o f the khanaqah the
Shaykh increased his role as spiritual guide (shaykh al-tarbiyya) and supervised the
disciple’s progress. The khanaqah made more extensive training possible. This
Khurasanian transformation in the 10th and 11th centuries paved the way for the urban
Sufi turuq o f the 12th- 13th centuries which centered on a particular shaykh’s name,
charisma, and teaching. It is in the Khurasani period that Sufis first begin to preserve
and vest authority in the chain o f transmission (silsila) so that the Sufi silsila and the
mantle o f initiation (khirqa) emerge as correlates to the law school’s bases o f
authority: the chain o f transmitters (isnad) and the certificate o f teaching ('ijaza).20
Al-Qushayri associated Sufism with the legal school o f Shafi‘i and the theology
o f al-Ashari. By linking Sufism with the legal school o f ShafTi he found a way to vest
Sufism with the legitimacy and security o f the sunna. In the theology o f al-Ashari,
which resisted the imposition o f rationalist criteria on explanations o f divine nature and
19 For the concept o f “usulization” and a discussion o f its development, see Rkia Elaroui
Cornell, Early Sufi Women: Dhikr an-Niswa al-Muta'abbidat as-Sufiyyat. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae,
1999, pp. 37-40.
20 Margaret Malamud, “Sufi Organizations and Structures o f Authority in Medieval Nishapur,”

IJMES 26 (1994), 427-442. Victor Danner, “The Life and Works o f Ibn ‘Ata’illah” in Ibn ‘A ta ’illah’s
Sufi Aphorisms (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984), 3; and J.S. Trimingham The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1969): 8.
160
action, al-Qushayri could further legitimate Sufism’s emphasis on divine mystery and
transcendence. But his Ash‘arite advocacy thrust him into theological and political
turmoil which ended in his flight from Nishapur in 1056. The first Saljuq ruler Tughril
Beg (r. 429/1038 - 455/1063), encouraged by his minister ‘Amid al-Mulk al-Kundari, a
Hanafi and possibly a M u‘tazilite, instigated a campaign against both “renegades”
(rawqftd), i.e., Shi‘is and adherents to Ash‘ari theology. As both a ShafTi and a Sufi,
al-Qushayri favored the Asha‘rite position as a theology which guarded the autonomy
o f mystery and transcendence from the constraints o f reason. In 1044 al-Qushayri
issued a fatw a and in 1054 an open letter defending Ashar‘ite theology and protesting
the persecutions. This letter triggered his arrest and imprisonment until he was released
following an assault on the citadel. After fleeing Nishapur in 1056, al-Qushayri was
commissioned by the caliph al-Qa’im bi A m ri’llah, to teach hadith in the palace in
Baghdad. In both his Lata 'if al-Isharat and in his later Risala, al-Qushayri
demonstrated the consistency between Sufism and the exoteric principles of Islamic
Law (shari ‘a). The Risala gives such clear examples o f his expression o f the
interrelatedness o f Sufism and Shari’a as the following passage demonstrates:
161
The Shari’ah is concerned with the observance o f the outward manifestations o f religion,
whilst haqiqa (Reality) concerns inward vision o f divine power (mushchadat ar-
Rububiyya). Every rite not informed by the spirit o f Reality is valueless, and every spirit
o f Reality not restrained by the Law is incomplete. The Law exists to regulate mankind,
whilst the Reality makes us to know the dispositions o f God. The Law exists for the
service o f God, whilst the Reality exists for the contemplation o f Him. The Law exists
for obeying what he had ordained, whilst the Reality concerns witnessing and
understanding the order He has decreed: the one is outer; the other inner: I heard the
learned Abu ‘Ali ad-Daqqaq say, ‘The phrase ryyafa na'budu (Thee we serve) is for
sustaining the Law, whilst iyyakz nasta 'in (Thy help we ask) is for affirming the
Reality.’ Know that the Law is the Reality because God ordained it, and the Reality is
also the Law, because it is the knowledge o f God that is ordained by Him.2’
II. Sadr al-Din Abu Muhammad Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasral-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-
Shirazi (522/1128-606/1209)
Ruzbihan Baqli (d. 1209) lived in Shiraz in a period o f prosperity and the
flowering o f culture under the rule o f the Salghurid atabegs. Institutional expressions of
Sufism were shifting from informal circles and “beginning to become a broadly based
social movement.”22 As Carl Ernst has pointed out, Ruzbihan’s significance, while it
includes his influence on later Sufi’s, ultimately rests on his evocative egression o f his
own mystical experience.23 Few Sufi writers have so vividly drawn us into the inner
world o f their mystical states and stations as does Ruzbihan with his colorful and vivid
p rose Two external markers of his significance may be indicated as well. The famous
traveler Ibn Battuta (in 725/1325) and the geographer Hamd AllahMustawfi (736/1325)
21 Al-Qushayri, Risala f i 'ilm al-tasawwuf Cairo ed. AH 1319, p. 43, quoted in J. Spencer
Trimingham, The Sufi Orders. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 142.
22
Carl Ernst, Ruzbihan Baqli: Mysticism and the Rhetoric o f Sainthood in Persian Sufism.
(Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996), p. ix.
23 Carl Ernst, “The Symbolism o f Birds and Flight in Ruzbihan Baqli.” ibid., 354-356.
162
both reported that Ruzbihan’s tomb was a major pilgrimage site.24 Carl Ernst argues for
the possibility, first suggested by Corbin, that Hafiz (d. 791/1389), the great Persian
poet o f Shiraz, may have taken inspiration and guidance from Ruzbihan’s work,
especially as a basis for his passionate theophanic witness in human form.25
Ruzbihan guided students at the ribat which he established in 1165 and which
served as his hospice and residence; for fifty years he preached at the principal mosque
in Shiraz.26 His attraction to outrageous ecstatic utterance earned him the sobriquet
“Doctor Ecstaticus” (shaykh- i shattah). His writings include vivid visionary and
densely symbolic passages which infuse his work with poetics and paradox. As Carl
Ernst has observed, Ruzbihan unabashedly boasted o f his spiritual visions, visions in
which he vested the greatest endorsement o f his spiritual authority. Ruzbihan may have
entered into disciples hip with three Sufi masters: (1) Jamal al-Din Abi al-Wafa’ ibn
Khalil al-Fasa’i, (2) Jagir Kurdi (d. 590/1194), and (3) Siraj al-Din Mahmud ibn Khalifa
(d. 562/1166-7) who represented the Kazaruni lineage o f Persian Sufism.27 Although he
practiced in the Kazaruni lineage, he did not claim Kazaruni affiliation as the basis o f his
knowledge and experience. His Qur’an commentary combines these deep visionary
24 Henri Corbin, “Introduction” to Akhbar al- ‘Ashiqin, p. 72, cited in Ernst, Ruzbihan Baqli,
6.
25 Ernst, ibid., 9-10.
26 Ernst, ibid., 5-6; idem., “Ruzbihan,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam. V ol VT, p. 651-2.
27 Ernst, Ruzbihan Baqli, p. 2

163
insights with a lineage o f earlier Sufi commentators, particularly, the students of al-Hallaj
(d. 309/922).
IE. ‘Abdal-Razzaq Kamalal-Din b. Abu ’1-Ghana’im al-Qashani (d. 730/1329)
Al-Qashani (d. 730/1329) was a key figure in the school o f Ibn ‘Arabi (1165-
1240) which formed around his step-son and spiritual successor, Sadruddin al-Qunawi
(d. 673/1274). Al-Qashani’s significance is such that James Morris suggests that our
understanding o f Ibn ‘Arabi’s work is as much an understanding o f al-Qashani as it is o f
Ibn ‘Arabi:
...|M ]uch o f the subsequesnt discussion o f ‘Ibn ‘Arabi’s ‘ thought and doctrine,
whether in the Eastern Islamic world or in the modem West, can best be understood as
in fact a reference to Qasbaii’s writings —especially where writers are expounding what
they take to be Ibn ‘Arabi’s ‘system’ or ‘philosophic doctrine’ (e.g., o f wahdct al-
wujud). In this regard, the modem attribution to Ibn ‘Arabi o f Qashani’s T a ’wilat al-
Qur ’an is unfortunately as symptomatic as it is historically unfounded. 28
Al-Qashani was a pupil o f Nuriddin ‘Abd al-Samad and M u ’ayyiduddin al-Jaidi (d.
1300). He claimed affiliation with the tradition o f Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Suhrawardi (d.
1234).29 Fromal-Jandi, al-Qashani received the teaching o f Ibn ‘Arabi as they had been
transmitted by Ibn ‘Arabi’s step-son and spiritual successor, Sadruddin al-Qunawi (d.
1274). Al-Qashani was also an accomplished exponent o f Ibn ‘Arabi’s work and wrote
28 James Winston Morris, “Ibn ‘Arabi and His Interpreters, Pt. n. JAOS 107/1 (Jan. - Mar.
1987), 101. Morris goes on in a footnote to balance this impression: “Qashani is not at all
representative o f Ibn ‘Arabi’s ‘style’ or ‘method’ o f exegesis, and only to a very limited extent... o f Ibn
‘Arabi’s thought.”
29 Stephen Hirtenstein, The Unlimited Mercifier: The Spiritual Life and Thought o f Ibn
‘Arabi. (Ashland, OR: White Cloud Press, 1999), p. 262, n. 33.
164
a number o f commentaries, including one on Ibn ‘Arabi’s Fusus al-hkam , and the Tafsr
al-Qur ’an al-Karim. This Q ur’an commentary was long misidentified as a tafsir from
Ibn ‘Arabi’s own pen. Morris has suggested that al-Qashani’s works relate to Ibn
‘Arabi’s as a grammar to a rich spoken and written living language.30 In al-Qashani’s
work we also find an additional element: the philosophical (falscfa) language o f Ibn Sina
(Avicenna), acquired through N asr ud-din al-Tusi, which on the one hand made Ibn
‘Arabi’s elliptic style more accessible to philosophically trained readers but also
encouraged subsequent misinterpretations o f Ibn ‘Arabi as a philosopher.31.
Sunutuay and O u tin e o f al-Q ushayri’s Lata’if al-Isharat
In the Lata 'ifal-Isharat, al-Qushayri derives four main themes from the story o f Moses
and K hidrto elucidate the mast&-discvp\e(murshid-murid) relationship: companionship
(suhba), moral training (ta ’d b ), right conduct (adab), and directly-disclosed divine
knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni).
Our first task is to trace al-Qushayri’s development o f issues related to the
master-disciplerelationship. The second is to explore the transposition o f the Qur’anic
narrative into a Sufi frame o f reference. The numbered sections below identify the
themes and structure o f al-Qushayri’s interpretation:
(I) Summary: Companionship, knowledge, and conduct
30 James W inston Morris, ibid., 102, n. 75.
31 James Winston Morris, ibid., p. 105.
165
(II) The nature o f the M oses’ journey o f training (safar al-ta’dib) contrasted
withM oses’ period o f waiting on Sinai (e.g Qur’an 2.51; 7.142-154);
(III) Directly-disclosed divine knowledge ( ‘ilm ladurmi) and the exceptional
servant (khass)rdivine inspiration (ilham)
(TV) Right conduct (adab) and companionship (suhba) with one’s guide
(V) K hidfs three acts viewed from the perspectives o f divine command (hukm)
and unveiling (kashj) as contrasted with the conditions o f knowledge
(s hartal- ‘ilm)
(I) Al-Qushayri explains that Moses’ and Khidr’s companionship was
challenged by their conflicting modes o f knowledge. M ore decisive than M oses’ breach
o f etiquette (adab), was his attempt to limit Khidr to the stipulations (shart/shuriit) o f
Moses’ own knowledge. According to al-Qushayri, even though the forms o f Khidr’s
and Moses’ knowledge are complementary, they are not compatible. The distinctiveness
o f their forms o f knowledge is implied in the Qur’anic narrative: Khidr’s knowledge is
called both “guidance” (rushd) and unmediated divine knowledge ( ‘ilm ladurmi) while
Moses’ understanding is simply called “knowledge” (khubr). What then is Khidr1s
special guidance and unmediated knowledge? Al-Qushayri characterizes Khidr’s
knowledge through four Sufi concepts: (1) divine inspiration (ilham), (2) divine
commandment (hukm), (3) unveiling (kashj), and (4) seclusion (khalwa).
In his interpretation o f the story o f Moses and Khidr, al-Qushayri focuses on
their companionship (suhba). The term companionship (suhba) appears as a verb in the
narrative as Moses says, “ I f I ask you about anything after this, then do not keep
companionship with me (fa-la tusahib-ni). The word suhba suggests the related term for
the Prophet Muhammad’s companions (sahaba). In the sense in which al-Qushayri has
166
placed it, the word suhba describes the relationship o f mentoring between master and
disciple. This sense o f companionship (suhba) is effectively described in a passage by
A bu Najib al-Suhrawardi where he compares the suhba with one’s shaykh to the loyalty
shown to the Prophet Muhammad by his companions (sahabd).
Compaiionship with the masts' ( ustadi ) is by obedience, so it is not really

compaiionship, but service. Complete obedience and respect toward the masts' are
required. The masts' in the m idst o f his followers is like the prophet in the midst o f his
com mmity. Junayd once answsed a question o f one o f his disciples and the latte-
expressed objection to the answer; Junayd then said, “If you do not believe in my
words dissociate yourselves from m e.” |Tn this answer, Junayd had quoted Surat al-
Dukhan (44).2I] He should behave toward the shaykh like the Compaiions with the
Prophet in following the ethics o f the Qur’an. “O you who believe! Do not assert
yourselves before Allah and His Messenger, but fear Allah, for Allah is He who knows
all things O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice o f the Prophet,
nor speak aloud to him in talk, as you may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds
become vain and you percdve not.” (Surd; al-Hujurat [49]. 1-2) “Deem not the summons
o f the Messenger among yourselves like the summons o f one o f you to another. Allah
knows those o f you who slip away under shelter o f some excuse. Then let those beware
who withstand the Messenger’s order; lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty
be inflicted on them.” (Surd al-Nur [24].63)32
(II) Al-Qushayri identifies the purpose o f M oses’ journey as one o f “moral
training” (ta ’dib) and enduring hardship which underlies the possibility of seeking
knowledge:
It had been a journey o f moral training (ta ’dib) and the endurance o f hardship. This is
because he went to increase his knowledge. The state o f seeking knowledge is a state o f
moral training and a tim e o f enduring hardship. (406)
Here al-Qushayri establishes a correlation between the spiritual work of character
formation and the acquisition o f knowledge. Al-Qushayri identifies Moses’ journey
toward the meeting o f the tw o seas as one in which M oses was burdened, and as a
journey o f moral training (safar al-ta’dib). Al-Qushayri contrasts this journey with
167
Moses’ period o f waiting on Sinai. On Sinai, M oses did not endure hunger or fatigre
because there he had been journeying directly to God, and was sustained.
(HI) Khidr5s gifts — God-gven mercy (rahma) and directly-disclosed divine
knowledge ( ‘ilm laddvni) — imply for al-Qushayri that Khidr is one o f the “elect o f the
elect” (fum lam in khass al-khawaas), an exemplary paradigm o f the elect (407). Khidr is
imbued with compassion (marham) in order to bestow that compassion on other
servants. These gifts are acquired through divine inspiration (ilham). In using this term,
al-Qushayri has begun to associate the Qur’anic moths within the technical lexicon of
expressions (alfaz) in Sufism: unmediated knowledge ( ’ilm ladurmi) is divine inspiration
(ilham); the servant ( ‘abd) is one o f the elect (khass /khawass).
(n i.l) Al-Qushayri also emphasizes that directly-disclosed divine knowledge
( ‘ilm laddimi) is given, not sought. This unmediated knowledge is intended not for its
recipient, but for the servants to whom it will be transmitted. In fact, al-Qushayri
asserts, it bring no benefit to its direct recipient; it benefits those servants. It is acquired
“without intentional effort.” (408). In a point which Ruzbihan quotes, it is beyond
p ro o f or evidence (408; R. 591).
(TV) Al-Qushayri recogiizes a level o f subtlety and discretion in Moses5
etiquette (adab) in seeking permission to follow and join in companionship (suhba).
'l2 Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi, Kitab Adab al-Muridin (trans. Menahem Milson, A Sufi Rule
fo r Novices.) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 46-47.
168
(408). Moses’ behavior is appropriate to more than the exercise o f right conduct (adab),
toward one’s teacher (shaykh); it applies to the subtle nature o f the knowledge Moses
seeks.
(TV.l) The subtlety or sensitivity implied here touches on an epistemological
paradox. Al-Qushayri exposes what I will call the “paradox o f mediation”: the
knowledge which M oses seeks is inherently unteachable:
“It is said that the knowledge for which Khidr was selected was not taugit to him by a
teacher (ustacfi), nor from a person. So if no one has taught him, then how would he be
able to teach it to another?” (408)
Since directly-disclosed divine knowledge ( ‘ilm ladduni) is immediate, how can it be
mediated? Al-Qushayri cites this problem as the reason for Khidr’s answer, “How will
you bear what your understanding cannot encompass.”
(TV.2) Does al-Qushayri succeed in resolving this dilemma of unteachability? Al-
Qushayri identifies two keys in Moses’ answer, “You will find me patient, God willing,
and I will not disobey you in any affair” (18.69):
(1) patience (sabr) and

(2) obedience (la aa ‘sfya; “I will not disobey.”).
For al-Qushayri an important correlation emergps: While Moses sought God’s will in
promisingto be patient and, in al-Qushayri’s eyes, partially fulfilled his pledgp, Moses
also failed explicitly in fulfilling the second intention, because Moses made that intention
169
without acknowledging the role o f God’s will. Al-Qushayri credits M oses with a limited
degree o f success in acting patiently for a while; as demonstrated by the fact that he did
not restrict Khidr from acting So in response to the dilemma o f unteachability, al-
Qushayri presents three factors as partial explanations o f the conditions o f learning
(1) patience,
(2) obedience, and
(3) seeking God’s will, or more precisely, invoking God’s will in one’s
expression o f intention to follow in companionship for the sake o f learning guidance
([rushd).
(IV.3) By his answer, Khidr demonstrates the caparity to tap into the key issue
in M oses’ heart:
So he [Khicfr] disconed his [Moses’s] heart (tadaraka qalbchu) in his saying, “How
w ill you bear with what your knowledge does not encompass?33
Implicit in Khidr’s statement is also the quality o f a warning concerning the challenge o f
fulfilling the journey o f moral training (safar al-ta’dib) (p. 411). Al-Qushayri presents
the phenomenon o f reading hearts at tw o levels: first Khidr comprehends M oses’ heart
w ith deep discernment; second, al-Qushayri interprets two principles from M oses’ soul
that suggest how the journey is accomplished: patience and obedience.
(TV.4) Al-Qushayri applies this dialogue directly to the question o f right conduct
(adab) between the shaykh and his disciple (murid):
33 Al-Qushayri, Lata ’i f al-Isharat, p. 408.
170
(“He [Khick] said [to Moses], ‘If you follow, don’t ask.’ ” [18.70]) The disciple (nturid)
does not [have the right to] say “no” to h is mastar (shayfh), nor the pupil ( talmidh) to
his teacher ( ustach), nor the lay person to the learned jurisprudent (al-'aalim al-rrmftf)...
(409)
Here al-Qushayri directly applies the story M oses and Khidr as a model for the
relationship between Sufi master and disciple and o f the principle that the disciple may
not contradict his m aster.
(V) In treating the three acts on the journey, al-Qushayri offers two levels o f
interpretation: exoteric and esoteric.
(V .l) He explains that the scuttling o f the hull o f the boat was for the
preservation o f the owner, through making the vessel unattractive to the covetous king.
Al-Qushayri then paraphrases Khidr’s reminder (“Didn’t I tell you that you would not
be able to bear what I will do patiently?”) to distinguish two epistemologjcal levels:
That is, you [Moses] are looking at this from the point o f view o f knowledge. We
[Khidr and Allah] are proceeding from the point o f view o f hukm (divine
commandment, wisdom). (409)
(V.2) Al-Qushayri applies the distraction between divine commandment and
knowledge to the interpretation o f the slaying o f the youth He acknowledges Moses’
right based on the extent o f his knowledge to wish to stop the killing, because it involves
the “ overturning o f the norm” (qalaba al- ‘add), a phrase connoting mirade and mystery,
o f external injustice (fi-‘l zahir zulm an). But agîn Moses has stopped short at the
“ stipulations o f knowledge” (short a l-‘Um/ shurut al-'ilm). The appropriate mode o f
171
knowing in this case is unveiling (kashj). In addition to requiring that Khidr's actions
comply with the limits o f his knowledge, M oses compounded this mistake by setting
conditions on his teacher:
He [Khidr] repeated his statement (“You w ill not be able to have patience...”) because
he [Moses] stopped at the requirement o f knowledge. But on the contrary, it has to do
with the state o f unveiling (kashj). S o M oses made conditions for him, saying, (“If I
ask you anything, then do not keep company with me.”) He showed his disobedience
three times. And three is the outer lim it o f a few, and the inner limit o f many, so he
[Moses] could not find any forgiveness after that. (410)
Now al-Qushayri’s previous distinction between Moses’s level o f knowledge and the
hukm (commandment, wisdom) followed by Khidr is amplified by the introduction o f
the parallel between shart al- ‘Urn (the requirement o f knowledge, i.e., the obligatory
limit) and unveiling (kashj) which is the mode o f knowledge implicit in the narrative’s
m otif o f directly disclosed divine knowledge. The concept o f the pre-condition o f
knowledge (sh a rta l-‘ilm) expands on the earlier concept that ilham (divine inspiration)
is acquired without effort (takaRuJ) and essentially freely given without seeking.
Unveiling (kashf) is a mode o f knowing which Moses cannot control and whose terms
M oses cannot negotiate, despire his efforts to do so.
(V.3) Al-Qushayri, following sound hadith, confirms Khidr’s declaration o f
parting from M oses as one o f applying the terms Moses set on himself. In this sense
Khidr’s act mirrors M oses’ actions:
172
It is said that al-Khidr said, “Indeed, you are a prophet... however whatever compds you
in what I said, you are obligated by the conditions (shart) [as] you said, “If indeed I ask
you about anything after this, then do not keep company with me. Nonetheless, I am
acting on your statonent.” And it is said, when Moses did not remain patient with him
in asking, Khidr was also not patient with him in continuing [then-] compaiionship and
[Khick] chose separation (firaq). (411)
(V.4) Moses’ motives are also an important point o f consideration. Al-Qushayri
distinguishes between M oses’s first two reproaches and the decisive third remonstration
which bring? on Khidr’s decisive words o f dismissal: “This is the parting between me
and you.” Again, echoing hadith, M oses’ first two challenges were raised altruistically on
behalf o f the people in the boat and the slain child. But his objection over the rebuilding
o f the wall was motivated by his own desire o f a gift o f food for himself.
As long as Moses (a.s.) asked on behalf o f others in the matter o f the boat which was
on behalf o f the poor ones and the killing o f the soul without right (haqq), Khidr did
not separate from him. When he spoke the third time in seeking a gift o f food for
himself he was afflicted in separation. So Khidr said to him, “This is the parting
between me and you.” (411)
(V.5) Al-Qushayri distinguishes between Moses and Khidr their different
motives for companionship (suhba) as well as their different types o f companionship.
Each represents distinct epistemological options. Al-Qushayri characterizes Moses’
motives for companionship as a quest for explicit knowledge ( ‘ilm al-shart), whereas
Khidr seeks compaiionship with God, a companionship which is a retreat or seclusion
(khahvd) with God apart from creation. In this sense M oses seeks well-defined
knowledge as contrasted with an inner knowledge which while more subtle, is also more
certain.
173
(V.5.1) This inner knowledge is identified progressively in al-Qushayri’s analysis
as directly-disclosed divine knowledge( ‘ilm ladduni) , divine inspiration (ilham), divine
command (hukm), unveiling (kashj), and seclusion [with God] (khalwa).
(V.52) Attaining unmediated knowledge through compaiionship (suhba) is a
distinct mode o f knowledge apart from knowledge related to the conditions o f knowledge
(shurut a l-‘Um). Companionship (suhba) cannot be fulfilled within the mode o f
knowledge where M oses seeks it, i.e., the stipulations o f knowledge (shurut a l-‘Um).
This point addresses the question o f al-Qushayri raised earlier: the dilemma o f
mediation: How can the unteachable be taught? It is not in the realm o f mentoring
companionship to explain the stipulations o f knowledge (shurut al-'Um) and its
application. The mediating categpries —the conditions for successful companionship —
are the two Khidr stipulated: patience and obedience. Companionship, as al-Qushayri
describes it, involves these more subtle and immediate modes o f knowledge.
And it is said that just as M oses (a s.) desired the companionship (suhba) o f Khidr for
the purpose o f increasing knowledge, Khidr desired to leave the companionship (suhba)
o f Moses (as.) from his propensity for seclusion ( khalwa) with Allah, apart from the
created ones. (412)
(V-53) Al-Qushayri examines the question o f M oses’ ability to understand the
intentions behind Khidr’s acts. Khidr, in al-Qushayri’s view, used the pow er and
presence o f his state (hal) to remove “ even a semblance o f objection” from M oses’ heart
and discbsed the deeper meaning (ta ’wU) and the “ secret o f his [Khidr’s] intention.”
174
These intentions are then spelled out in a series of theodicies: the boat was destroyed to
protect its wholeness (salaam) and for its preservation (baqa ); the exchange o f the slain
child with one purer and more compassionate bring? “ happiness” (sa'ada) to the
parents; fbangthe wall protected the treasure and made it permanent (istibqa *) to allow
its later retrieval (tafrid). These reflections are implicitly theodicies. However, al-
Qushayri does not focus on this potential exegetical implication. Although the terms al-
Qushayri uses suggest Sufi concepts, it is noteworthy that al-Qushayri does not more
explicitly apply thesemotiis as analogies to Sufi psychology and training to the degree
that we shall find devebped in Ruzbihan, and especially al-Qashani.
Al-Qushayri devebps from the narrative o f Khidr and Moses, a typobgy o f
spiritual companionship (suhba) through a journey o f moral training (safar al-ta’dib). In
this companionship, guidance (rushd) and deeper meaning (ta ’w i), apparently
unteachable modes o f knowledge, may be at least partly co n v êd under certain
conditions. The two conditions explicitly identified are patience (sabr) and obedience (la
a a ‘siaa). First, al-Qushayri explains the Qur’anic m otif o f directly-disclosed divine
knowledge ( ‘ilm ladduni) as divine inspiration (ilham). M oses and Khidr model two
distinct modes o f knowing In contrast to the “stipulations o f knowledge” or (shart al-
‘ilm ) which M oses tries to impose, Khidr directly receives the gifts o f “divine
commandment o f wisdom” (hukm ) through “unveiling” (kashj), especially through
“ seclusion” (khalwa) with Allah.
175
Summary o f al-QushayrVs interpretation. The ty p e o f companionship which Moses
would impose on Khidr fails. Al-Qushayri explains that the problem is not merely
Moses’ lack o f knowledge, but Moses’ insistence on applying a limited and restricted
mode of knowledge. Moses’ knowledge is limited by conditions and legal requirements
(shart) which compound the problem that since Khidr’s knowledge ( ‘ilm ladduni, rushd)
is immediate, it is non-transmittaHe. The Qur’an desigpates Khidf s knowledge by the
terms “God-given knowledge” ( ‘ilm ladduni), “guidance” (rushd), and “hermeneutics”
(ta ’wil). Al-Qushayri explains these Quranic terms in terms o f “divine inspiration”
(ilham), “divine commandment” (hukm), “unveiling” (kashj), and “seclusion” (khalwa).
Using these terms and the conflict between M oses and Khidr, al-Qushayri illuminates
the pedagpgical situation between master (shaykh) and disciple (murid) in ways which
are both exp licit and subtle.
On the one hand, al-Qushayri acknowledges and devefops the theme that the
narrative informs a model o f right conduct (adab) between master (mursMd) and disciple
(murid). On the other hand, his articulation o f this correspondence seems restrained or
reticent. Why would an exegete who was himself a shaykh and a murid restrain his
expression o f the analogy between the story o f Khidr and Moses and the master-disciple
relationship? A t this point in our discussion, we would look to the project reflected in
al-Qushayri’s work. On the wholes it is an effort to position Sufism and its culture as
consistent with the most generally-accepted exotmc religious norms (shari’a). From this
176
perspective the advantages for using this story as a legitimation for the sensitive and
contested authority invested in the position o f the shaykh would not be without
complication. Al-Qushayri’s point that the two modes o f knowledge embodied in Khidr
and Moses compficate their compaiionship still conforms to the hadith account that
Khidr and Moses each possesses a ty p e o f knowledge which the other does not
understand.34 In light o f al-Qushayri work to reconcile the viewpoints o f the scholarly
elite ( ‘ulama’) and the sufis, then we can fully appreciate the significance and
importance o f the references to the master-disciple relationship which he does advance.
Sum mary and Outline o f Ruzbihan B aqli’s ‘Ara’is al-Bayan al-Haqa’iq al-
Qur’an (The Brides o f Elucidation o f the Realities o f the Qur’an
Ruzbihan’s discussion o f the story o f Moses and Khidr (Qur’an 18.60-82) centers
around five topics:
(I) a lexicon o f terms related to the psyche;
(II) the journey o f moral training (safar al-ta ’dib) described by this narrative
(Qur’an 18.60-82) as compared to Moses’ experience on Sinai (e.g.
Qur’an 2.51; 7.142-154);
(HI) the designation o f God’s real servants (al- ‘ibad bi- 7 haqiqa) as the elect
(khawass) to whom God imparts gnosis (ma ‘rifa) and sainthood
(wilayd);
34 Al-Bukhari, Sahih Bukharl 1.3.45.124; IV. 55. 23. 613; VI. 60. 249, 250, 251.
177
(IV) the relationship between Moses and Khidr as a model for the principles o f
proper conduct (adab) and spiritual companionship (suhba) between
spiritual guide (shaykh) and aspirant (murid)-, and
(V) the essential unity ( ‘ayn al-jam ) behind the apparent forms o f mediation
and expressions o f intention.
Within each o f these rubrics —and especially under numbers three and four —Ruzbihan
explores a number o f important issues and implications. W e can readily see the integral
relationship between Ruzbihan’s work and al-Qushayri’s in both content and
structure. But Ruzbihan, unsaddled by the political risks which al-Qushayri negotiated
exercises greater freedom in exploring the implications o f these themes their he shares
with al-Qushayri. What follows is an outline and summary o f Ruzbihan’s analysis.
I. The Lexicon o f Spiritual Psychology.
Ruzbihan assesses M oses’ persistence in the journey in term s o f the elements o f
Moses’ psyche. These components include: the lower soul (nafs), the heart (qalb), the
intellect ( ‘aql), and the faculty o f the inner sense (sirr). The sirr for Ruzbihan is the
faculty which surpasses both the intellect and the heart and apprehends the “wisdoms
o f the unseen” (hikam al-ghayb). What brought the suffering o f fatigue (nasab) to
M oses’ soul was ignorance o f the wisdom of the unseen which stems from not using
the faculty o f the inner sense. Accordingly, if Moses’ heart and soul had known as
178
much as his faculty o f inner sense, then, Ruzbihan asserts, Moses would have
experienced no exhaustion or fatigue. In such a journey as this, Ruzbihan feels that
while the heart and intellect can succumb to fatigue, the faculty o f inner sense does not.
Thus, even though Moses was in the station o f striving (maqam al-mujahada) and
testing (imtihan), his faculty o f inner sense would not have been subject to exhaustion
in such work.
II. M oses ’Journey o f Training compared with his Witnessing at Sinai. (18.60-64)
II.1. Ruzbihan describes the journey o f training (ta ’dib) as the work o f the
“people o f aspiration” (ahl al-irada). This verbal noun irada (which can be defined
variously as “desire,” “intention,” “will,” and “aspiration”) gives us the active
participle murid (“seeker,” “aspirant”), a term Ruzbihan raises later in the discussion
to describe Moses’ relationship to Khidr. The term m urid is also the classical term for
the disciple o f a Sufi master. Similarly, the passive participle murad is the term for the
Sufi master meaning one who is longed for. According to Carl Ernst, the term irada
describes the master-disciple relationship: “The relationship between the two [master
and disciple] was indicated by the term irada, meaning longing or desire.”35 Ruzbihan
contrasts the journey o f training which is the work o f the people o f irada, with
Moses’ experience on Sinai as that o f the “state o f the people o f intimacy (uns).n The
people o f aspiration receive mediation (wasita) and are engaged in a process o f striving
3S Carl W. Ernst, The Shambhala Guide to Sufism. (Boston: Shambhala, 1997), 124.
179
(mujahada). In comparison, the people o f intimacy receive the burden o f the share o f
witnessing (mushahada). Ruzbihan recognizes this state within the following hadith:
“I pass the night with my Lord; He feeds me and gives me drink.”37 Such direct access
to God is one o f the qualities o f the state o f the people o f intimacy. The journey o f
moral training (in contrast to Moses’ experience at Sinai) is characterized by the fact
that Moses “suffers in striving.”
n.2 . God sent Moses to learn the knowledge o f the unseen ( ‘ilm al-ghayb).38
Since Moses was trained in the truth (“Truth trained him.” [addabahu al-haqq]) ,
Moses did not realize his own possession o f “something o f the knowledge of divine
realities.” Ruzbihan reiterates this theme o f Moses possession o f the truth within him
later in his discussion (cf. IV.2, below).
D.3 The journey is a journey o f moral training (safar a l-ta ’dib). The conditions
o f the journey o f moral training include enduring hardship (a time o f bearing hardship
and hunger) and being carried along on the journey by God. This fact o f sustenance
belies the apparency o f the struggle (mujahada) which defines Moses’ engagement in
spiritual training (ta ’dib).
37 Sahih Bukhari Bk. 82; Ch. 29; Hadith 834
38 Here Ruzbihan applies a term that goes back to the classical commentary o f al-Tabari, See
Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (224/5-310 / 839-923), Jami' al-bayan ‘an t a ’wil al-Qur 'an
(30 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Alamin, 1992). p. 206, para. 23209. This passage is discussed in
chapter three.
180
11.4. In being trained by God, Moses lost sight o f the fact that he possessed
something o f the knowledge o f divine realities ( ‘ulum al-haqa ’iq). For this reason God
sent Moses to learn the knowledge o f the unseen ( ‘ilm al-ghayb).
11.5. In this journey (in contrast to Sinai) Moses is burdened (muhtamal). (p.
590)
EH. The Exceptional Servant and Perfect Gnosis (18.65)
The “servant from among our servants” is distinguished as an exceptional [servant]
(khawass) or “servant-in-reality” ( ‘abd bi ’l-haqiqa) endowed with “sufficient
compassion” (al-rahm a al-kafiya). This compassion is expressed as “sainthood
(yvilaya), nearness [to God], and witnessing [of divine reality].” The “directly-
disclosed divine knowledge” {al- ‘ilm al-ladunni) is imparted to the servant in truth as a
perfect gnosis (ma ‘rifa kamila). As models o f this degree o f servanthood, Ruzbihan
cites both Khidr and the Prophet Muhammad, (p. 591)
Ruzbihan implies here that Muhammad and Khidr share a special status among
all prophetic or saintly exemplars. Further he has developed an interpretation o f the
meaning o f “exceptional servant” as a saint. This exegetical move allows Khidr’s story
to serve to legitimate the Sufi mode o f authority o f wilaya (sainthood).
DI.l. The servant ( ‘abd) named Khidr is one o f the exceptional servants
{khawass min ‘ibada). The exceptional servants are those whom God selects to impart
gnosis {ma ‘rifa) from four areas:
181
(1) the sciences o f lordship ( ‘ulum al-rububiya),
(2) the secrets o f unicity (asrar al-wahdaniyya),
(3) the realities o f wisdom (haqa ’iq al-hukma)
(4) subtle graces o f angelic and majestic realms (lata ’i f malakutihi wa
jabarutihi).
DI.2. The exceptional servants are described as belonging to four classes o f
people:
(1) The People o f the Unseen
(2) The People o f the Unseen o f the Unseen
(3) The People o f the Secret
(4) The People o f the Secret o f the Secret.
m.3. God conceals exceptional servants within Him self and veils them from
creation. This veiling is an act o f compassion (shafaqat) due to their manifestation o f
the secret of God (sirr Allah).
HI.4. The exceptional servants (khawass) are “servants-in-reality” or
“servants-in-truth” ( ‘ibad bi- ‘l-haqiqa). They are those who have reached the reality
o f servanthood, meaning that God made their servanthood “ “parallel” (muhadhiya) to
His Lordship. This m etaphor o f being “parallel to His Lordship” articulates in the
word muhadhiya (from the root ha-dhal-waw) a sense o f “to imitate” and “to be
182
alongside of.”39 These servants resemble through imitation the divine qualities. The
servants-in-reality are distinguished by the gnosis they have received. Although from a
perspective within creation, all God’s servants stand on an equal basis, from the
perspective o f gnosis, there exists a category o f real servants: the selected servants
(khawass). Ruzbihan asserts that these distinctions o f servant-in-truth and selected
servant are implicit in the hadith report which Ruzbihan cites in which the Prophet
Muhammad stipulates, “ I am the servant —la ilaha ilia Allah —I am the servant in
truth and no other.” Therefore, Ruzbihan continues, Khidr has achieved the greatest
honor (ashraf) in the very fact o f God calling him a servant ( ‘abd).
m .5. The real servant (such as Khidr) is one upon whom God in pre-eternity
(azat) bestowed “sufficient compassion” (rahmatu al-kafiya). Only by virtue o f this
compassion is it permissible (or, we might add, even plausible) for a servant to even
declare his status since (in principle) God has no need o f service from impermanent
creatures.
HI. 6. Ruzbihan specifies three aspects o f rahma (divine beneficence,
compassion, or mercy) as rahma is used to describe one o f the gifts borne by Khidr.
Rahma includes (1) sainthood (wilaya), (2) nearness (qurban), and witnessing
(mushahada). In relation to Ruzbihan’s articulation o f Moses state o f knowledge at
39 Hans Wehr, A Dictionary o f Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan (Ithica, NY:
Spoken Language Services), 1976, 3rd. ed.
183
Sinai as one o f witnessing, this trio o f attributes implies a sense o f Khidr’s superior
status.
m .7. Khidr’s direct divine knowledge ( Him ladurmi) is a “perfect gnosis”
(ma ‘rifa kamila). Ruzbihan proceeds to describe the characteristics o f the perfect
gnosis which is directly-disclosed divine knowledge ( ‘ilm ladurmi):
(1) Perfect gnosis is a knowledge unknown and concealed from many o f the
elect (akhyar [“the best”].
(2) It is a “special direct knowledge” ( Him al-ladunni al-khass) which God
has reserved for Him self and for the “elect o f the elect.”
(3) Directly-disclosed divine knowledge is “the wisdom o f the unseen in an
unknowable form” (hikmat al-ghayb ‘ala sura al-majhula). This sense o f an
unknowable knowledge harks back to al-Qushayri’s discussion of the problem that the
knowledge sought by Moses is unteachable: since Khidr received it directly and
without it being taught, how can Khidr, in turn, teach it to Moses?40
(4) The realities o f this knowledge correspond to —perhaps, imbue —benefits
to creation and are connected to knowledge o f the realm o f divine actions.
(5) Ruzbihan describes five levels o f directly-disclosed divine knowledge.
(a) The proofs o f the knowledge o f the realm o f divine actions (a f ‘al)
are given to the selected servant (khass) to strengthen, root, or establish
servanthood. Ruzbihan’s notion o f the establishment o f servanthood
40 Al-Qushayri, Lata ’i f al-Isahrat, p. 408.

184
serves not only to legitimate the status o f the exceptional servant, but
also allows him to fulfill al-Qushayri’s dictum that directly-disclosed
divine knowledge is granted to the servant, not for himself, but in his
service to others.41
0?) The next level o f ‘ilm ladurtni is the understanding (yvuqitf) o f part o f
the secret o f predestination.
(c) Next is given knowledge o f divine names and special qualities.
(d) Then comes knowledge o f divine attributes (sifat).
(e) Finally, one receives knowledge o f the essence (dhat).
Ruzbihan also adds that “knowledge o f the ambiguous [verses]” (mutashabbihat) is a
special part o f the knowledge that is unknowable. While it is most likely that in
invoking the term mutashabbihat, Ruzbihan is referring to the knowledge o f the
ambiguous verses (alluded to in Q ur’an 3.7), it also is possible that he may be using the
term mutashabbihat in the sense o f discerning analogies, or understanding the deep
meaning o f events. This would convey a sense o f mutashabbihat consistent with the
Q ur’anic context (3.7). There the knowledge of mutashabbihat relates to ta ’w il (deep
meaning) which is the term Khidr uses for the interpretations o f his actions which he
conveys to Moses.
41 Ibid., p. 408.
185
(6) Ruzbihan next turns to the question o f how directly-disclosed divine
knowledge is known. He explains that is known by the unveiling (mukashafat) and
manifestation (zuhur) o f the unseen (mughayyabat). It is through unveiling and
manifestation that all that is connected to directly-disclosed divine knowledge (i.e.,
points 5a-e listed above) comes to be known. Ruzbihan’s answer describes some o f the
characteristics o f witnessing (mushahada).
(7) Ruzbihan introduces and describes “primordial knowledge” ( ‘ilm al-
qadim):
(a) Primordial knowledge is a characteristic (wasrf) of the truth (al-
haqq) and a part o f the science o f lordship ( ‘ilm al-rububfya).
(b) Primordial knowledge is connected with two functions:
(1) special inspiration (ilham al-khass)
(2) hearing the eternal speech (sama ‘ kalam al-qadim) without
intermediary (bi-ghayr al-wasita).
This last point suggests that this knowledge includes prophecy. Ruzbihan asserts that
the knowledge possessed by Khidr includes the capacity o f directly hearing God’s
eternal speech. On this count, Khidr’s knowledge appears at least equal to, if not
superior to that o f Moses. To the degree that Ruzbihan is developing the implications
o f his exegetical predecessors, they also may have indirectly hinted at this perspective
which Ruzbihan asserts later (cf. IV. 1.2).
186
(8) Ruzbihan quotes earlier masters on the definition o f directly-disclosed
divine knowledge to support his own explanation:
(a) Dhu’1-Nun Misri stressed that this knowledge is “decreed for people in
situations o f divine assistance and abandonment.”
(b) Ibn ‘Ata explained that it comes without intermediaries, by unveiling, and is
not intellectually acquired.
(c) al-Hallaj identified it as divine inspiration (ilham).
(d) al-Qushayri observed that it without effort or intermediaries.
(e) Junayd described it as an unveiling o f lights which results from scrutinizing
one’s body for its deviations and eradicating one’s intentions, (p. 591)
(f) al-Tustari explained that divine inspiration is a from of revelation (yvahy)
such as the revelation (wahy) given to the bee (Qur’an 16.68) and the mother o f Moses
(28.7).
(g) Al-Qushayri is quoted again: in designating the human being as God’s
servant, God made him a member o f the elect (khawass). When God called him, “My
servant,” he became one o f the elect o f the elect (khawass al-khawass). On directly-
disclosed divine knowledge, al-Qushayri is quoted: “Directly-disclosed divine
knowledge is what is attained by way o f divine inspiration (ilham) without intentional
effort.”
187
(h) Ruzbihan quotes anonymously a source who explains that directly-
disclosed divine knowledge is the condition o f upright servants which God teaches to
His saints.
IV. The Master-Disciple Relationship (18.66)
What is the training (riyada) in proper conduct (adab) and spiritual companionship
(suhba) between master (shaykh) and disciple (murid) which the story o f Khidr and
Moses models?
IV. 1. Moses demonstrated the most beautiful conduct (ahsana adab) in seeking
permission to follow Khidr (18.66).
IV.2. Moses sought a limitless knowledge which surpassed his own knowledge.
Ruzbihan writes that it is “the most exalted guidance” because through learning this
knowledge Moses finds it within himself, (cf. II.5 above) In a sense this “secret
knowledge, the hidden light” is simultaneously beyond and yet, within Moses.
IV.3. (18.67-77) Moses companionship with Khidr is a test from God, which
in Ruzbihan’s interpretation serves as a model for the master-disciple relationship in
Sufism.
[God] tested him [Moses] through compaiionship with Khidi; in order to straighten the
way
(tariq), to establish the tradition (sunna) in following the masters (masha'ikh) so that
he would be a model (uswa) for the aspirants ( muricin) and for those who seek by
serving the masters o f the way (ashyckh al-tcriqa)A2
42 Ruzbihan, ‘A ra ’is al-Bayyan, p. 592
188
IV.3.1 The test o f companionship establishes the tradition o f following the
masters.
IV.3.2. Through being tested in companionship with Khidr, M oses serves as a
model for disciples (muridin) o f the “masters o f the way.” Through his use o f the term
murid, Ruzbihan represents Moses as the model o f the disciple o f a Sufi master.
Ruzbihan’s designation o f Moses as a model o f the murid is shared by al-Qushayri in
an explanation from his Treatise (Risala):
The Masta* Abu ‘A li ad-Daqqaq explained, “The murid is made to bear and the murad
is borne” He also commented, “Moses (peace be upon him) was a murid because he
said, ‘O Lord, expand form e my breast.’ (20.25). Our prophet (may God’s blessing and
peace be upon him) was a murad because God most High says o f him, ‘Have we not
expanded for you your breast, lifted from you your burden that weighed down your
back, and exalted your fame? (94:1-4). Moses also requested, ‘O m y Lord, show
Yourself to m e that I may look upon You.’ [God said] ‘You w ill never see me
[directly].’ (7.I43)43
IV.4. In their possession o f different aspects of God’s knowledge, M oses and Khidr
each surpass each other. Although Moses was more knowledgeable than Khidr in
terms o f what he received o f divine truth, Moses did not possess K hidr’s distinctive
knowledge.
IV.4.1. Khidr’s knowledge is a door (bab 'ilm Khidr) through which Moses
entered to the realm o f unknowable knowledge (al- ‘ilm al majhul). By entering the
door o f Khidr’s knowledge, Moses reached a station (jnaqam) in which both Khidr’s
knowledge and the knowledge o f all creation becomes hidden. This was a station of
43 Al-Qushayri, Risalah al-Qushayriyah. Translated by Barbara von Schlegell, Principles o f

Sufism. (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1990), 180-181.
189
grace (fadl Allah) imparted to Moses. Ruzbihan quotes a statement o f Faris Dinawari
(a disciple of al-Hallaj) that Moses was more knowledgeable in terms of received
knowledge, while Khidr was more knowledgeable about the events happening to
Moses.
IV.4.2. Ruzbihan draws the following contrasts between the knowledge,
learning, and self-existence o f Moses and Khidr:
IV.4.2.1. In terms o f knowledge, Moses has received more knowledge o f God’s
truth, while Khidr has more knowledge o f the events o f Moses’ life. The implications
o f this distinction apply to Ruzbihan’s later distinction between training (ta 'dib) and
instruction (ta 'lini). (See IV.5.7 below.) Khidr’s knowledge applies more to the state of
Moses particular soul and involves the capacity to guide and train a disciple. Moses
knowledge is not related to the capacity o f spiritual guidance.
IV. 4.2.2. In terms o f learning, or training, Khidr’s knowledge is a door for
Moses. In passing through the door o f Khidr’s knowledge, Moses enters the realm of
unknowable knowledge in which other types o f formal knowledge (Khidr’s knowledge
and the knowledge o f creation) become hidden. This is a station o f grace.
IV. 4.2.3. In terms o f existence: Khidr was annihilated in the truth (fa n v f1bi- 7-
Haqq) while Moses was eternally established in truth (baqiyfin bi- ’l-Haqq). At one
level, because Khidr was consumed (mustahlak) he could not exercise authority. But
on another level, Ruzbihan asserts there is no distinction between Moses’ state o f
190
being eternally established and Khidr’s state o f being annihilated because both spoke
from a single source.
IV.5. Ruzbihan examines the elements o f the companionship (suhba) between
Moses and Khidr. What made this teaching relationship possible and what forms o f
resistance —on both sides —undermined their relationship?
IV.5.1. First Ruzbihan considers Khidr’s excuses (18.73, 76). Khidr resists
companionship with Moses both before and during their journey. On his side, Moses
was impatient, swayed by personal motives, and misunderstood Khidr’s intentions.
Khidr made excuses and resisted companionship with Moses by accusing Moses o f
impatience and lack o f knowledge. Khidr knew Moses was the most noble (akram) o f
creation, but also boldly stubborn. This stubbornness is explained more frilly in
Ruzbihan’s discussion o f Qur’an 18.78 (cf. IV.5.10 below) where he suggests that
Khidr was considering the fact that Moses had once punched out the eye o f the angel
o f death. Considering Moses’ stubbornness, Khidr was frightened by the prospect o f
companionship with Moses. For this reason he rejected Moses by challenging him
with the words, “You will not be able to be patient with me.” (18.67)
IV. 5. 2. Ruzbihan interprets Khidr’s challenge to Moses (18.67, 68, 72, 75) as
an act o f teaching by Khidr that knowledge is related to patience and lack o f patience is
related to ignorance.
IV. 5. 3. Khidr perceived the limits o f Moses’ patience. First, Moses patience
and his attainment o f knowledge are based in the exoteric ethical and religious
191
principles o f Islamic law (shari’a). How well can Moses live by these principles?
Further, Khidr also perceived that Moses was drowned in the sea o f the beauty o f
truth such that he had reached the limits o f the form o f outward observances: Moses
had reached the limit (farigh) o f forms o f outward observance and the evaluation o f
benefit and harm. Khidr recognized these factors as defining Moses’ limits. In this
sense, Moses had reached a degree o f spiritual experience beyond his own endurance;
Khidr’s companionship would have increased this discrepancy and overtaxed his
patience, (p. 592)
IV. 5. 4. 1. Ruzbihan suggests that Khidr said, “You will not be able to be
patient with me” (18.67a) to clarify that it is not the role o f a saint (waif) to impart
insight (yatafarisu) to a prophet, (p. 593) Ruzbihan’s sense that the saint cannot
impart inspired insight (firasa) may conform to al-Qushayri’s notion that Khidr’s
knowledge is unteachable.44 This sense underlies al-Qushayri’s use in his Risala o f al-
Wasiti’s description o f inspired insight:
Al-Wasiti stated, “Insight consists o f radiant lights in the heart, enabling gnosis to carry
secrets in the unseal realms from one hidden realm to another, such that one may see
thing? in the way that God displays them to him, so that he may speak about the
innermost part o f creation.4S
44 Al-Qushayri, Lata ’i f al-Isharat, p. 408.
45 Al-Qushayri, Principles o f Sufism, 224.
192
Although al-Wasiti conceives o f “speak[mg] about the innermost part o f creation,” the
mode o f this discernment —lights and secrets in unseen and hidden realms —eludes
language
IV. 5. 4. 2. Adopting al-Qushayri’s observation (p. 411), Ruzbihan suggests
that, by questioning Moses’ ability to be patient (18.67-68), Khidr purposefully
distanced himself in order to maintain his companionship with God, rather than lose
divine companionship through companionship with Moses.
IV.5.5. Moses acted with proper conduct (adab) and sought Khidr’s approval
(18.66, 69) because Moses knew patience (sabr) is only attained through God.
Ruzbihan develops al-Qushayri’s observation that Moses demonstrated the link
between patience and seeking the will o f God (p. 408). In his choice o f syntax,
Ruzbihan evokes a verse from the Qur’an: “Be patient for your patience is only in
God.” (16.127)
IV.5.5.1. Ruzbihan quotes Faris who distinguishes the knowledge and stations
o f Khidr and Moses:
IV.5.5.1.1. Khidr’s knowledge is directly-disclosed divine knowledge ( ‘ilm
ladunni) from one unseen realm to another. Moses’ knowledge at that time is the result
o f effort (taklij) and proof (istidlal).
IV.5.5.1.2. Khidr’s station is one firmly established in unveiling and witnessing
(maqam al-kashf wa- 7 mushahada). M oses’s station is one o f cultivation or moral
training (maqam al-ta ’dib).
193
IV.5.5.1.3 Fans also suggests that when Khidr became the instructor o f Moses,
Khidr thought little o f him in the sense that Khidr did not want to “turn away from his
station.” Two characteristics o f Khidr’s station are relevant:
(1) his witnessing o f the vision of the essence (ru 'ya al-dhat) and the attributes
(si/at) as these inform the apparent destinies [of creatures].
(2) Khidr’s station reflects his “exalted status with God and the greatness of
his knowledge o f the divine characteristics (nu ‘ut/ sing, na ‘at) and attributes (sifat).”
(see III.7.5.c.,d., and e above)
IV.5.6. Ruzbihan examines Moses’ practice o f the “duty o f discipleship” (haqq
al-mutaba‘af). Moses request to follow (18.66) and Khidr’s act o f deflecting the
request (18.67-68) suggest that Moses does not need to ask this question. In fact,
Ruzbihan asserts, “it is the duty o f discipleship to remain silent during the spiritual
activity (tasarruj) o f the teacher.”
IV.5.7. (18.70) The difference between training (ta ’dib) and instruction (to7/m)
explains part o f the reason Moses should not ask questions. Ruzbihan quotes al-Husri
on the question o f Moses’ questions. Al-Husri says that Khidr knew Moses’
insufficiencies (qusur) from his questioning. The reason that Khidr stipulated that
Moses not ask is that although Moses has a “higher, more complete knowledge,”
Moses sought Khidr for training (to ’dib), not instruction (to ‘lim).
194
Al-Husri [Abu’I-Hasan ‘AH b. ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Fihri (420/1029-488/1095)] said
Khidr knew the insufficiencies (qnsitr) o f [Moses’] knowledge from the nature o f
M oses’ questioning and indeed [Moses] asked him [urgently] for cultivation (ta ’dib),
not for instruction (ta 7ini). So [Khidr] said to [Moses], “If you follow me, don’t ask
me concerning anything.” [18.70] because your knowledge [i.e., prophethood] is
higher and more complete and indeed you sought me for cultivation (ta ’dib), not for
instruction (ta'lim ) in an exceptional state.46
IV.5.8. Ruzbihan explains the two forms o f guidance:
(1) the “path o f asking” (tariq al-su ’al) and
(2) the “station o f acquisition” (maqam al-kasb)
IV.5.8.1. The refusal o f hospitality (18.77b) represents the descent from the
path o f asking [“they asked”] to the station o f acquiring [“he found a wall”]. The path
o f asking is the way of the o f those intoxicated in God or “drawn to God”
(majdhubin); the station o f acquisition is the way o f sober travelers (salikiri). The
intoxicated —those who ask —are unable to work or engage in acquisition. One in a
perfect state (hal) abandons both approaches.
IV.5.8.2. Further, Ruzbihan takes the examples that Khidr and Moses continue
to “ask” and “take” to mean that neither way prevents the gnostic from attaining the
station o f divine satisfaction (rida) and trust (tawakkul).
IV.5.8.3. According to al-Wasiti, as quoted by Ruzbihan, the rejection of
hospitality means that Khidr witnessed the lights o f the kingdom while Moses
witnessed intermediaries (wasa ’it). Although Ruzbihan does not comment further, al-
46 Ruzbihan, ‘Ara ’is. p. 593

195
Wasiti’s interpretation may correspond to the difference between the responses of
Khidr and Moses: Khidr accepts the rejection and turns to rebuild a wall which he
fin d s (suggesting “acquisition” \kasb]f Moses, in contrast focuses on the people o f the
village as “intermediaries” o f whom one may —or even must -- ask for hospitality.
IV.5.8.4. Khidr explains to Moses that asking from humanity is asking from
God. The refuser and giver are one; therefore, it is wise to refrain from anger and look
beyond the cause to the Causer. This interpretation may inform al-Wasiti’s description
o f Khidr witnessing the “lights o f the kingdom” beyond the forms. Ruzbihan here
begins developing a theme he will examine more extensively later: the essential union
behind the apparent forms o f mediation and expressions o f intention (cf. V.1.4,.,
below).
IV.5.9. Moses’ interest in the reward (afr) blocks his progress. (18.77) His lack
o f patience contrasts, as Ruzbihan observes, with his ability to forego food patiently
on Sinai. Now Ruzbihan notes, Khidr is established (baqa) in the stations o f the way
([manazil al-tariqa) while Moses is burning with the fires o f longing. His impatience in
seeking food shows that he is at the beginning stage, whereas on Sinai, in the station of
hearing (maqam al-sama *) he had been patient for forty days. Ruzbihan relates Ibn
‘A ta’s interpretation that since self-consciousness and personal motive invalidate an
act; Khidr separated himse lf from Moses when Moses raised the issue o f a reward
196
(afr). Ruzbihan also quotes Junayd’s dictum that greed is a darkness which veils souls
from the “inner aspects o f the [divine] decree.” In Ruzbihan’s view, Moses projected
his own limitations onto Khidr’s perfection o f knowledge. Ruzbihan again suggests
that Khidr could not give Moses an answer —perhaps following al-Qushayri’s notion
o f the unteachability o f Khidr’s knowledge.47 Accordingly, Khidr finished with Moses
and declared their parting.
IV.5.10. Ruzbihan defines Khidr’s declaration o f parting as a reflection o f the
mutual testing which strained the companionship o f Khidr and Moses. Because Khidr
knew Moses’ faculty o f inner sense and that Moses was being tested in his
companionship with him, Khidr wanted to divert Moses from the form o f knowledge
and action. Ruzbihan proposes that Khidr wanted to avoid a confrontation with
Moses, who he knew, had punched out the eye o f ‘Azra’il, the angel o f death 48
Knowing M oses’ severity, and seeking to prevent Moses from acting presumptuously
with Khidr —“one o f the masters o f the narrative” (shaykh min ashyakh al-qissa) -
Khidr decided not to disclose answers from the “secret o f the secret o f the exalted
[realm of] lordship.”
47 Al-Qushayri, L ata’i f al-Isharat, p. 408.
48 Sahih Bukhari II. 23. #423
197
IV.5.11. Ruzbihan quotes Abu-’l-Qasim Nasrabadhi’s49 assertion that because
Khidr knew his own limits and Moses’ attainment in spiritual formation (ta ’addub),
Khidr parted in order to prevent his own embarrassment.
IV.5.12 Abu Bakr ibn Tahir suggests that Moses, looking at the outer form of
the actions, prevented Khidr from doing good and also misjudged Khidr’s motive as
one o f greed.
V. The essential unity behind the apparentform s ofmediation and the expressions o f
intention
V .l. The case o f the youth (18.80) raises the question o f predestination
(qadar). God could have made him sinless or guided him to truth. Taken literally,
Ruzbihan suggests, the verse suggests that acquisition (iktisab) -- Khidr’s slaying the
youth to prevent his destiny from unfolding -- interferes with predestination (qadar).
But at a deeper level o f interpretation, this verse describes essential union ( ‘ayn al-
ja m y. the youth and the slaying are acts o f Allah; the command is the command o f
Allah; the destiny is the destiny o f Allah. The perspective o f essential union ( ‘ayn al-
ja m “) resolves the apparent duality of thinking that Khidr’s acts could violate God’s
intention. This move preserves God’s predestination in the face o f apparently
autonomous agency on the part o f a creature.
49 Abu’l-Qasim Ibrahim al-Nasrabadhi (d. 366/977-8)
198
V.1.1. From the perspective o f destiny, God establishes the destiny o f the
youth. But from the perspective o f action, God seems to delete what he decreed. What
appear as contradictory actions from our perspective are reconciled in the perspective
o f essential union ( ‘ayn al-jam “): the cause and the Causer are one. (cf. IV.5.8.4.,
above) Khidr’s knowledge that the killing o f the youth were destined (maqdur) from
the pre-eternity o f pre-eternity as an act o f God signaled to Khidr that his own
knowledge o f destiny (qadar) exceeded the knowledge o f Moses. Thus Khidr declared
their parting.
V.1.2. Ruzbihan summarizes six reasons for the separation and five reasons
Khidr resisted companionship with Moses. First, the six reasons for the separation:
(1) Moses mentioned rewards. (TV.5.9)
(2) Khidr’s knowledge is unteachable (no answer is possible). (TV. 5.9)
(3) Khidr was apprehensive about M oses’ disposition, especially in light o f
what he did to ‘Azra’il. (IV.5.10)
(4) Khidr, knowing his own limits, wanted to spare himself embarrassment.
(IV.5.11)
(5) Moses projected Khidr’s motive as one o f greed. (11.5.12)
(6) Khidr’s knowledge o f destiny exceeded that o f Moses’ knowledge. (V.1.1.)
199
Ruzbihan presents five reasons why Khidr resisted companionship with Moses:
(1) Khidr was frightened over M oses’ nobility and stubbornness. (TV.5.1)
(2) Since Moses’ patience and knowledge were based on religious precepts
(shari’a), his ability to practice patience and apply some forms o f knowledge had not
yet been tested. (IV.5.3.)
(3) Imparting insight (tafarrasa) was not Khidr’s responsibility. (IV.5.4.1)
(4) Khidr desired to return to companionship with God. (IV.5.4.2.)
(5) Khidr did not want to turn away from his station o f witnessing the vision
o f the essence and attributes. (IV. 5.5.1.3.)
V.2. The case o f the slain youth raises a potential problem inherent in
mediators. One is at risk o f fixing one’s attention on the mediator rather than on the
mediated.
V.2.1. Khidr became concerned that the beauty o f the youth’s face and its light
could deter people o f truth and knowledge from gazing directly at God. This
perspective o f Ruzbihan’s further increases the tension implicit in Khidr’s role as a
mediator o f unmediated —and unteachable —knowledge. To Ruzbihan, Khidr sought to
prevent the misdirection o f intimacy toward the particular form o f the youth, so that
intimacy would be toward God alone. The problem o f mediation also defines the
200
difference between Moses’ journey o f training and his period o f waiting on Sinai. Both
al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan assess the difference in Moses’ endurance in relation to
mediation. In the journey to Khidr, Moses’ search for a mediator brings him fatigue.
On Sinai, his direct approach to God finds him sustained (cf. II. 1, II. 3 above).
V.2.2. Khidr killed in the youth what was other than God and so removed the
intermediaries between God and His lovers, prophets, and saints (awliya
V.2.3. Khidr discerned (tafarras) the situation o f the youth through inspired
insight (firasa). [cf. IV.5.4.1. above] Ruzbihan considers such insight to be infallible.
V.3. From the perspective o f essential union ( ‘ayn al-jam *), Khidr’s three
explicitly different statements o f intention (irada) are in reality one.
V.3.1. Ruzbihan sees Khidr’s statement, “ ...I intended...” (18.79) as referring
to essential union ( ‘ayn al-jam “) and unification (jttihad). This interpretation would
presumably follow from Khidr’s act o f having eliminated the boat as a distinctively
attractive object. His statement, “...W e intended...” (18.81) refers to taking on divine
attributes (ittisaj) and the related condition of expansiveness (inbisat). This
interpretation seems to follow the substitution o f a morally inferior child with one
imbued with the divine attributes o f purity and mercy. Ruzbihan explains the third
statement, “ ...your Lord intended...” (18.82) in three related expressions:
201
(1) The statement “ ...your Lord intended...” is an expression o f al-Junayd’s
formulation o f divine unity (tawhid): “ ...the isolation o f the eternal from the
temporal.”50 (ifrad al-qidam ‘an al-hudutK) The phrase “isolation o f the eternal from
the temporal” seems to mirror in the abstract the narrative’s particular motifs. God
wants the two orphaned youths to reach their maturity (“eternal”) so that they will be
able to retrieve (“isolation”) their treasure.
(2) The statement “ ...your Lord intended...” means “the disappearance
(talashi) and annihilation (fana *) o f the one professing unity (micwahhid) in the one
unified (muwahhad). Ruzbihan’s gloss corresponds to the definition o f tawhid by Abu
Muhammad al-Ruwaym: “ Tawhid is the effacement o f the characteristics o f humanity
and the stripping bare o f divinity.”51 Ruzbihan’s evocation o f annihilation (fana') may
relate to the phrase within this verse (18.82) in which Khidr disclaims his own
apparent agency: “I did not act on my own command.”
(3) Ruzbihan explains the statement “ ...your Lord intended...” as describing
the inner state (batiri) o f will (mashi ‘a) which is the “hidden aspect o f the attribute
which is the secret o f the essence.” As before, this interpretation o f an inner and
hidden state parallels the presence o f the treasure under the wall. This formulation
extends the implications o f Ruzbihan’s gloss on the first statement, “ ...I intended...”
50 Carl Ernst, Words o f Ecstasy in Sufism (Albany: State University o f N ew York Press,
1985), 29.
51 Ibid., p. 29.
202
as an expression o f Khidr in the state o f essential union. Ultimately, Ruzbihan
concludes: “Only Allah exists among [these three expressions o f intention].”
V.3.2. Ruzbihan quotes two o f Ibn ‘A ta’s interpretations o f the three
statements o f intention.
(la.) The statement “...I intended...” means that Khidr was inspired in his
faculty o f inner sense with the question, “Who are you, that you presume to express
your own intention?”
(lb .) The statement “...w e intended...” continues in the same vein: “Who are
you and Moses, that you both presume to express an intention?”
(lc ) The statement “ ...your Lord intended...” reflects Khidr’s retreat from
presuming to impose his own intentions.
(2a.) The statement “ ...I intended...” refers to compassion (shafaqa) upon
creation. (2b.) The statement “ ...w e intended...” expresses mercy (rahma).
(2c.) The third statement “ ... your Lord intended...” reflects a return to reality
(haqiqa).
V.3.3. Ruzbihan cites an interpretation o f the three statements o f intention by
Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj:
203
(la.) The first statement, “ ...I intended...” is the “first station” (al-maqam al-
awwal) which is “God’s ravishing (istila ’ al-haqq) o f the individual ego.”
(lb.) The second statement, “ ...w e intended...” is a “second
station:...discoursing with the servant.”
(lc.) The third statement, “ ...your Lord intended...” is a third station:...a
return to the inner [esoteric] through the outer [exoteric].” This statement corroborates
Ruzbihan’s view (cf. V.3.I.3., above) that the statement, “...your Lord intended...”
extends the implications o f the statement, “ ...I intended...” as a more complete
expression o f essential union: namely, that behind all agency, action, and forms, only
God exists. As we have suggested before, the m otif o f the buried treasure symbolically
describes the notion o f a return to the inner (buried treasure) from the outer (the wall).
Ruzbihan’s readers would naturally associate this symbolism with the hadith which
reads, “I was a hidden treasure and I wanted to be known so I created al o f the
creation.”52
V.3.4. Applying a rhetoric o f ineffability, Ruzbihan articulates his conclusion
as a sense in which all oppositions resolve. Ruzbihan’s ellusive and paradoxical
summary displays a rhetorical reenactment o f the place “where two seas meet:”
52Kuntu kanz"makhfiyy™fa-’hbabtu ‘an u'rafafa-khalaqtu 'l-khalqa lika u'rafa. Cited in

Javad Nurbaksh, Traditions o f the Prophet Vol. 1 (N ew York: Khaniqahi-Nimatullahi Publications,
1981), 13.
204
The inwaidness o f the inwardness becomes within it the outer o f the outer: And the
absence o f the absence becomes the visible ( ‘xycm) o f the visible. And the visible o f the
visible becomes the absence o f the absence; just as neatness to something through the
lowerselves (nufus) is distaice, so the nearness to it in itself is [true] nearness to God.
Amidst this aporia apophasis one may sense a parallel with the narrative’s final
unfolding: the elusive answers to Moses’ questions are found on the same river, within
the face o f the youth, and under Moses’ feet. In a very tangible sense then, the
narrative lets us feel the unveiling o f Ruzbihan’s paradox o f the union between the seen
and the unseen.
‘A bd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (d. 730 A.H./1329 C.E.) Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim
Following in the footsteps o f Ibn ‘Arabi (1160-1240), al-Qashani emphasizes the
allegorical interpretation (ta ’wil) o f the Qur’an applied to the training o f the soul.
Although al-Qashani treats many o f the same issues as al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan, he
departs from their emphasis on the master-disciple relationship to focus on spiritual
psychology. The motifs and symbols o f the story serve as a map o f the soul and its
training (riyada). The narrative o f Khidr and Moses becomes a parable o f the
progressive training (riyada) in which the “domineering soul” (al-nafs al-ammara) and
the “blaming soul” (al-nafs al-lawwama) are tamed and replaced by a “contented soul”
(al-nafs al-mutma’inna).53 For al-Qashani, only when the soul is content and the body
53 These three stages o f the soul are part o f a seven-fold model which is first described by Abu
‘Abdailah al-Harith al-Muhasibi (d. 857). See Michael Sells, Early Islamic Myseicism.(New York:
205
comes to rest can one receive this knowledge. Directly-disclosed divine knowledge
cannot be achieved through discursive inquiry, but is unveiled in a perfected heart.
I have organized the analysis o f al-Qashani’s Tafsir al-Q ur’an al-Karim54
around eleven rubrics:
(I) Orientation: inner meanings

(II) Journey: initial tests
(DI) Teacher: Khidr, the sacred intellect
(TV) Seeker: declaring determination
(V) Companionship: subtleties, silence, and spiritual states
(VI) Training: breaking the souls which command and blame
(VII) Transformation: seeking spiritual food
(VIII) Tranquillity: building the contented soul
(IX) Relinquishment: abandoning self-interest
(X) Understanding: learning through the soul
(XI) Meanings: extracting the treasure o f the heart’s gnosis
(I) Orientation: inner meanings. Conceding the importance o f the explicit
meanings (zahir) and miracles o f the story, al-Qashani announces his objective to
extract the inner meanings (batin). For al-Qashani, Moses is the heart (qalb);55 the
Paulist Press, 1996), 171-195. A chart and outline o f the seven levels o f the soul appears in J. Spencer
Trimingham, ibid., 152-157.
54 ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (attributed to Muhyi al-Din ibn ‘Arabi), Tafsir al-Qur’an al-
Karim, ed. Mustafa Ghalib (2 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), vol. I, pp. 766-773.
55 Al-Qashani stresses the interpretive role o f the “station o f the heart ( maqam al-qalb ).” Only
in the station o f the heart is gnosis (symbolized by the treasure under the wall) learned. In the station o f
the heart one apprehends both the universal forms and the particular entities. See sections VII and
X I.3.2. below.
206
servant is the soul (nafs) attached to the body. He gives two levels o f meaning for the
two seas. First, the meeting o f the two seas represents the meeting between two
realms: the world o f the spirit (ruh) and the world o f the body (jism) and the entering
o f a human being into the station o f the heart, represented by salty and sweet water.
Before Moses and Joshua joined their spirits and bodies, their food was the physical
fish God commanded them to take. On attaining this union, symbolized by reaching
the place where two seas meet, they then forgot the fish. Al-Qashani seems to be
implying that their forgetting the fish means they have exchanged dependence on
physical food for a capacity to eat spiritual food. Al-Qashani later takes up the theme
o f spiritual food more extensively (cf. section VII below). The fish took its way into
the sea o f the body. In an uncharacteristically literalist detail, al-Qashani asserts that
the species o f fish is the same as that which swallowed DhuT-Nun (Jonah), (p. 766)
(II) The journey: initial tests. Al-Qashani, echoing the hadith account, relates
M oses’ passing beyond the place where the two seas meet to the point o f the onset o f
fatigue.56 This fatigue, asserts al-Qashani, is the fatigue and difficulty o f giving birth.
M oses’ request for the meal reflects the difference between his present and past
conditions: like daylight compared to the womb. The servant’s answer, “Did you
see...” is an expression o f the soul’s nakedness in the moment when its weakness was
exposed. The rock where they sit represents the “upper chest for suckling,”
56 Sahih Bukhari IV.55.23.613.
207
complementing the theme o f birth al-Qashani invoked before. Al-Qashani invokes three
motifs o f birth and childhood: the womb, nakedness, and suckling. These symbolic
associations, not identified in al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan, accord with the water o f life
m otif featured in hadith57 and popular literature, as we have discussed earlier. Al-
Qashani explains Satan’s act o f causing forgetfulness as a loss o f consciousness or
mind (damir). Borrowing from hadith, al-Qashani reiterates that the forgetting
happened when Moses fell asleep.58 AJso following hadith, the servant stays awake.
In al-Qashani’s professed esoteric (batin) interpretation, the soul is awake, while the
heart is asleep. In this condition, Satan’s insinuations induce the soul to forget the fish.
The opening o f the water which strikes awe and bewilderment further contributes to
the distraction, (p. 767)
(III) Teacher: Khidr, the sacred intellect. Moses’ searching refers to “rising to
perfection (taraqqiy ila al-kamal) .. .through the pursuit o f the sacred intellect (al- ‘aql
al- qudsi).” Ai-Qashani’s idiom here evokes, but extends beyond al-Qushayri’s and
Ruzbihan’s articulations of “divine inspiration” and “perfect gnosis.” “Retracing their
steps,” refers for al-Qashani to two realities: (1) “rising to the station o f the original
nature” (maqam al-fitra al-ula); and (2) rising to perfection until finding the sacred
intellect. To al-Qashani Khidr is at one level the sacred intellect. The sacred intellect
which is the Qur’anic “servant from among God’s servants” has been “specially
57 Ibid., VI. 60. 251.
58 Ibid., IV .55.23.6I3.
208
selected with the virtue o f caring ( ‘inaya) and mercy (rahma). That mercy is spiritual
perfection: immaterial, indivisibly sacred and pure light. These qualities are all signs
(athar) that the sacred intellect, personified by Khidr, is close and intimate. Al-
Qashani, following al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan, interprets “And We taught him
knowledge from Our Presence” (18.65) to mean a sacred, inner knowledge given
without the mediation of a human teacher (ta ‘lim bashari). Al-Qashani suggests, but
does not stress that this knowledge is unteachable. (p. 768)
(TV) Seeking: declaring determination. Moses’ request, “May I follow you...”
(18.66) represents to al-Qashani a “display o f an intention to journey (suluk) and
rising to perfection,” rather than representing, as for al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan, a
model o f right conduct toward one’s teacher. “You will not be able to bear...” means
for al-Qashani that Moses is unaware o f hidden matters and spiritual realities. These
deficiencies are for al-Qashani a matter o f Moses’ lack o f freedom and the veiling of
these subtleties by his own body. As such Moses cannot engage in Khidr’s friendship
(murafaqd). Although al-Qashani includes the issue o f friendship with Khidr, he does
not follow al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan, in casting that relationship in terms o f right
conduct (adab) towards one’s teacher and mentoring companionship (suhba). Moses’
pledges to remain patient and not disobey are similarly understood as an issue of
Moses’ own will; al-Qashani, unlike Ruzbihan, does not stress the invocation o f “God
209
willing” as a feature o f his analysis. Al-Qashani does not look for the kind o f deference
celebrated by al-Qushayri. Al-Qashani’s language is one o f self-determination:
He [Moses] said, “You w ill find me, God willing patimt.” — due to the power o f my
preparation and my perseverence on the quest “And I w ill not disobey you in
anything.” — due to my directing myself towaid you and due to my purity and sinc&ity
o f my intention. S9
(V) Companionship: subtleties, silence, and spiritual states. Al-Qashani adds
that the entire dialogue is conducted in the “language o f a spiritual state.” This harks
back to Khidr’s challenge to Moses that he would not be able to be patient: the
journey will involve hidden matters and spiritual realities. A t this point al-Qashani
begins to address the etiquette o f the master-disciple relationship as one o f “spiritual
training” (riyada). Khidr’s statement, “If you would follow m e ...” refers to “traveling
the path o f perfection” (suluk tariq al-kamal). “So do not ask anything o f m e...”
relates the principles o f “emulation” (iqtida'), the “way o f deeds,” “spiritual training”
(riyada), “ethics,” and “efforts” (mujahadat) as the basis o f their relationship. These
qualities distinguish the knowledge imparted in spiritual training from the knowledge
imparted through questions and answers. Khidr’s stipulation, “ ...until I make mention
o f it to you” underscores the need to postpone or defer understanding until Moses
achieves freedom through his training by works o f transformation and heartfulness. Al-
Qashani will develop this theme later in related terms: achieving this knowledge
59 al-Qashani, Tafsir, p. 768. I have added italics to emphasize this point.
210
requires that the soul be contented, the body comes to rest,60 and that one has arrived
at the station o f the heart.61 (pp. 768-769)
(VI) Training: breaking the souls which command and blame. The boat
represents the body as a vehicle for training {riyada). Breaking the boat weakens the
body’s resistance to God. This weakening o f resistance to God, symbolized by the
crack in the boat comes through training and eating less. Moses conceives o f the
drowning as an act o f destruction through returning the animal and vegetable natures to
the sea o f primordial matter {hayula [Ar.]; hyle [Gk.]; prima materia [L.]). Moses’
protest over the drowning represents a “manifestation of the ego (nafs),” and the
heart’s sympathy for the ego’s struggle, and the experience o f deprivation and
impoverishment. Khidr’s reminder, “Did I not tell you you would not be able to have
patience with me?” serves as a warning and caution to Moses that one needs more
resolution ( ‘azima) for this journey. Moses first excuse, “Do not blame me that I
forgot...” is an excuse uttered from the station o f the blaming soul {al-nafs al-
lawwama). Al-Qashani describes the training which Khidr gives to Moses not so much
from the perspective o f the teaching relationship, but rather, with a special emphasis
on the spiritual psychology o f that training, (p. 769)
(VII) Transformation: seeking spiritual food. The rebellious youth whom
Khidr slays represents the ego {nafs) which commands to evil {amara bi-l-su r). Killing
60 Ibid., p. 771; see section X below.
61 Ibid., p. 772 (18.82); see section XI.3.2.
211
the youth refers to suppressing the ego’s wrath and desire. Moses’ protest over killing
a “pure soul” reflects an “overly compassionate heart.” Moses’ retraction and
compensation, “If I ask you anything...” represents recognition o f his sin (dhanb), a
recognition which results from transformations taking place in the blaming soul (al-nafs
al-law\vamd). Both o f Moses’ excuses represent for al-Qushayri expressions o f the
blaming soul. The “people o f the village” refers to “bodily powers.” Khidr and Moses’
request for hospitality symbolizes a request for “spiritual food” which is beyond the
scope o f bodily powers. Al-Qashani’s interpretation o f the request for hospitality as a
request for spiritual food harks back to his initial interpretation o f the forgotten fish as
a sign that Moses and his servant had surpassed the need for physical food (see
section I above). As al-Qashani explains, receiving spiritual food (“hospitality”) from
the bodily powers (“people o f the village”) is as unlikely as deriving universal meaning
from partial understanding.62 Spiritual food comes from the sacred lights and
manifestations o f the beauty and majesty within divine gnosis. Al-Qashani takes this
episode o f the refusal o f food and drink to mean that the training o f the commanding
soul (breaking the boat and killing the youth) has effected a transformation: Moses and
Khidr have shifted from seeking earthly food (“under their feet”) to seeking luminous
divine food. In particular what made this transformation possible was the calming and
redirecting o f the bodily powers and senses, (p. 770) Al-Qushayri will further develop
62 See section XI.3.2 below where al-Qashani identifies that the successful combination o f
universal and particular meaning is accomplished in the “station o f the heart” (maqam al-qalb) beyond
discursive inquiry.
212
this point to explain that gnosis is only received when the soul is calm and the body
subdued (p. 771, see section X below).
(VUI) Tranquility: building the contented soul. Following al-Qashani’s
description, the training can replace the commanding soul and blaming soul with a soul
o f contentment. For al-Qashani, the wall symbolizes the “contented soul” (al-nafs al-
m utm a’inna). The wall’s solidity reflects the stillness and stability in the soul effected
by the training (riyada) symbolized by the motifs o f breaking the boat and killing the
youth. The killing o f the youth represents the death o f the commanding soul (al-nafs
al-ammara). This death made possible the establishment, symbolized by rebuilding
the wall, o f the soul o f contentment. The solidity o f the wall also represents quelling
the stirrings in the soul and will. The m otif o f the wall “on the verge o f destruction”
points to the soul’s weakness and corresponds to Khidr’s will to first demolish, and
then rebuild, the soul into a soul o f contentment. Rebuilding and straightening the soul
means establishing perfections and virtues in place o f vices, (p. 770)
(EX) Relinquishment: abandoning self-interest. In advocating taking a reward or
wages (ajr) for rebuilding the wall, Moses discloses a transformation in his heart
toward Khidr, but not in his soul. In his soul, Moses still needs to relinquish the
expectation o f reward. Such focus on rewards distorts “the cultivation o f divine ethics”
in which actions should be done for their own sake, not for self-interested motives. In
particular, al-Qashani asserts, the rewards o f building the soul through the work o f
spiritual training are a vice. The goal instead, is the unveiling (inkishaj) o f the
213
characteristics o f the soul to disclose the “realm o f light*’ with its “hidden meanings.”
Al-Qashani also describes the goal as becoming characterized by “the Divine
Attributes” and “coming into reality in God after passing away in God (fana fih i).”
These goals require abandoning self-interested motives, expectations o f rewards, or
recompense. For al-Qashani, Khidr’s declaration o f parting signifies the difference
between Khidr’s station (maqam) and state (hat) and Moses’ station and state, (p.
771)
(X) Understanding: learning fro m the soul. Al-Qashani applies his model o f
the development o f the contented soul to the question o f what it means for Moses to
learn the ultimate meaning (ta ’wit). Accepting such depths o f meaning and encountering
the unseen depends on the soul being contented and the bodily powers coming to rest.
As al-Qashani specifies, Khidr prohibited Moses from asking about the encounter with
the Unseen. This implies -- even if al-Qashani does not directly state it —that the
encounter with the unseen cannot be granted through asking. As al-Qashani indicates,
Khidr’s words, “ ...until I mention it to y o u ...” mean that Khidr will only tell Moses if
he is “ready to receive the meanings and the types o f gnosis.” (p. 771)
(XI) Explanations: extracting the treasure o f the heart’s gnosis. Al-Qashani
interprets the symbols and motifs which arise from Khidr’s explanations.
(XI. 1) The commanding soul. The boat travels on a sea o f primordial matter,
representing the body with its external sense and vegetive powers. God calls its
214
ferrymen “poor ones” (masakin) for their enduring passivity (sukun),63 their
earthiness, their being too weak to oppose the heart64 on its journey, and their
submissiveness to the heart. They symbolize the eternal and internal senses. Al-
Qashani interprets the king as the commanding soul (al-nafs al-ammara). This is al-
Qashani’s second symbolic identification o f the commanding soul. Previously he
identified the rebellious youth as the commanding soul. Khidr’s statement, “I wanted
to break it...” refers to the tra in in g to subdue the commanding soul. The king’s s e iz in g
boats means he dominated the senses by imposing his passions and wishes.
(XI. 2) The contented soul. The parents o f the youth represent the spirit (ruh)
and bodily nature (al-tabVat al-jismaniya), closely paralleling al-Qashani’s initial
identification o f the meeting o f the two seas as the meeting o f the world of the spirit
(ruh) and world o f the body (/ism ). The parents are believers, especially in four
aspects o f belief: (1) they are established in their belief in God’s unity (tawhid); (2)
they profess obedience to God; (3) they follow the command o f God; (4) they submit
to what God wants o f them. The “fear o f grief’ means he might have deluged them
with overt egotism (ina ’iyya) which would have stifled the witness o f the spirit, and
would finally “abolish their worship o f God.” The child being an “unbeliever” means
he would corrupt himself, his parents, and their religion. The substitution of a new
child refers to establishing the contented soul. Al-Qashani interprets two of the
63 In Arabic the terms “poor ones” (masakin) and passivity (sakun) derive from a common
root: (s-k-n).
64 At the beginning (p. 766; cf. Sec. I, above) al-Qashani identified Moses as the heart.
215
narrative’s motifs as the “contented soul:” the new child, and the wall.65 The new
child’s better purity means ritual purity and cleanliness. His better mercy refers to
greater compassion upon the spirit and body which is more useful and sympathetic.
This new child, the “contented soul,” can serve as the desired one (murad) for his
father and grandfather. Al-Qashani here alludes to his being better suited to imparting
compassion on the spirit and soul.
(XI.3) The treasure o f gnosis and the Holy Spirit.
(XI.3.1) Two intellects. To al-Qashani the two orphans to whom a treasure has
been left represent two intellects, the theoretical and the active. Both are descended
from the Holy Spirit (al-ruh al-quds). The two intellects become “orphaned” from the
Holy Spirit when the body overpowers the soul or the heart.
(XI.3.2) The treasure o f gnosis. Al-Qashani deems the treasure to be gnosis
(ma ‘rifa). Gnosis, he stipulates is only learned in the “station o f the heart” (maqam al-
qalb). This qualification echoes al-Qashani’s earlier discussion o f gnosis as outside the
limits o f discourse.66 In the station o f the heart, when the heart is perfected, one
combines the apprehension o f the universals (kulliyaf) and the particulars (fu z ’iyat).67
65 Al-Qashani selects the wall as a symbol o f the contented soul on p. 770. See section VTII
above.
66 See al-Qashani, p. 771 (18.70) and section X above.
67 In his discussion o f Khidr and M oses’ request for food (p. 770 [18.77]; see section VH
above) al-Qashani pointed out the incongruity between their request for spiritual food and the inability
o f the people o f the village who symbolize bodily powers to provide spiritual food. There he pointed
out that an analogy to this incongruity would be to attempt to extract universal meaning from partial
cognition. In this passage, al-Qashani identifies that the successful combination o f universal and
216
Those who persevere extract this treasure. To support his interpretation, al-Qashani
alludes to the long-standing tradition that the treasure has been interpreted as a text
containing knowledge.68
(XI.3.3) The two interpretations and the Holy Spirit. The two orphans refer to
two interpretations (ta 'wilairi). Their father, whom al-Qashani has already interpreted
as the Holy Spirit, is a righteous person (salih). To al-Qashani this shows that the two
interpretations have been preserved for the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion: the Conduct o f Companionship
Al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan share an interpretive agenda which emphasizes the themes
o f right conduct (adab) and spiritual companionship (suhba) as the keys to
understanding and applying the story o f Khidr and Moses to the master-disciple
relationship. In his interpretation o f the story, al-Qushayri stresses the validity o f
discipleship (suhba) by showing that it is based on patience and obedience. This
obedience is warranted as a deferral to a higher order o f knowledge. Khidr’s knowledge
is direct ( ‘ilm ladunni), divinely inspired (ilham), and unveiled (kashf). It is a
knowledge o f divine decree (hukm) outside the limits o f exoteric knowledge ( ‘ilm). And
particular meaning is accomplished in the station o f the heart beyond discursive inquiry. This parallels
al-Qashani’s earlier discussion (p. 771 [18.78], see section X above) that the interpretation Qa’wil) can
only be received when the “soul is contented and the bodily powers com e to rest.” (p. 771)
68 Al-Tabari transmits the interpretation that the treasure is knowledge ( ‘ilm) either written on
pages (suhuf) or inscribed on a gold tablet ( lawh min dhahab). The majority consensus interprets the
treasure as knowledge ( "ilm) in one form or another. (al-Tabari, Jam i\ sections 23255-23266).
217
it is Moses’ act o f imposing stipulations based on the conditions o f his knowledge
(short al- ‘ilm) which leads to his parting with Khidr.
For the seeker to acquire direct knowledge ( ‘ilm ladurtni) under the auspices o f
a teacher requires facing what I call the paradox o f mediation. This term, the paradox o f
mediation, describes al-Qushayri’s observation that Moses has asked to be taught
something that was not transmitted from a human teacher in the first place. For al-
Qushayri, Ruzbihan, and al-Qashani, Khidr’s knowledge cannot be learned through
instruction (to 7/m), but can only be learned through mentoring companionship (suhba)
and the proper conduct (adab) of that relationship. Right conduct (adab) and
companionship (suhba) are the medium for transmitting the knowledge. Khidr’s
training o f Moses involves action (tasarruf) and silence more than words. This simple
observation that Khidr’s pedagogy is one o f silence and action informs the
interpretations o f al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan. Moses acquires his knowledge by
watching in silence and bearing with Khidr’s intolerable actions. As al-Qushayri
concludes, Moses’ insistence on explanation was incompatible with the need to wait
for unveiling. Since Moses’ process o f learning is like a journey (safar at-ta’dib
[journey of moral training]), no description o f the map can substitute for the actual
traveling.69
69 A fuller sense o f the teaching act as indescribable might be gleaned by borrowing insights
from Kenneth Burke’s theory o f rhetoric. Burke describes speech acts with a pentadic model whose
elements, while symbolic, are non-verbal and focused on action. Burke argues that human
communication occurs in a matrix o f five components: (1) the scene; (2) the act; (3) agent; (4) agency;
(5) purpose. This “dramatic pentad,” as Burke calls it includes discursive speech but identifies and
involves the essential factors o f the transaction between Khidr and Moses which extend beyond speech.
218
Ruzbihan identifies this dichotomy between spiritual training and conceptual
mediation or instruction, when he critiques Moses’ questioning as a sign o f Moses’
insufficiencies. Questions, says Ruzbihan, are appropriate to instruction (ta ‘lirri), but
not to this training (ta ’dib). This terminology echoes the emergent distinction between
two types o f masters in Suflsm by the 4^/11th centuries: the teaching master (shaykh
al-ta ‘lim) and the spiritual director (shaykh al-tarbiyya) who is also known, even more
appropriately as the teaching companion (shaykh al-suhba). Trimingham stresses the
distinction between the directing shaykh, who is one’s “true guide” and instructing
shaykhs:
A clear distinction is made between one’s true guide — shaykh al-tcrbiyya (upbringing),
or shayfh as-suhba (discipleship) — and the various shvyukh at-ta ‘lim (instructors)
whose courses one has followed [The shayhh as-svhba ] is generally, though not
necessarily, the initiator into the silsila covering both ijaza, irada, that o f the murid,
and ijaza ‘t-tdbarruk, the permission which links with the shaykh’s bar aka.10
Ruzbihan adds another interpretive frame to explain the separation: the
distinction between the enraptured Sufi (majdhub) and the methodical traveler (salik).
The enraptured one asks; the methodical traveler acquires. In his asking, Moses gets
caught in the particular situation o f the villager’s hospitality as the means o f his
survival. Khidr, by contrast, moves through each circumstance acquiring what is given.
Using this model o f enraptured and methodical mystics, Ruzbihan implicitly makes
Burke’s model allows us to adopt the perspectives o f the Sufi commentators as continuous with, and
therefore, more obviously relevant to more common forms o f encounter. See Kenneth Burke, The
Grammar o f M otives (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1945), xv-xxiii, 127-317.
70 J. Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971),
192.
219
use o f the verbal detail that Khidr “finds” the wall. Ruzbihan observes that while
Moses sets conditions for the outcome o f his search, Khidr takes w hat he “finds,”
because Khidr looks beyond the worldly phenomena to the “divine lights.”
Ruzbihan reads the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr as teaching that
personal motives impede pure action. This issue which all three commentators touch
on, though Ruzbihan most explicitly, parallels the challenge famous in the Bhagavad
Gita, which Krishna places on his disciple Arjuna: he must act but not be attached to
the fruits o f his action (sarvakarm aphalatyaga).71 Thus Ruzbihan suggests among his
six reasons for the separation between Khidr and Moses that Khidr understood that
personal motives invalidate action and greed veils souls from knowing the divine
decree.
Al-Qashani, on the other hand, minimizes the relevance o f the story to the
master-disciple relationship. For al-Qashani Khidr is a symbol o f the sacred intellect
(al- ‘aql al-qudsi), the noetic faculty {nous) which directly apprehends universals, and
receives prophecy. The spiritual companionship between Khidr and Moses is a
metaphor for traveling the path to perfection and the establishment o f the contented
soul (al-nafs al-mutma ’inna).
Al-Qashani’s focus on psychology leads to his greater interest in the details o f
the story o f Khidr and Moses. He develops more o f the story’s details than the other
71 Bhagavad Gita 2.47, 51; 3.25; 5.8; 12.12; 18.2. See Barbara Stoler Miller, trans. The
Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time o f War. (N ew York: Bantam Books, 1986).
220
two commentators in his more densely allegorical reading. While al-Qushayri and
Ruzbihan skip over verses 61-64 which include the motifs of the fish, the rock, and
Satan’s prompting o f forgetfulness, al-Qushayri finds these motifs meaningful symbols
o f the soul’s journey. Among the three commentators, many motifs are discussed only
by al-Qashani. This is in partly because al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan emphasize
interpreting the master-disciple relationship, for which the actual encounter and
journey between Moses and Khidr provides the material. For al-Qashani, by contrast,
the entire narrative is rich in resources for an allegory o f the soul. This is not to say
that al-Qashani ignores the story as an allegory o f the master-disciple relationship. In
his exegesis o f the verse, “If you would follow m e.. .so do not ask anything o f me”
(18.70 ) he describes the teaching relationship as conducted through “emulation,”
“action,” “spiritual training,” “ethics” and “efforts.” This list defines some o f the
distinction between the directing shaykh and the instructing shaykh.
Khidr’s command, “Don’t ask.” (la tas ’alni) and his style o f teaching through
emulation (iqtida"), with its direct acts and silence are mirrored in Eugen Herrigel’s Zen
archery teacher:
Demonstration, example; intuition, im itiio n — that is the fundamental relationship o f

instructor to pupil Shunning long-winded instiuctions and explanations, the latter
[the teacher] contorts him self with perfunctory comm aids and does not reckon on any
questions from the pupiL72
Al-Qashani’s partial internalization o f the literal story o f two people into two
aspects o f the self, is only the m ost radical expression o f an interpretive strategy
72 Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art o f Archery (New York: Vantage Books, 1953, 1981).
221
devetoped by all three commentators. The literal events o f property destruction and
murder render the potential for Khidr to serve as an exemplar problematic. By
allegprizingthe events o f the drowning and slaying as aspects of the soul’s training, al-
Qashani circumvents this difficulty. Ruzbihan moves toward allegmzation most
explicitly in his assessment o f the substitution o f the child as the attribution o f divine
attributes.
Levels o f irony permeate the exegetical work o f our commentators. In these
readings, appeals to the texts o f the Qur’an and Hadith serve to support what is
asserted as the superior authority o f direct, and therefore, non-textual experience. A
narrative in words becomes sharpened to a point o f catachresis: while companionship
(.suhba) and its journey o f training (safar a l-ta 'dib) can create certain conditions for
learning, the unveiling (kashf) o f directly-disclosed divine knowledge ( 'ilm ladunni)
comes by divine inspiration (ilham) and is therefore ultimately beyond both discursive
inquiry and human effort. In this narrative about a mediator figure, all three
commentators approach a the paradox o f mediation: the mediator’s knowledge cannot
be transmitted; it can only be unveiled by God to a student whose soul has been made
ready through a process o f mentoring companionship.
And it is this lack o f resolution about the mediator’s role that returns us to an
unexamined question at the very heart o f the story o f Khidr and Moses: Did Khidr
succeed in imparting the true meaning (ta ’wit) o f these events to Moses? Does the fact
222
that Khidr communicated that ta ’w il to Moses mean that Moses also received it? And
i f Moses did receive this lesson was it not likely in great part due to the fact that the
lesson came through direct experience —through directly witnessing Khidr’s acts?
Perhaps Ruzbihan gives us the clearest opening into recognizing the possibility that
Moses succeeded at receiving the true interpretation when he tells us that from the
perspective o f essential union ( 'ayn al-jam “) the mediator and the mediated are one:”
“where two seas meet” there is a reconciliation o f the dualities o f inner and outer,
absent and visible.
Another way o f evaluating how Sufi commentators used the story of Khidr and
Moses in ilhiminating the master-disciple relationship, is to consider Khidr’s
appearances in hagiographical material. In the next chapter we consider narratives o f
Khidr’s involvement with Sufi saints, sages, and masters. In these accounts Khidr
appears to both masters and disciples and becomes directly involved in the matters o f
following and submitting to a teacher.
223
C h a p t e r F iv e
K h id r as the M ir r o r a n d M o d e l
of the M a s t e r in S u f i H a g io g r a p h y
and L it e r a t u r e
As Ruzbihan Baqli observed in his tafsir, Moses’s companionship with Khidr was a
test from God and a model for the disciple in following Sufi masters.
[God] tested him [Moses] through companionship with Khidi; in order to straighten the
way (tariq), to establish the tradition (sunna) in fblltwing the masters (masha'ikh) so
that he would be a model (uswa) for the aspirants (murietn) and for those who seek by
serving the masters o f the way (ashyddi al-tcriqa)1
Similarly, in various Sufi hagiographies Khidr is typically presented as a model for the
shaykh in his role as spiritual guide or murshid. Like the murshid, Khidr mediates the
divine presence in human expression, challenges and tests the aspirant, and trains him
or her in the development o f innate capacities for accessing inner knowledge and the
experience o f divine mercy. Like the murshid, Khidr shows discernment and insight
(firasa [<diakresis]) into the disciples’ heart. Khidr models the two axes o f human
proximity to God: as the bearer o f inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni), Khidr stands as the
1 Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi, Sadr al-Din Abu Muhammad,
‘A r a ’is al-bayan f i h a q a ’iq al-qu r’a n / The Brides o f Explanation on the Realities o f the Qur'an.
Cawnpore (1285/1868-9) Calcutta 1300/1883; Karachi (1310/1892-3) (Arabic Lithographs), p. 592
224
“elect o f the elect” ([khass min khawass). As the bearer of divine compassion (rahma
min ladunna) Khidr represents the quality o f sainthood (yvilaya/walaya) the capacity
to serve as a human point through which God sends divine compassion upon creation.
As modeled by Khidr, the training in which the murshid engages the disciple lies
beyond the discursive realm and the conditions (shart/shurut) o f conventional
knowledge. As such it is called “unveiling” (kashf). This unveiling reflects not the
accumulation o f external knowledge but the discovery of already-present gnosis made
possible through the patient training o f the soul as it moves through the stages o f the
soul’s potential evolution, beginning with the domineering soul (nafs al-ammard)
proceeding to the blaming soul (nafs al-lawwama) and, like both the substitute child
and the wall which Khidr rebuilt, proceeding to a restoration as a soul dwelling in
contentment (nafs al-mutma’inna).
Through his visitations, Khidr can serve as either a model for or a test o f one’s
allegiance to God and the Prophet Muhammad. In considering the relationship o f
Khidr as such a model, Vincent Cornell observes:
225
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
In later Sufi traditions Khidr most commonly appeas as a harbinger for the esoteric
knowledge that the seeker derives from gnosis and is thus a pivotal figure in the
concept o f al-irsan al-kamiL, the paradigmatic or “perfect man.” ...The Qur’aiic figure
o f Khidr; stripped o f its later assoaation with the prophet Elijdi (Ilyas) appeas in the
above account [theQur’anic narraive in Suraal-Kahf 18.60-83] as nothing less than the
paradigm o f the Sufi shaykh, while the prophet Moses; who normally would be
regarded as superior in rank to a mere w a li Allah, in reality serves as his disciple. Seen
in this light, it is easy to understand how Khidr came to epitomize the philcsophia
perem is or Hermetic tradition for generations o f Sufis throughout the Islamic world.
For early Sufis in both the M uslin East and the West, Khidr most commonly appeared
as the Shaykh o f Shaykhs and Suprane Spiritual G uide- the paradigmatic possessor o f
insight (basira ) and esoteric wisdom (hikma).2
In this assessment, Cornell clearly underscores the paradigmatic role o f Khidr as the model o f
the shaykh. The significance o f Khidr is further illuminated by the phenomenon to which
Cornell attests, namely that o f the replacement o f Khidr as a model o f the Spiritual Guide by
Muhammad Rasul Allah:
After the sixth/twelfth century, when the efforts o f al-Ghazali and earlier “orthodox”
mystics to harmonize Sufism with Islamic legalism had reached full fruition, Khidr
began to lose his axial position in Sufi doctrine and began to be replaced as a model
for esoteric spirituality by the Prophet Muhammad himself, who was now seen as the
ultimate synthesis o f saintly and prophetic attributes.3
In his expanded study o f Moroccan saints, Cornell explores al-’Azafi’s application o f
Khidr’s paradigm to the case o f the illiterate saint Abu Y i’izza. This application served
to illustrate that
[T]his legendary purveyor o f perennial wisdom [i.e., Khidr], although denied the
status o f prophethood by the majority o f Muslim opinion, was nonetheless able, as a
w ali Allah, to surpass the Prophet M oses in his understanding o f the mysteries that
lie beyond mundane perception. .The most important thing about him for al-’Azafi
was that he could surpass a prophet in his own separate domain o f knowledge.
2 Vincent J. Cornell, “Mirrors o f Prophethood: The Evolving Image o f the Spiritual Master in
the Western Maghrib from the Origins o f Sufism to the End o f the Sixteenth Century.” (PhD. Diss.,
University o f California at Los Angeles, 1989).
3 Ibid.
4 Vincent J. Cornell, Realm o f the Saint: P ow er and Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin:
University o f Texas Press, 1998), pp. 79-80.
226
These cases illustrate the role o f Khidr as a legitimating model for the reconstruction
and attribution o f spiritual authority. Cornell describes Khidr’s role in opening the
way for new figures and modes o f authority outside the lines o f prophets and
revelation as “hermetic”:
[A]l-Khidr is a famous hermetic figure o f Islamic folklore who is believed to return in
every age to reaffirm the truth o f divine inspiration.5
This observation articulates two features o f Khidr’s persona. First, Khidr embodies
“divine inspiration” [ilhani], a category o f knowledge which complements, rather than
challenges prophecy. Second, Khidr participates in a “hermetic” mode o f transmission
which cultivates the experience o f inner knowledge, or gnosis.
The initiatic transmissions o f Khidr and Hermes both share a common place in
the broader context o f religion in late antique Mediterranean and Near East culture. The
figure o f Khidr deserves to be characterized as “hermetic,” not only in the general sense
as ‘secret,’ but also in the more precise sense o f the late-antique and Islamic Hermetic
traditions.6 Both Khidr and Hermes share a special provenance over issues o f
initiation, interpretation, immortality, and transformation. In popular lore, both Khidr
and Hermes are travelers’ patrons. Both are spiritual guides who personify the
questions o f crossing boundaries, between the human and the divine, paradox,
5 Ibid.
6 For a comprehensive treatment o f the Hermetic dimension o f Muslim culture and

philosophy, see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Hermes and Hermetic Writings in the Islamic World,” in idem,
Islamic Life and Thought (London: George A llen and Unwin, 1981), 102-119.
227
transformation and immortality.7 A s w e have seen, works such as the tafsirs o f at-
Tabari and Ruzbihan share with the Corpus Hermeticum (Books I and XI in particular)
a sense o f the transformation o f a human being into an extraordinary being: Khidr and
Hermes both achieve an apotheosis in gnosis and an exceptional or extraordinary
spiritual station. Khidr and Hermes both share a place among immortal beings: Khidr
finds the water o f eternal life (Abu Hayat); Hermes is the keryx athanaton, the
“messenger o f the deathless.” As we shall discuss below, for Ibn ‘Arabi, among others,
Khidr and the Prophet Idris, often identified as Hermes Trismegistus, belong to the
group Ibn ‘Arabi recognized among the solitary ones (afrad) as the four immortal
saintly pillars (aw tad)}
As a figure for our work, Khidr stands where two seas meet: on the Islamic
side, his typology informs an understanding o f prophecy and sainthood; within the
broader context o f the world o f late antiquity, his typology complements an
7 Garth Fowden, The Egyptian H ermes: A Late H istorical Approach to the Late Pagan M ind
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). S ee especially pp. 104-115, 147-149. Fowden describes
a Hermetic p a id eia in which an inspiried master-teacher initiates his circle o f students into the
experience o f gnosis, a moment o f liberating rebirth, the illumination o f self knowledge and divine
knowledge, and ascension. These schools are identified with the figure o f Hermes Trismegistus, a
synthesis o f Thoth and Hermes. For the teaching discourses o f this tradition, see Brian Copenhaver,
H erm etica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For an assessment o f the ubiquity o f
Hellenistic religion and culture in general and o f the Hermetic Tradition in particular in the areas in
which Islam arose, see Gary W. Bowerstock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann A rbor University o f
Michigan Press, 1997). See especially pp. 36-37, 43, 58-60, 71-82. See also Bowerstock, Roman
A rabia (Cambridge: Harvard, 1983).
8 Claude Addas, Quest fo r the R ed Sulphur: the Life o fIb n 'Arabi (Cambridge: Islamic Texts
Society, 1993), 65-66.
228
understanding o f the inclusion and transformation o f Hellenistic traditions within
Islam.
Indications ofth e Significance o f Khidr in Sufi Hagiographies
Between the account o f Khidr and Moses in Qur’an and Hadith to the examination of
specific tafsirs, there lie numerous instances o f Khidr in Sufi hagiographies. These
range from the briefest and most elliptical (‘Ibn Warraq) to the most detailed and
explicit (Ibn ‘Arabi and Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi). In the Sufi hagiographies we glean
the continuous stress on the companionship between Khidr and Moses as it is
exemplified in the tafsirs.
The journey with or visitation by Khidr has been valued and widely reported,
especially among Sufis, as a sign o f spiritual attainment. The following cases o f reports
o f visitations by Khidr exemplify the role and significance o f this spiritual guide. These
cases o f Khidr’s role in hagiographical constructions indicate the extent to which Khidr
participates in or contributes to the biographical image o f various shaykhs and at times
o f the relationship o f spiritual guidance between shaykh and disciple.
Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Adham ofB alkh (d. 166 / 783)
229
In the beginning o f his hagiographical portrait o f this prince-turned-saint, al-Hujviri
describes Ibrahim as a “disciple o f the Apostle Khidr.”9 According to the account in
Farid ad-din Attar’s Tadhkirat al-Awliya, 10 Ibrahim Adham o f Balkh was awakened to
the path o f sainthood by three events, one o f which was a visit from Khidr. The night
before Khidr’s visit, Ibrahim had been visited by a man who appeared on his roof, who
when challenged by the prince, explained that he was seeking his lost camel on the
roof— a task only as unlikely as seeking for God in the robes and couches which
accompany a prince’s life. Khidr appears the next day, “a man with aweful mien,” who
blazes through the court and stands before the king. Calling the court a “caravanserai,”
Khidr explains that generations pass before the throne, but none stay— all constantly
are entering and departing in a virtual caravanserai.11
On his way to Mecca, in the desert, Ibrahim is taught al-ism al- ’azam, the
Greatest Name o f God. When he utters the Name, he beholds Khidr, who identifies the
one who taught him the Greatest Name as David, or according to some manuscripts,
Elijah:1
9 ‘A li bin Uthman al-Hujwiri, K a sh f al-Mahjub, Translated, R.A. Nicholson, The K a s f al-

Mahjub, The O ldest Persian Treatise on Sufism. (London: Luzac, 1911) reprinted as Revelation o f the
M ystery (Accord, NY: Pir Publications, 1999), 103.
10 Farid ad-Din ‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-A w liya' Translated, A.J. Arberry, M em orial o f the Saints.
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966).
" Ibid., p. 64.
12 Ibid., p. 66
230
In that wilderness I lived for four years. God gave me m y eating without any toil o f
mine. Khidr, the Green Ancient was my companion during that time— he taught me
the Great Name o f G od.13
On the way to his hajj, Ibrahim encounters Khidr, and, in praising God, announces that
Khidr’s presence confirms the success o f the journey: ‘“‘Praise be to God, the journey
was blessed, the quester has reached his quest, for such a holy person has come out to
meet us.” 14
In the hagiography o f Ibrahim we observe Khidr providing an awakening to the
transience o f earthly life and authority, initiation into the greatest o f Divine Names,
spiritual sustenance, and confirmation o f spiritual atta in m e n t. As such, Khidr links the
conservative authority o f the tradition with the innovation o f actually achieving
personal realization.
Abu Yazid al-Bistami (d. 260 / 874)
This exemplar o f ecstatic sufism (sukr) gave voice to the practice o f shathiyat (ecstatic
utterance) and was revered as having been “raised up,” like Jesus.15 According to
‘Attar, while Abu Yazid performed a funeral prayer in Tabarestan, Khidr placed his
hand on the back o f the neck o f Abu Yazid. When the mourners returned, Bistami
13 Ibrahim ibn Adham, quoted in Cyril Glasse, The Concise Encyclopedia o f Islam, pp. 224-5.
14 Attar, ibid., p. 67.
15 The concept and tradition o f shathiyat are examined in Carl Ernst, Words o f Ecstasy in
Sufism. (Albany: SUNY, 1985).
231
soared into the air.16 As we shall discuss below, in the Mathnawi, Mevlana narrates
that al-Bistami once actively sought a living Khidr and witnessed in him the secret o f
the presence o f God in a human being.17
Ruzbihan Baqli (522/1128-606/1209)
Ruzbihan Baqli o f Shiraz lived at a time when the institutional expressions o f Sufism
were shifting from informal circles and “beginning to become a broadly based social
movement.” 18 He guided students at the ribat he established in 1165 which served as
his hospice and residence; for fifty years he preached at the principle mosque in
Shiraz.19 His attraction to outrageous ecstatic utterance earned him the sobriquet
“Doctor Ecstaticus” (shaykh- i shattah). His writings include vivid visionary and
densely symbolic passages which infuse his work with poetics and paradox.
In chapter four, we explored Ruzbihan’s interpretation o f the companionship
between Khidr and Moses, the complementary roles o f Khidr and Moses, and relative
degrees o f knowledge and stations. Ruzbihan’s interpretations also apply to spiritual
16 ‘Attar, ibid., p. 119.
17 Jalal ad-Din Rumi, M asnavi-i ma 'navi, ed. R.A. Nicholson as The Mathnawi o f
J a la lu ’ddin Rumi, E.J. W. Gibb Memorial, new series (London: Luzac & Co., 1925, 1929, 1933), n.
223 Iff.
18 Ernst, Carl, Ruzbihan Baqli: M ysticism and the Rhetoric o f Sainthood in Persian Sufism.
(Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996), p. ix.
19 Carl W. Ernst, Ruzbihan Baqli, pp. 5-6; idem., “Ruzbihan,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam, new
edition. Vol. 8, p. 651 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
232
psychology, degrees o f knowledge, and the conduct (adab) between spiritual guides
and aspirants.
Ruzbihan’s visionary diary, K ashf al-Asrar (The Unveiling o f Secrets) features
initiatic scenarios presenting, among other eminent spiritual directors, Khidr.
At that time I was ignorant o f the sciences o f realities. And I saw [the immortal
prophet] Khidr (peace be upon him) and he gave me an apple, and I ate a piece o f it.
Then he said, ‘Eat all o f it, for that is how much o f it I ate.’ And I saw as it were an
ocean from the throne to the earth, and I saw nothing but this; it was like the radiance
o f the sun. M y mouth opened involuntarily, and all o f it entered into my mouth. I
drank until not a drop o f it remained.20
The oceanic symbolism echoes the vocabulary o f the Qur’anic narrative. There Khidr
tells Moses that he will not be able to “encompass” (tuhit) his knowledge, a word
related to the word for ocean (muhit). The oceanic symbolism is extended in the hadith
accounts which narrate that while Moses and Khidr were riding in the boat, a bird
dipped its beak into the ocean to demonstrate the relative extent o f their collective
“seas” of knowledge compared with the knowledge o f Allah. In addition, his disciples
attest that Rubihan was visited by Khidr.21
As Ruzbihan expresses in his tafsir, he understands Khidr’s relationship to
God as one o f “essential union” ( ‘ayn al-jam “). 'Ayn al-Jam ‘ describes the primordial
20 Ruzbihan ibn Abi al-Nasr al-Baqli, K a sh f al-Asrar (Translated, Carl W. Ernst as The
Unveiling o f Secrets: D iary o f a Spiritual M aster) (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Parvardigar Press, 1997), 14.
21 Tuhfat ahl 'irfan, pp. 36, 61 in Carl Ernst, Ruzbihan Baqli: M ysticism and the Rhetoric o f
Sainthood in Persian Sttfism. (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press), 1996, p. 116.
233
unity in which the individual does not assert his individual existence in opposition to
the boundless “ocean o f His oneness.”22
Abu ‘A bdallah M uhammad Hakim b. A li al-Tirm idhi (d. 318/932)
A t least two aspects o f al-Tirmidhi’s legacy relate to our considerations concerning
Khidr. First, he contributed the terminology o f the degrees o f sainthood culminating in
khatm al-awliya ’ the concept o f the “Seal o f the Saints,” which continues to inform Sufi
understandings o f sainthood. Second, his name al-Hakim suggests his interest in
Hellenistic philosophy. The themes o f saintly authority and supplementary modes o f
knowledge are both personified in the figure o f Khidr.
The question o f how knowledge is to be acquired and the nature o f that
knowledge is underscored in the following hagiographical narrative. Al-Tirmidhi’s
decides to remain with his mother to care for her and her affairs, rather than go off to the
m adrasa for education, as his friends did. For this virtuous choice, al-Tirmidhi is
rewarded by the appearance o f Khidr who offers to teach him daily so that he would
“soon outstrip them Pais companions who went to the madrasa.J”23 Over the course o f
three years he comes to recognize his teacher as Khidr, whose role in his life is the
reward for pleasing his mother. Such a narrative reciprocally elevates the status o f both
al-Tirmidhi, who is visited by a distinguished prophetic figure, and o f Khidr, whose
22 Ruzbihan Baqli, ‘A ra ’is al-bayan, p. 592.
23‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-Awliya, pp. 244-5.
234
distinctive degree and body o f knowledge is confirmed by his success in tutoring such an
outstanding Sufi saint In this episode, Khidr embodies the reward for virtue, as well as
the highest degree o f knowledge. Al-Tirmidhi’s disciple Abu Bakr Warraq reported that
Khidr would visit al-Tirmidhi every Sunday and they would hold conversation
together.24 Al-Tirmidhi’s spiritual attainment is here emplotted in the event o f Khidr’s
regular visits and training. In another episode, Khidr transports al-Tirmidhi in an
extremely short period o f time to the wilderness among the Children o f Israel where the
Qutb or axial saint, sets al-Tirmidhi on the throne.25
One o f al-Tirmidhi’s disciples, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. ‘Umar al-Warraq (9th
century C.E.), is charged with the task o f tossing al-Tirmidhi’s books into the Oxus
river. Seeing the esoteric value o f the books, Abu Bakr at first hides them and tells al-
Tirmidhi he has thrown them in the river. However, when al-Tirmidhi asks what event
transpired when he threw the books in, Abu Bakr’s lack o f report indicates to al-
Tirmidhi that the mission had not really been carried out. When he in fact throws the
books in the water, a chest opens to receive them. Al-Tirmidhi explains that Khidr had
entreated him to turn over books he had composed on the science o f Sufism ( ‘ilm al-
tasawwuf) which were beyond the grasp o f human intelligence.
24 Hujviri, K ash f al-Mahjub p. 141.
25 Attar, ibid., pp. 244-5.
235
[Al-Tirmidhi] said [to Abu Bakr al-Warraq]: ‘I composed a book on theology and
mysticism which could hardly be comprehended by the intellect. My brother Khidr
desired it o f me, and God bade the waters bring it to him.26
Khidr dispatched a fish (the animal associated with Khidr from the narrative in the
Qur’an) to bring the chest and through that fish Allah brought the chest to Khidr.27
Again, in these accounts at least three features of Khidr’s symbolism emerge: (1) the
farthest horizons o f spiritual knowledge; (2) attainment on the part o f one who
recognizes Khidr’s authority, and (3) testing a disciple’s faith in his shaykh.
Khidr’s appearance also certifies moral development (akhlaq) as in the
following episode in which the return o f Khidr follows an exceptional act o f restraint in
which al-Tirmidhi “said nothing and swallowed his anger.” When a maidservant
accidentally dumped a basin o f bath water containing baby excrement on the head of
the shaykh, “ [i]mmediately he rediscovered Khidr.”28 The quality o f sabr (patient
endurance) which al-Tirmidhi displays is a quality mentioned an exceptionally-
frequent seven times among the 23 verses o f the Qur’anic story o f Khidr and Moses..
In addition to these experiences, Abu Bakr al-Warraq recounts the following
meeting with Khidr. Seeking to meet Khidr, Abu Bakr goes each day to the cemetery.
One day he sees a being with a luminous face who asks him if he wants suhba
(spiritual conversation). Khidr then points out that he has overlooked his daily ju z ’
26 Hujviri, ibid., p. 142.
27 Attar, ibid., p. 245-266.
28 Attar, ibid., p. 247; Hujwiri, ibid., p. 141.
236
recitation.29 This m otif demonstrates in an intimate way that emblem o f Khidr’s
character: inner knowledge ( 'ilm ladunni) as a capacity o f what Ruzbihan in his tafsir
identified as “discernment [of the heart]” (firasa).
In his own writing, al-Tirmidhi described the visit by Khidr as one among eight
external signs o f the saints. Here Khidr’s attribute o f immortality describes his affinity
with all saints o f all times:
And they [the Friends o f God] converse with Khadir who wanders across the earth on
land and sea, in the plains and in the mountains, searching for someone like himse lf
out o f passionate longing for him. Khadir’s relationship to the Friends o f God is - a
strange one, indeed! In the primordial beginning {bad') at the time o f the divine
decrees [o f destiny] Khadir beheld their special situation. And he desired to have
experience o f them [on earth] and thus he was given such a long life that it shall be
possible for him to be gathered [on the D ay o f Resurrection] in the company o f this
[the Muslim] community and be a follower o f Muhammad. And yet, he is a man o f
the era o f Abraham the Intimate Friend o f God and Dhu’l-Qamayn [Alexander the
Great]. Moreover, he was in the vanguard o f Dhu’l-Qamayn’s army when the latter
was seeking the fountain o f life. Dhu’l-Qamayn failed to find the fountain o f life, but
Khadir found it.30
Sahl al-Tustari (203-283 / 818-896)
Sahl is famous in part as the first articulator o f the doctrine o f the Nur Muhammad
(the light o f Muhammad), a conception o f the Prophet Muhammad’s essential being as
a primordial light. In explaining the source o f this concept, ‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadani
(1098-1131) ascribed al-Tustari’s discovery o f the idea to a visit from Khidr, during
which Khidr revealed it to al-Tustari.31 Here again, an unprecedented articulation o f a
29 al-Hujwiri, ibid., p. 142.
30 Quoted in B em d Radtke and John O’Kane, The Concept o f Sainthood in Early Islamic
Mysticism (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996), p. 125.
31 Hamadani, ‘Ayn al-Qudat Abu’l-Ma ‘ali ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad, Tamhidat (ed. A.
Osseran), Tehran 1962, p. 267, cited in Gerhard Bowering, The M ystical Vision o f Existence in
237
spiritual reality is attributed to Khidr as a way o f validating the concept as both
legitimate and as extraordinary.
M ansur ibn Husayn al-Hallaj (244-309 / 857-922)
The narrative o f Khidr has served for some as a way of illuminating the martyrdom o f
al-Hallaj, the celebrated mystic and m artyr o f Baghdad. It would follow naturally that
al-Hallaj, who so successfully identified himself with the direct experience o f divine
reality through his shathiyat (ecstatic utterance) “Ana al-Haqq” would be also be
somehow identified with the Qur’anic figure whose knowledge and compassion are
said to be directly God-given. In this instance another dimension o f the story also
applies: the question o f theodicy. The comparison suggests that God will use the
tragedy befalling al-Hallaj, as He used the ‘tragedies’ witnessed by Moses when he
journeyed with Khidr.
In the Baghdad suq al-Hallaj proclaims, “Yes, go and inform my friends— that I
am on the open sea, and that my boat is dashed to pieces (inkasarat 'l-safina ).”32
Massignon represents this as a reference to the episode in the narrative o f Khidr and
M oses in which Khidr breaks the boards o f a boat. Al-Hallaj’s apostle in Khurasan
interpreted the episodes o f the story o f Khidr as allegories o f the tragedy o f al-Hallaj’s
Classical Islam: the Q ur’anic Hermeneutics o f the Siifi Sahl al-Tustari (cL 283/896) (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1980), p. 150.
32 Louis Massignon, Passion o f al-Hallaj: M ystic and Martyr ofIslamA vols. Translated,
Herbert Mason. (Princeton, 1922, 1982); I. 596 (cf. Qur’an 18.71 “...as-safina kharaqaha...”).
238
execution, and epiphany: the breaking o f a boat belonging to poor people; the child
killed in order to preserve the faith o f the parents; the repairing o f the wall revealing a
treasure in a city which refuses hospitality- Al-Hallaj, in this sense was the boat, the
child, and the treasure.33
Abu 'l-Fath Muhammad ibrt ‘A bdal-K arim al-Shahrastani (469-548 / 1076-1153)
A noteworthy, i f unique, instance o f the application o f the figure o f Khidr involves the
attempt by the Persian historian al-Shahrastani in his work, part of which depicts
Hermetic and Indian religions, Kitab al-M ilal wa-l-Nihal (The Book o f Religions and
Systems o f Thought) to formulate an Islamic explanation for the Buddha, whom he
compares with Khidr. The trans-temporal and transhistorical aspects of Khidr’s
persona provide for al-Shahrastani a conveniently flexible and applicable category as he
writes:
There is no one comparable to the Buddha as they have described him— if they are
right in that— except al-Khidr, whom Muslims recognize.34
Commenting on this comparison, Bruce Lawrence writes:
Shahrastani compares the Buddha with al-Khidr. The comparison is suggestive. Both
the Buddha and al-Khidr are closely linked with the quest for enlightenment. Al-
Khidr, or Khidr is widely revered in both Qur’anic and mystical traditions. It appears,
33 Massignon, ibid., I. 639-640.
34 Abu’l-Fath Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-Milal wa-l-Nihal Part n,

B ook LH, Section B: ‘A ra ’ al-Hind (Translated, Bruce B. Lawrence as The Views o f the Indians),
Chapter 1A, “The Followers o f the Buddhas,” in Bruce B. Lawrence Sharastani on the Indian
Religions. (The Hague: Mouton, 1976), p. 43.
239
therefore, that Shahrastani is implicitly attesting to the high spiritual quality o f
Buddhism in putting the Buddha on a par with al-Khidr.35
Since Shahrastani begins by commenting that Buddhas are said to be unborn and
undying, his selection of Khidr as an Islamic correlate to the Buddha, suggests that
Shahrastani assumes Khidr is immortal. A second quality o f the Buddhas which al-
Shahrastani finds in Khidr is their combination o f multiple appearances coupled with
underlying consistency in their teaching. Khidr’s immortality and multiple appearances
throughout history suit him well in the service o f al-Shahrastani’s analogy between the
Buddhas and Khidr. In a less obvious way, the selection o f Khidr underscores the
functions o f Khidr emphasized in the Qur’an, those o f teacher and guide.
‘A bd al-Qadir al-Jilani (470-561/1077-1166)
cAbd al-Qadir al-Jilani, celebrated with such accolades as al-Ghawth al-A ‘zam (the
Greatest Succor) and Qutb az-Zaman (the Axial Saint o f the Age), famous in his time
as a muhaddith, mufti, mufassir, and faqih, has been popularly credited with the
institution o f the tariqa as a formal institution o f confraternity and the establishment
o f the zawiyya as a center for the life and practice of the spiritual community.
Historical sources depict him as having conducted himself as an ‘alim, whose facility
3S Lawrence, ibid.,, pp. 113-114. A s Lawrence observes, w e have no evidence o f an earlier

association between Buddha and Khidr, however, elsewhere (p. 101) he cites Ibn al-Nadim’s
identification o f the Buddha with Hermes.
240
was a madrasa with a ribat in which he lived.36 He inherited the school o f his teacher
and initiator into Sufism, the Hanbali faqih and Qadi Abu Sa’d al-Mubarak al-
Mukharrimi, attracted significant financial support by virtue o f his skill in preaching
and pedagogy, and expanded the school into the institution which spawned the
Qadiriyya, the first tariqa to emerge from the previous model o f teacher-centered
circles, or ta ’ifa. The first investiture ‘Abd al-Qadir Jilani received was a khirqa from
the hands o f Abu Sa’d ‘Ali al-Mukharrimi, was alleged to have been transmitted “by
order o f Khidr.”37 ‘Abd al-Qadir wrote that while deliberating whether to join Abu
Sa’d school, he was visited by Khidr:
“Please com e to my school at Bab al-’A g ,” [Abu Sa’d] asked. I did not answer, but
inwardly I said, ‘I will not leave this place without divine order.” N ow long after al-
Khidr came to m e and told me, “Go and join Abu Sa’d.”38
As a younger man, ‘Abd al-Qadir had also been similarly guided by Khidr. When at the
age o f eighteen he approached Baghdad, he was stopped by Khidr who conveyed
Allah’s order that he postpone his entry for another seven years. Khidr brought him to
a ruin in the desert where he confronted and resisted the temptations o f the ego and the
devil. For three years thereafter Khidr visited him to renew the order to stay. At the
36 J.S. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam.(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 40-42.
37 Trimingham, ibid., 41-42.
38 Quoted in Tosun Bayrak, “Introduction,” to ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Sirr al-Asrar, translated
by idem, as The Secret o f Secrets. (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1992), p. xxxii.
241
end o f the seven years he heard a voice one night saying, “ ...you are now permitted to
enter Baghdad.”39
Here again, hagiographical accounts, both secondary and autobiographical, have
marked critical turning points in the career o f a leading, and in this case, paradigmatic
shaykh, with the presence of Khidr.
A bu Bakr M uhammadM uhyi-d-Din Ibn ‘A rabi ( 560-638 / 1165-1240)
In lists o f initiatic succession (silsila), the Andalusian-bom shaykh al-akbar, Ibn
‘Arabi is shown having received initiation directly from Khidr and also from others
who had received initiation from Khidr.40 For one whose wandering (siyaha) was, as
Claude Addas suggests, a means o f acquiring knowledge and encounters with the
saints, an attraction to the wandering Khidr seems appropriate 41 In both his life and
teachings, Ibn ‘Arabi illuminates important dimensions o f the nature o f Khidr and the
encounter with Khidr. In his seminal work on prophecy (nubuwwa), the Fusus al-
Hikam (Bezels o f Wisdom), Ibn ‘Arabi makes a number o f important observations
about the companionship between Khidr and Moses which shed light directly on the
39 Quoted and paraphrased in Tosun Bayrak, ibid., p. xvi.
40 Cf. Claude Addas, Quest fo r the R ed Sulphur, pp. 316, 319. Ibn ‘Arabi is shown having
received direct initiation from Khidr in the silsila o f the khirqa akbariyya according to Shaikh
Muhammad b. ‘A li al-Sanusi (d. 1276/1859) based on the sa lsa b il al-m u 'in fil tara'iq al-arba’in
(Addas, 318-319) Ibn ‘Arabi was initiated by Abu ‘Abd Allah b. Jami’ who had received initiation
from Khidr, according to the silsila o f the khirqa akbariyya according to Ibn ‘Arabi, based on the Kitab
nasab al-khirqa and Futuhat (Addas, 316).
41 Addas, ibid., p. 125.
242
issues to which our present inquiry is directed.42 Ibn ‘Arabi identifies five analogies
between the actions o f Khidr and important events in the life o f Moses. Our interest in
these observations hinges on the sense in which Ibn ‘Arabi’s observations imply that
in his teaching and guiding o f Moses, Khidr mirrored Moses’s own being, biography,
and patterns o f action.
Ibn ‘Arabi draws the following five analogies between the teaching acts
performed by Khidr and events in the life o f Moses:
1. The apparent danger to the boat’s owners and passengers created by
Khidr’s staving their vessel mirrors the danger posed to Moses as a baby when he
floated at risk on the river in an ark (Qur’an 20.39; 28.4; 40.25).
2. When M oses’ mother placed the baby Moses in an ark, the apparently
dangerous act was intended to rescue him from a violent Pharaoh, who is mirrored in
the story o f Khidr by the king seizing boats by force.
3. Khidr’s slaying o f the boy evokes Moses’ slaying of the Egyptian (Qur’an
20.40; 26.14,19; 28.15-16).
4. Khidr’s apparent violence echoes the violence o f Pharaoh.
5. Khidr’s apparently unconditionally gratuitous and unsolicited rebuilding o f the
wall parallels M oses’ unsolicited act o f helping the daughters o f Shu’ayb at the
well at Midian, without intending to seek a reward (Qur’an 20.23; 28.22-28).
42 Muhyi-d-din Ibn ‘Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam (translated by Angela Culme-Seymour from the
French translation o f Titus Burckhardt as The Wisdom o f the Prophets.) (Gloucestershire: Beshara
Publications, 1975), pp. 103-18, s.v. “The Word o f M oses.” Also see R.W.J. Austin, The Bezels o f
Wisdom (N ew York: Paulist Press, 1980), pp. 256-260.
243
In Ibn ‘Arabi’s consideration o f the relationship between Khidr and Moses, we find a
sensitivity to the process o f mirroring and an attention to etiquette (adab), including
the adab o f Khidr toward Moses.
Al-Khidr knew that Moses was a messenger o f God; so he paid attention to whatever
emanated from him, so as not to lack respect toward the messenger o f God. when
Moses questioned him for the third time, al-Khidr said to him: “This is our
separation,” and Moses did not answer him: ‘N o,’ and he did not ask him to stay, for
he knew the extent o f his ow n dignity o f messenger, which had made him forbid him
to accompany him further; he was silent then, and they separated. Consider the
perfection o f these two men in their knowledge and in their tact with regard to the
Divine Reality, in the same w ay as the impartiality o f al-Khidr - Peace be on him I —
when he said to Moses: ‘I possess a science which God has taught me and which thou
dost not know; and thou dost possess a science which God has taught thee and which
I do not know.’ This word, like balm on the wound that he had inflicted upon him in
saying, ‘...and how wilt thou have patience with regard to (the things) that thy
science does not englobe;’ saying that, he knew that Moses had received the dignity
o f messenger o f God, whereas he him self had not that function.43
Ibn ‘Arabi articulated the nature and significance o f Khidr, as well as recounting his
own meetings with Khidr. Ibn ‘Arabi specifically associated Khidr with Ilyas (Elijah),
‘Isa (Jesus) and Idris (Enoch/Hermes Trismegistus) as a group constituting the four
aw tad (literally, “tent-pegs,” or pillars). These four are each afrad, solitary ones,
considered to be immortal prophets.44
43 Ibn ‘Arabi, Fusu al-Hikam, (Burckhardt/Culme-Seymour translation, p. 108). The

comments in the elipsis state that M oses in offering Khidr his “excuse” to leave him i f he should once
again protest was his way o f insuring Khidr’s departure. See Sahih al-Bukhari vol 4, ch. 23, sec. 613,
p. 405. In the comments which follow Ibn ‘Arabi draws parallels between the discrete domains o f the
distinctive sciences belonging to M oses and Khidr and the incident, reported in hadith, wherein
Muhammad explained to date farmers that in their work, they were more knowledgeable than he. As
quoted herein by Ibn ‘Arabi, Muhammad says, “You are wiser than I in the things o f your world.” This
point, as related back to the relationship between Khidr and Moses, may shed light on the role o f the
Murshid in offering guidance on certain kinds o f worldly affairs.
44 Ibn ‘Arabi Futuhat al-Makkiya n, p. 19 in Claude Addas, Quest f o r the R ed

Sulphur. (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993). cf. Michel Chodkiewicz, Seal o f the
Saints.(Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993), pp. 94; 152, n. 52.
244
In his own life, three encounters between Khidr and Ibn ‘Arabi are reported as
well as two references to investitures w ith the mantle of the initiation from Khidr
(khirqa Khidriyya), one in Seville in 592 and one in Mosul in 601.45 In events leading
up to his first meeting with Khidr, Ibn ‘Arabi had on one occasion disagreed with his
Sevillian Shaykh, Shaykh al-’Uryani, concerning the spiritual state o f the Mahdi.46
Later Ibn ‘Arabi was met by Khidr, who told, him that al-’Uryani was correct, not Ibn
‘Arabi. Ibn ‘Arabi then conceded to Khidr his status as a newcomer to the Way.” 47
Two encounters in Tunis in 1194 follow. In his second meeting with Khidr,
Khidr walks toward him on the water and talks to him “in his [Khidr’s] own language”:
I was in a boat in the port o f Tunis. I had a pain in m y stomach, but the people were
sleeping so I went to the side o f the boat and I looked out over the sea. Suddenly I
saw by the light o f the moon, which was full that night, someone coming toward me
on the surface o f the water. Finally he came up to me and stood with me. First he
stood on one leg and raised the other so I could see that his leg was not wet. Then he
did the same with the other leg. After talking to me for a while in his own language,
he saluted me and went off, making for a lighthouse on top o f a hill over two miles
distant from us. This distance he covered in two or three steps. I could hear him
praising God on the lighthouse. He had often visited our Shaykh al-Kinani, an elder
o f the order who lived at Marsa Tdun, from whose house I had come that evening.
When I returned to the town a man m et m e who had asked me how m y night with
Khidr on the boat had been, what he had said to me and what I had said to him.48
45 Addas, ibid., p. 62, 299, 304.
46 Addas, ibid., p. 64.
47 Austin, R.W.J. The S ifts o f Andalusia. (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1971), p.
25. Cf. Peter Lambom Wilson, “The Green Man: the Trickster Figure in Sufism,” Gnosis M agazine
N o. 19, (Spring 1991): 22-26; idem. Sacred D rift: E ssays on the Margins o f Islam. (San Francisco:
City Lights Books, 1993), pp. 57, 117, 119, 138-146, 152-3.
48 Austin, R.W.J. The Sufis o f Andalusia, p. 27; Addas, ibid., 298-299.
245
We opened the first chapter o f this work with this passage. There we asked what the
phrase “his own language” means. In light o f al-Qashani’s statement that Khidr’s
language was the “language o f spiritual states,” we can understand Ibn ‘Arabi’s
description o f Khidr’s own language as more than just a colorful or mystifying detail.
The term “his own language” symbolizes the distinction between spiritual guidance
(suhba) and instruction (ta'lim ) and the need to pursue each in its appropriate way.
Each has its own language. Spiritual guidance works with patient action and silence;
instruction with concepts and questioning.
It is noteworthy that Ibn ‘Arabi mentions that Khidr also would visit “our
Shaykh al-Kinani.” As we shall discuss below, it is rarely, if ever, that Khidr’s
appearance abrogates or supersedes the relationship with one’s living mortal master. In
this case as in others, Khidr confirms the authority o f the living and mortal master. We
will take up this point below when we compare appearances by Khidr with those o f
Uways al-Qarani.
The narrative detail that Ibn ‘Arabi was addressed by Khidr in Khidr’s own
language serves to express both the idea o f Khidr’s knowledge as intelligent discourse
and the inexpressibility o f its distinctive dimension. As a language it is intellgible; as
Khidr’s special language it is reserved as the privilege o f the spiritual elite (khass).
This is a point to which al-Qushayri also refers in his tafsir.
246
The third encounter with Khidr follows also in Andalusia between Tarifa and
Rota:
Some time later I set o f f on a journey along the coast in the company o f a man who
denied the miraculous power o f the saints. I stopped o ff in a ruined mosque to
perform the midday prayer together with my companion. At the same moment a
group o f those who wander remote from the world entered the mosque with the same
intention o f performing the prayer. Among them was the man I had spoken to at sea
and whom I had been told was Khidr; there was also another man o f high rank who
was hierarchically superior to Khidr (akbar minhu manizilatari). I had already met
him previously, and w e had becom e bound by ties o f friendship. I got up and went to
greet him; he greeted me in turn and expressed his joy at seeing me, then he moved
forward to direct the prayer [as imam]. After we had finished the prayer the imam
started to leave; I followed him as he moved towards the door o f the mosque, which
faced to the west and looked out over the ocean in the direction o f a place called
Bakka. I had just started talking to him at the door to the mosque when the man
whom I said was Khidr took a small prayer rug which was stored in the mihrab
[prayer niche], stretched it out in the air seven cubits above the ground and got onto it
to perform the supererogatory prayers. I said to my travelling companion: ‘Do you see
that man and what he is doing?’ He asked me to go over and question him, so I left
my companion to go over and see Khidr. When he had finished his prayers I greeted
him and recited some verses to him. He said to me: ‘I only did this for the sake o f
that unbeliever!’ and he pointed to my companion, who denied the miracles o f the
saints and, sitting in a com er o f the mosque, was watching u s .49
One implication o f this encounter is that it demonstrates Khidr practicing the pillar of
the ritual prayer (salat) in both its required (fard) and supererogatory (nawafil) forms.
Ibn ‘Arabi’s narrative picks up some o f the motifs in the story of Khidr and Moses: he
takes a companion on a journey and parts from him; similarly Khidr’s excuse for
performing the miracle o f doing the prayer above the ground (“I only did this for the
sake o f that unbeliever!”) evokes Khidr’s explanation to Moses in the Qur’an: “I did
not act o f my own accord.” (18. 82)
49 Ibn ‘Arabi, Futuhat I, p. 186, in Addas, ibid., 125-126. Addas offers the following
identifications o f the four pillars (awtad ) which may apply here: “Idris is the Pole, Jesus and Elijah are
the two Imams, and Khadir the fourth pillar.” (p. 65)
247
Concerning one o f his investitures with the initiatic mantle o f Khidr, Ibn ‘Arabi
reported:
When I got to the house [the house o f ‘A li ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Jami’], he had me sit
down in a particular spot in the room. When I asked him the reason for this he
replied, that Khidr had sat there and that he had put me there because o f the spiritual
power still adhering to it. Then he went on to tell me what had happened during
Khidr’s visit. He said, ‘Although I had not mentioned the khirqah [the mantle o f
initiation], he brought out a small cotton cap and placed it with his own hands on my
head. I then took it off, kissed it and placed it between him and me. Then he said to
me, ‘O ‘Ali, would you like m e to invest you with the khirqah ? I replied, ‘O
Master, who am I to say?’ Then he took it in his hands in another way and put it on
my head.’ Then I said to ‘Ali, ‘Do with m e as he did with you .’ Then he took his
small cloth cap and performed exactly the same ceremony with me. I m yself have
always performed this investiture in accordance with the tradition passed down
through the chain o f spiritual masters ([silsilah ), and it is the way in which I invest
others with the khirqah . 50
Ibn ‘Arabi’s fourth investiture with the khirqa was the transmission o f the
khirqa o f Khidr given to him by a disciple o f Qadib al-Ban (Al-Hasan Qadib al-Ban al-
Mawsili [d. 570/1174]). 51Addas observes concerning the khirqa that “ ...in the Islamic
West the term khirqa appears to have been used as a symbolic way o f describing
suhba— keeping the regular company o f a teacher—rather than as referring to an actual
from o f ritual affiliation. .[T]his investiture [with the khirqa] is simply a symbol o f
initiatory companionship”52 The identification o f the investiture as “initiatic
50 Austin, R.W.J. The Sufis o f Andalusia, p. 157.
51 Addas, ibid., p. 145; William Chittick, The Self-Disclosure o f G od : Principles o f Ibn

‘A r a b i’s C osm ology (Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1998), p. 395, n. 20.
52 Addas, ibid., p. 143, 145; William Chittick, The Self-Disclosure o f God: Principles o f Ibn
'Arabi's C osm ology (Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1998), p. 395, n. 20.
248
companionship” (suhba) amplifies a m otif in the Quranic narrative o f Khidr and
Moses: their relationship is one o f suhba, i.e., “companionship.”53
Because Corbin and Addas have dwelt on the similarities between Ibn ‘Arabi’s
encounters with Khidr and the tradition o f Sufis whose spiritual guides are deceased
and not physically present, we turn to consider this comparison and its relevance,
plausibility, and fidelity.
Comparisons between Khidrian Encounters and the Encounters o f the Uwaysi Sufi
Tradition
The type o f initiation which is described as the investiture by Khidr, has been seen as
an ahistorical initiation, in which succession occurs without physical encounter.
Superficially it might seem that there is a parallel because encounters with Khidr and
Uwaysi initiation appear to involve contact with non-corporeal beings. In the maghrib,
for example a Khidrian initiation designated what had been called Uwaysi in the
m ashriq. Later the term Uwaysi initiation came to substitute for the concept of
Khidrian initiation.54 However, a typological analysis raises interesting questions
about such correlations between Uways al-Qarani (d. 36/657) and Khidr and the
53 Qur’an 18.76. Moses tells Khidr, “I f I ask you anything after this, don’t keep
companionship (fa-la tusahibini) with me” In his tafsir, Ruzbihan describes the relationship as suhba.
54 Personal communication from Vincent J. Cornell, January 2000.
249
differences in the types o f initiations with which these two figures have been
associated.
The following analysis shows that the relationship between the type o f
initiation between the Prophet Muhammad and Uways al-Qarani on the one hand, and
Khidr and various saints on the other, is analogous, but also distinctive in important
ways. Henri Corbin and Claude Addas have linked Ibn ‘Arabi’s encounters with Khidr
with the Uwaysi tradition. They have suggested parallels in the following four sets o f
transhistorical relationships:
(1) al-Bistami (d. 261 A.H. / 874 C.E.) and Ja’far as-Sadiq (d. 148 A.H. / 875 C.E.);
(2) al-Kharaqani (d. 425 A.H./ 1033 C.E.) and al-Bistami (d. 261 A.H. / 874 C.E.);
(3) ‘Attar (d. 627 A.H. / 1229 C.E.) and al-Hallaj (d. 309 A.H. / 922 C.E.);
(4) Baha ud-Din Naqshband (d. 791 A.H./ 1388 C.E.) and ‘Abd al-Khaliq
Ghujuwani (d. 575/ 1179 C.E.), and also, Hakim al-Tirmidhi and Uways55
The ascriptive paradigm o f such non-physical encounters is the figure o f Uways al-
Qarani (d. 36/657), a Yemeni camel-herder and contemporary o f the Prophet
55 Arthur F. Buehler, Charism a and Exemplar: N aqshbandi Spiritual Authority in the

Punjab, 1857-1947 (Unpub. D ss. Harvard, 1993). Baha’uddin experienced the spiritual presence
(tawajjuh) o f Hakim al-Tirmidhi without attributes, i.e., form. By contrast, he “experienced travelling
with the spirit o f Uways with attributes, i.e., he saw Uways’s form.” Buehler, ibid., p. 85-86, n. 113.
250
Muhammad who is described in a hadith transmitted by al-Tirmidhi (835-898).56
Recognized by the Prophet, he has earned the title Khayr al-Tabi’in, the “Eminent
among the Successors.”57 A section o f Sahih Muslim, “The Merits o f Uways [al-]
Qarani,” carries statements about Uways transmitted by Usayr ibn Jabir and ‘Umar
ibn Khattab:
‘Umar ibn Khattab reported; I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying: Worthy amongst the successors would be a person who would be called
Uwais. He would have his mother (living with him) and he would have (a small) sign
o f leprosy. Ask him to beg pardon for you (from Allah.).58
O f Uways, the Prophet attests in another hadith : “I feel the breath o f the
Compassionate co m in g from the direction o f the Yemen.”59 Al-Hujwiri reports that
Muhammad said to his companions, “There is a man at Qaran called Uways, who at
the Resurrection will intercede for a multitude of my people. 5,60 Although later
traditions represent a mutuality o f acquaintance between the Prophet and Uways,
these reports clearly show the Prophet as having known o f Uways, but do not indicate
that Uways in turn knew the Prophet.
56 A shrine designated as the tomb o f Uways is located in Zabid, Yemen.
57 Sahih Muslim, tr. ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Asraf, 1971-5) Vol.
IV, p. 1349, n. 2382.
58 Sahih Muslim Chapter 1047. V ol. IV, p. 1349
59 Henri Corbin, Creative Imagination in the Sttfism o f Ibn ‘A rabi (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1969, p. 32; c f ‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-Awliya, R. A . Nicholson, ed., I, p. 121
60 al-Hujwiri, ibid., p. 83
251
The account in Sahih M uslim recounts that ‘Umar sought out Uways and asked
him to pray on his behalf for forgiveness from Allah.61 It is ‘A ttar (d. 627/1229), who
in recounting the visit by ‘Umar, includes ‘All’s participation in this trip, and,
especially, the significant and famous m otif of their presentation to Uways al-Qarani
o f the mantle o f the Prophet as a gift.62 Here also Uways returns ‘Umar’s inquiry
concerning the reason Uways had never visited the Prophet by showing that, in
friendship for the Prophet who had broken a tooth during the Battle o f Uhud (3
A.H./625 C.E.), Uways had no teeth at all.63 Al-Hujwiri recounts that Uways was
prevented from physically seeing the Prophet “firstly by the ecstasy which
overmastered him and secondly by his duty to his mother.”64
O f the consequent emergent tradition o f Uwaysi Sufis, ‘Attar, the first to write
o f this tradition, asserts:
Know that there is a group o f people who are called Uwaysi. T hey stand in no need o f
a Pir (spiritual guide) for they are looked after in the bosom o f Prophethood
(Nubirwaty- i.e., they obtain spiritual knowledge directly from the Prophet— without
any intermediary, in the same way as Uways had done. Although he had not seen the
Master o f the Prophets, he was taught by him, and the Prophethood looked after him,
and in fact it was his companion. This is the most exalted status one could hope to
acquire.6S
61 Sahih Muslim, V ol. IV. P. 1350.
62 ‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-A wliya’, Tehran, A.H.S. 1136, p. 27, quoted in A .S. Hussaini,
“U ways al-Qarani and the U w aysi Sufis,” Muslim World 51/2 (April 1967) p. 109.
63 ‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-A wliya’, p. 29 in A.S. Hussaini, ibid., p. 110.
64 al-Hujwiri, ibid., p. 83.
65 ‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-Awliya, pp. 33-4 in A.S. Hussaini, ibid., p. 112
252
Jami underscores this category o f the Uwaysi Sufi, with the point, especially relevant
to our consideration o f the relevance o f this to Khidrian phenomena, that the abrogated
relationship is to that o f a “living P ir
In the same way the ‘Friends o f God,’ who walked in the footsteps o f the Prophet,
have guided disciples through the power o f their spirit, so that their disciples stand in
no need o f a living Pir. These persons are also included among the Uwaysis.66
Addas coments that the viability o f an ahistorical initiation is based on “the
transmission o f baraka. between the ruhaniyya— the ‘spiritual presence’ o f a shaikh
who has been dead, and a mwrid. ”67 In this light Abu’l-Hasan Kharaqani (d 425/1034),
considered an ‘Uwaysi wrote: “I am amazed at those disciples who declare that they
require this or that master. You are perfectly aware that I have never been taught by
any man. God was m y guide, though I have the greatest respect for all masters.”68 Al-
Kharaqani considered him self initiated by Abu Yazid al-Bistami in a dream after having
visited his tomb.69
Are encounters with Khidr rightly or fruitfully to be identified as Uwaysi
encounters? ‘Attar says Uwaysis stand in no need o f a Pir. Jami says they stand in no
need o f a living Pir. ‘Attar, in the quote above, specifies that the direct contact is with
the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally conceded (at least outside o f the paradigm
66 Jami, Nafahat al-Uns p. 20; cf. P. 501, quoted in A .S. Hussaini, ibid., pp. 112-113.
67 Addas, ibid., p. 142, n. 40.
68 Henri Corbin, ibid., pp. 32-33.
69 J.T.P. de Bruijn, s.v. “Kharraqani,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam.
253
o f the Nur M uhamm ad ) to be a mortal being who died;70 whereas Khidr is generally
considered immortal. Literally speaking , Khidr is living and in almost all accounts
described as being physically present, alive, and incarnate—not a ruhaniyya or spiritual
presence or energy.
It is crucial to distinguish the living, incarnate Khidr and the phantom-like
energy o f Uways. Corbin’s identification between Khidrian encounters and the
Uwaysi transmission only works if the accounts o f Khidr are assumed to be allegorical,
and if Khidr’s corporeality, not to mention his very existence, are both dismissed. One
basis for distinguishing between the Khidrian encounter and the Uwaysi tradition is
that few appearances o f Khidr occur in dreams. At least in terms o f narrative
presentation, Khidr appears as a physically incarnate being. Also, in distinction to
Uwaysi encounters, allegiances to Khidr do not supersede other lines o f transmission
and submission to a Pir, as described above by Jami and al-Kharaqani. For example, in
a hagiographical story about Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi which we will discuss below,
Mevlana’s murids touch Khidr’s garment (implying physicality) and Khidr tells them
to continue to follow their shaykh. This one story shows both differences between
Khidr and Uwaysi-shaykhs: Khidr is alive, physically manifest; and not dead Khidr
does not typically replace the role o f a living shaykh.
70 The locus classicus in the Qur’an attesting to Muhammad’s mortality is Sura A1 Imran
(3.144).
254
There still remains the question o f whether Uwaysi encounters comprise
specifically those encounters with Muhammad, as Attar described, or with the
ruhanniya o f deceased Shaykhs as Jami described, or both. In any case no
representations have included Khidr in this category. In this light it helps to recall ash-
Shadhili’s objection to the fu q a h a ' that in addition to considering al-Hallaj a heretic,
they claim that Khidr is dead.71 Similarly the Kubrawi Shaykh ‘Ala’ al-Dawla al-
Simnani (b. 659/1261) insisted on saying “the Lord” Khidr in acknowledgment of his
sensitivity to Khidr’s living presence.72 To the degree that Khidr is a living physical
presence, we cannot say that his appearances should be classified as Uwaysi
encounters.
Encounters with Khidr can only even begin to be categorized as Uwaysi
encounters if Khidr is a deceased mortal, a view which is rare or absent in Sufi circles.73
In addition to the question o f Khidr’s status as alive or deceased, further
considerations require sorting out: Assuming Uwaysi encounters are not limited to
encounters with Muhammad, does Khidr belong to the same category as Uwaysi
shaykhs who have historically traceable biographical settings? Further, what is the
71 quoted in Massignon, Passion o f al-Hallaj, vol. II, p. 216.
72 F. Meier, s.v. “Ala al-Dawla al-Simnani,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam I, p. 347.
73 A more appropriate designation for the status o f Khidr’s existence may be the term ghayba
which “is used for the condition o f anyone who has been withdrawn by God from the eyes o f men and
w hose life during that period (called his ghayba ) may have been miraculously prolonged. It is also
used o f Khidr.” (D.B. Macdonald and M.G.S. Hodgson, s.v. “Ghayba,” in The Encyclopedia o f Islam
(Leiden: E J. Brill, 1960).
255
comparative significance o f the fact that Khidrian encounters do not pre-em pt
relationships with other shaykhs? A t the least, Uwaysi relationships are typically
dominant, if not exclusive, whereas Khidrian encounters, while frequently pivotal, are
rarely exclusive or dominant. In short, categorizations o f meetings with Khidr as being
o f an Uwaysi type raise more questions than they answer, distort the distinct natures
o f both Khidrian and Uwaysi encounters, and preclude authentic understanding o f each
type o f encounter.
M evlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi (605-672 / 1207-1273)
It is hardly suprising to find Mevlana invoking Khidr. Mevlana’s love o f his teacher
Shams-i Tabrizi, his resonance with suffering and pain, his quest for inner knowledge,
all embody themes heralded in the narrative o f Khidr and Moses. The M athnawi and
hagiographies o f Mevlana feature passages where Khidr assumes pivotal importance.
First, Mevlana compares his own relationship with his teacher Shams- i Tabrizi
to the relationship between Moses and Khidr. This emerges from an event described in
Aflaki’s hagiography Munaqib al- ’Arafirv.
Even though Hazrat Mawlana did not find Shams al-Din in the outward form (surat)
in Damascus, in reality (m a’na) and even something greater, inside his own self.
[OJne day Hazrat-i Mawlana wrote at the door o f the room o f Mawlana Shams al-Din
with red ink in his own hand, “This is the station o f the beloved o f Khidr, peace be
upon him.”74
74 Aflaki, Manaqab a l-’Arifiru Vol. 2, pp. 699-700. Unpublished translation by Omid Safi
with small modifications. As Safi points out, the final phrase: “maqAm- e ma ‘shUq- e Khidr ‘alayhi
256
Mevlana’s son Sultan Veled also describes Mevlana’s relationship to Shams, as
analogous to the relationship between Moses and Khidr:75
Hazrat Sultan Veled also stated: “Just as M oses, with all the might o f Prophethood
and the exaltedness o f the valour o f Messengerhood was seeking Khidr— peace be
upon him, so did Hazrat Mawlana, with ail the excellences, praiseworthy manners and
behavior, with all the talents and spiritual stations and miraculous acts o f generosity,
illuminations, and secrets which in his own time and age was unmatched, was
seeking Mawlana Shams-i Tabrizi.”76
Similarly, Sultan Veled starts his Ibtida-Nam eh with the story o f Moses and Khidr and
declares: “His [Rumi’s] Khidr was Shams-i Tabrizi.”77
Concerning the Qur’anic narrative, Mevlana observes that even though Moses
had achieved prophethood, he nonetheless required a guide. As we have pointed out
before, in the narratives o f Moses in the Qur’an, Moses encounters two figures as his
equal or greater: He is compared with the forthcoming Messenger Muhammad, and
salam ,” (“This is the station o f the beloved o f Khidr.”) may also be translated as, “This is the much
beloved station o f Khidr.” I am grateful to Professor Safi for sharing this work.
15 Walad-namah, 41, ed. J. Huma’i (Tehran: Iqbal, 1316/1937) cited in William C. Chittick,
“Rumi and the Mawlawiyyah,” in Seyyed H ossein Nasr, ed. Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations. (New
York: Crossroads, 1991), pp. 106.
76 Ahmad Aflaki, Manaqib al- 'Arifin, V ol. 2: 687-688. Translation by Omid Safi. I wish to
express my appreciation and gratitiude to Dr. Safi for sharing portions o f his unpublished translation
with me.
77 Veled-nameh [the title under which Sultan Veled’s Ibtida-nameh was published in Iran],
edited by Jalal ad-Din Homa’i. (Tehran: Ketabkhaneh-ye Iqbal, 1956), 56. Unpublished translation by
Omid Safi.
257
through direct encounter and discipleship (ittiba *) in the narrative of Moses and Khidr,
is implicitly compared to Khidr.78
One o f the prominent instances o f Mevlana’s use o f the meaning o f Khidr
appears in the M athnawi's opening frame narrative,79 “the story o f the king and the
love-sick maiden and the holy doctor.”80 The description o f the relationship between
the king and the doctor, the means o f the doctor’s healing, and the explanation o f the
doctor’s remedy are each implicitly, and in the case o f Mevlana’s explanation o f the
remedy, explicitly, related to the Qur’anic example o f the relationship between Khidr
and Moses and the meaning o f the events in that story.81
Since Mevlana explains the doctor’s treatment o f the maiden as a m ystery
comparable to the actions o f Khidr, a brief summary o f this opening story o f the
78 Rumi, Mathnawi HI: 1959-63 in Renard, John, All the King’s Falcons (Albany: S.U.N.Y.,
1994), p. 84. Moses and Muhammad are implicitly compared in Sura al-’Araf 7.155-159 where the
answer to the prayer by Moses and the seventy elders concerning forgiveness for their people is
predicated on the forthcoming appearance o f Muhammad. Moses assumes the lesser positions o f
student, in the case o f Khidr, and forerunner, with respect to Muhammad. While both Khidr and
Muhammad receive ‘ilm and rahma (and in Muhammad’s case tan zi ), in neither case is there any hint
o f written transmission.
79 This narrative begins at the 36Ih verse following introductory verses which include the 18-
line piece popularly identified as the “Song o f the Reed Flute.”
80 Coleman Barks, trans., The Essential Rumi (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995), p.
230.
81 In Mathnawi I: 222-238 Mevlana interprets the healing actions o f the doctor as analogous to
the acts o f Khidr, whose name is mentioned in verses 224, 236 (two instances), and 237. The actions
directly alluded to are the Khidr’s slaying o f the boy (verse 224) and the staving o f the boat (v. 236).
One significance o f Mevlana’s citation o f Khidr at this point may be understood by the fact that Khidr
is one o f the first Quranic figures to appear in the Mathnawi. Exactly four prophets are cited prior to the
series o f references to Khidr: Moses (v. 26), Muhammad (v. 77), Jesus (v. 81) and Joseph (v. 125). In
one sense the application o f the acts o f Khidr are obviously a method o f interpreting the story o f the
King, maiden, doctor, and goldsmith; conversely, the story provides interpretation and commentary
upon the role o f Khidr, as that o f a spiritual “doctor.”
258
M athnawi can illustrate some o f Mevlana’s understanding o f Khidr. This parable o f the
cleansing o f the mirror o f the soul82 introduces a king whose power extends over both
temporal and spiritual realms and narrates the events o f a hunt, during which the king
discovers and buys a beautiful maiden with whom he has fallen in love. Taking her
back to his kingdom, he now faces the problem that the maiden becomes incurably ill.
The wounded king declares, “She is my remedy.”83 Troubled that none o f his doctors
can heal her, he runs (“barefooted”) to the mosque and intensely prays the salat al-
istikhara (prayer o f the seeking [of guidance]). In the ensuing prescribed incubational
sleep, an old man appears in his dream to herald the arrival on the next day o f a
stranger who is a “physician you can trust.”84 As the king sees the doctor approach, a
strong wave o f mutual attraction between their souls draws them toward each other
and he rushes out to him, greeting him with the declaration: “You are my beloved, not
the girl. ”85 A t this point the king compares the doctor to Muhammad, and himself to
‘Umar. 86 The king goes on to articulate his appreciation for the doctor with themes
82 In verses 34 and 35 Rumi introduces the tale with this description.
83 Mathnawi I: 44.
84 Mathnawi I; 64, in Barks’ translation, ibid., p. 227.
85 Mathnawi I: 76. The king goes on to compare his relationship to the doctor as like that o f
‘Umar to Muhammad (v. 76). Mevlana compares the role o f the doctor to both those o f Muhammad
and Khidr. A s w e have observed M oses narratives in the Qur’an also occasion exceptional
identifications o f the roles o f Muhammad and Khidr. Here in Mevlana’s story, they are compared in a
w ay consistent with the above-quoted historical observation by Vincent Cornell that Muhammad’s role
o f as the paradigm o f the Shaykh was subsequent to the earlier more typical identification o f Khidr in
this role.
259
which are shared with, and repeated in, the Qur’anic Khidr narrative. Specifically the
king’s statements echo the themes o f sabr (patience), the extent o f Khidr’s knowledge
as beyond Moses’s comprehension, and the interpretive mode o f ta ’w il:
. ”At last,” said he, “I have found a treasure by being patient.”
O thou whose countenance is the answer to every question,

by thee hard knots are loosed without discussion.
Thou interpretest all that is in our hearts. ”.87
Explaining to the king that the healing o f the maiden will be effected through his
knowledge o f “inner states,” the doctor leads the maiden to disclose the source o f the
illness, her love for a goldsmith in Samarkand. The doctor describes his healing to the
maiden as “what rain does to a meadow,”88 an implicitly Khidrian metaphor,
reminiscent o f the hadith which explains Khidr’s name as reflecting his virtue o f
turning barren land verdant. The doctor instructs the king to lure the goldsmith from
Samarkand. He recommends the maiden and the goldsmith be wed, allows them six
months o f wedded bliss, and then administers to the goldsmith a potion which causes
him to atrophy. The maiden then ceases loving the goldsmith, who finally dies.
8<s. Mathnawi, 1.76. This comparison may be viewed in relation to Mevlana’s commentary on
Sura al-Muzzamil (73) in his M aktubat IV. 1453-85 in which he relates that God has entitled
Muhammad both a Noah and a Khidr.
87 M athnawi I: 95, 96, 97, N icholson trans. See also Barks, trans, ibid., p. 228. The reference
to a treasure may evoke the phrase kanzuhuma rahma (their treasure, a mercy) o f Qur’an 18. 82,
especially in light o f the seven-times repeated use o f the word sabr (patience) throughout the 23 ayat o f
the Quranic narrative. In addition to the explicit reference to sabr in this verse involving the treasure,
the implicit sense o f the “coming to strength” (yablugha ashuddahuma ) implies the process o f
awaiting one’s reward.
88 Mathnawi I: 172
260
Mevlana counsels that from this we should leam instead to “Choose the love o f that
Living One who is everlasting, from whose love all the prophets gained power and
glory.”89
Mevlana proceeds to correlate the actions o f the doctor to those o f Khidr. This
resolution and explanation o f the narrative underscores the implicit analogies to Khidr
and demonstrates Mevlana’s vision of the role o f the spiritual guide as represented in
the figure o f Khidr:
But what about

the doctor’s poisoning the poor goldsmith! It was not done
for the king’s sake. The reason is a mystery
like Khidr’s cutting the boy’s throat
Everything
the doctor did was out o f God’s will. Khidr
sunk the boat, yet it was right to do.
When someone
is killed by a doctor like this one, it’s a blessing,
even though it may not seem so.90
Mevlana specifically analogizes the doctor’s therapy to two o f Khidr’s actions
narrated in the Qur’an: the slaying o f the boy and the sinking o f the boat. In his last
statement Mevlana draws a close analogy between the doctor and Khidr. Overall, this
story which opens the Mathnawi describes the work o f the spiritual guide along the
analogy o f a doctor as informed by the “mystery” o f the Qur’anic model of Khidr.
Finally Mevlana cautions that we cannot judge these actions (of the doctor and Khidr)
89 Mathnawi I: 219-220.
90 Barks, Essential Rumi. Compare with Nicholson translation, Mathnawi I: 222-236. Renard
suggests that Mevlana’s detail o f describing the boy’s death as by cutting his throat may be meant to
echo the nearby reference (in Book L227) to Isma’il. (Renard, ibid., p. 85).
261
because we do not live, as do the doctor or Khidr, fully in truth.91 This theme echoes
that o f the Qufanic narrative in Khidr’s disclosing o f the ta ’wil o f the events Moses
could not bear with patience, an event which highlights the problems o f passing
judgm ent without a complete comprehension o f the truth.92
Mevlana emphasizes that as Moses submitted to Khidr, every dervish must
surrender to his Shaykh, who is his ‘Khidr”.93 Mevlana points out that Abu Yazid al-
Bastami, on his way to the Ka’aba searched for the “Khizr o f his time:”94
Bayazid on his journey (to the Ka’ba) sought much to find some one that was
the Khizr o f his time.
H e espied and old man with stature (bent) like the new moon; he saw in him majesty
and (lofty) speech o f (holy) men;
His eyes sightless and his heart (illumined) as the sun; like an elephant dreaming o f
Hindustan95
The dervish whom Abu Yazid finds and considers to be the “Khizr o f his time”
explains his status as a living Ka‘aba and the “Ka ‘aba o f sincerity:”
He said, “Make a circuit around me seven times, and reckon this (to be) better than
the circumambulation (o f the Ka'ba) in the pilgrimage.
Albeit the Ka‘ba is the House o f His religious service, my form too, in which I was
created, is the House o f His innermost consciousness.
91 Mathnawi I: 246.
92 Qur’an Surat al-Kahf (18.68).
93 Mathnawi, 1:2969-71; 11:3527-30; VI: 187, in Renard, ibid., p. 85.
94 Mathnawi, 11:2231.
95 Mathnawi U: 2231-33.
262
Never since God made the Ka’ba hath He gone into it, and none but the Living (God)
hath ever gone into this House (o f mine).
When thou hast seen me thou hast seen God: thou hast circled round the Ka’ba o f
Sincerity.
To serve me is to obey and glorify God: beware thou think not that God is separate
from me.
Open thine eyes w ell and look on me, that thou masyest behold the light o f God in
man.”96
This dervish, the “Khizr o f his time,” explains that he and God are not separate and
that in him one may behold the “Light o f God in man.” These descriptions correspond
to the “essential union” o f Ruzbihan Baqli’s usage alluded to above. Mevlana’s
rhetoric here boldly underscores the potential o f the figure o f Khidr to serve as
theophanic identity, presence, and symbol. Khidr here symbolizes the presence of
God and the access to that presence— the human embodiment o f the means otherwise
conceived as available through the pillars o f worship ( ‘ibadat) and its related symbolic
forms.
In explaining the adab o f the relationship to the shaykh, Mevlana applies the
principles o f the “mean (between extremes)” and the analogy o f the balancing o f the
four humours to establish health. M oses’s behavior which drives him apart from Khidr
is faulted for its excess:
Do not exceed in (any) quality him that is thy yoke-fellow, for that w ill assuredly
bring about separation (between you) in the end.
The speech o f M oses was in good measure, but even so it exceeded the words o f his
good friend.
That excess resulted in his opposing Khidr; and he (Khidr) said, ‘Go, thou art one
96 Mathnawi, II: 2240, 2245-49.
263
In an ironic twist, typical o f Mevlana, and emblematic o f the character o f Khidr,
Mevlana follows this passage by overturning it. In a dervish’s answer to the questions
o f his shaykh, the dervish explains the relativeness o f the middle path: it is found only
in relation to contingencies, circumstance, and individual temperment. He further
asserts, that since the infinite lacks the reference points o f beginning and end, how can
one find a mean which exists in relation to the infinite? Mevlana invokes Khidr’s
example to justify and praise the interpretation:
To the Shaykh’s questions he gave answer good and right, like the answers o f Khidr,
(Namely) those answers to the questions o f Moses which Khidr, (inspired) by the ail-knowing
Lord, set forth to him,
(So that) his difficulties became solved, and he (Khidr) gave to him (Moses) the key to every
question (in a way) beyond telling.
The dervish also had (a spiritual) inheritance from Khidr (hence) he bent his will to answering
the Shaykh.
He said, ‘Although the middle path is (the way o f ) wisdom, yet the middle path too
is relative.98
Mevlana’s teacher Shams-i Tabrizi retells the story o f Khidr and Moses with his own
commentary and offers guidance on cherishing this story. In Shams’ telling, as Moses
approaches his third question, Khidr claps his hand, gets up to dance and says, “Hurry
up, say it, free me again, finish it. ” Shams finds in this story many o f the critical
aspects o f Sufism:
Moses awakes, sees things, becomes a beloved, the candle is burnt and the Saki is
asleep. Blessed is the one who finds such a ‘servant [from our servants]’ and who
holds the story o f M oses and Khidr in his heart, and makes it his Imam.”
97 Mathnawi, II: 3514-16.
98 Mathnawi, II: 3527-31.
264
Here Shams envisions spirituality as fulfilled in the I-and-Thou relationship between
seeker and guide which Moses and Khidr model. Shams also later compares Khidr to
Muhammad in terms o f truthfulness in teaching: “Only Muhammad and Khidr spoke
truthfully [to their companions].” 100
In the work and life o f Mevlana, Khidr is portrayed as the model o f the shaykh
and the relationship between Moses and Khidr describes the relationship which a
mitrid should seek and cultivate. In addition to this analogy between the Shaykh and
Khidr, Mevlana also asserts that every disciple must seek the guidance o f Khidr
himself.101 In a number o f places, Mevlana attests to the significance o f Khidr and his
teaching in terms of the tra in in g o f the dervish and the knowledge o f God. In addition,
Mevlana applies the m otif o f the Water o f Eternal Life, implied in the Qur’anic motif
o f m ajm a' al-bahrain (the meeting o f the two seas) and underscored by the popularly-
known story transmitted in various versions o f the Iskandarnam a.102 Finally,
Mevlana affirms Khidr as a theophanic presence, the human equivalent o f the House o f
God (bait Allah).
99 Shams- i Tabrizi, Maqalat. Edited by Muhammad ‘Ali Muwahhid. (Tehran: Intisharat-i

Khawarazmi, 1990), p. 212-213. Unpublished translation by Omid Safi.
100 Ibid, 2.177.
101 D ivan-i Shams 836:6; 1215:19; 1422:7; 3074:6 in Renard, ibid., pp. 85, 183 n. 57.
102Nizami, Iskandarnama in Minoo Southgate, Iskandamameh: A Persian M edieval

Alexander-Romance. Translated, Minoo Southgate (N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1978) .
265
Mevlana gives unreserved praise for Khidr’s station as he designates (through
the voice o f Moses) that Khidr is the Sahib az-Zaman (the Master o f the Age). In this
quote, Moses answers those who object to his departure:

i
Do not make this reproach, do not waylay the Sun (Khidr) and the Moon (M oses)
I [Moses] will fare as far as the “meeting place o f the two seas,” that I may be accompanied
by [Sahib vz-Zaman ] the sovereign o f the time (Khidr).
I will make Khidr a means (sabab ) to (the achievement of) m y purpose: (either) that,
103
or “I will go onward” [Qur’an 18.60] and journey by night a long while.
Mevlana translates the symbol o f the breaking o f the boat into an analogy for purifying
love:
Have you heard how Khidr broke the planks o f the ship to save it
from the hands o f the tyrant? (Qur’an 18.72,80)
104
The Khidr o f your time is Love: Broken, the Sufi is pure and sits at the bottom like dregs.
In this verse Mevlana equates a state o f ka sh f (unveiling) as the reality o f eternal love
which the story o f Khidr describes:
When the veils have been burned away,

the heart w ill understand completely the stories
o f Khidr and knowledge from God.
Ancient Love will display the ever-renewed forms
in the midst o f the spirit and the heart.105
Khidr’s association with sainthood (wilayat) is apparant as Mevlana describes Khidr’s
water as the speech of the saints (awliya):
Oh you who are thirsty and heedless come!

We are drinking the water o f Khidr from the stream:
103 Mathnawi HI: 1967-69; VI: 1 126fif. In Renard, ibid..
104 Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi, Divan, 4315-16 in William C. Chittick, Sufi Path o f Lave
(Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1983), 190.
105 Mevlana Rumi, Divan, 21240-41 in Chittick, ibid., p. 262.
266
107
the speech o f the saints.
This extent and degree o f recognition o f the paradigmatic status o f Khidr which
Mevlana imparted to his disciples serves in the interpretation o f the following
hagiographical narrative o f Khidr and Mevlana:
When Jalal was quite young, he was one day preaching on the subject o f Moses and
Khidr. One o f his disciples noticed a stranger seated in a corner, paying great
attention and every now and then saying: “Good! Quite true! Quite correct! He might
have been the third one with us two!” The disciple surmised that he might be Khidr.
He therefore seized hold o f the stranger’s skirt, and asked for his spiritual aid. “Oh,”
said the stranger, “rather seek assistance from Jalal as w e all do. Every occult saint o f
God is the loving and admiring friend o f him.” So saying, he managed to disengage
his skirt from the disciple’s hold, and instantly disappeared. The disciple went to pay
his respects to Jalal, who at once addressed him, saying: “Khidr and Moses, and the
prophets, are all friends o f mine.” The disciple understood the allusion, and became
more devoted at heart to Jalal than he even was before.” 108
This anecdote advances the authority o f both Mevlana and Khidr. Mevlana’s level o f
attainment is symbolized by the appearance and expressions o f approval o f Khidr who
attests that Mevlana would have been worthy to participate in the meeting between
Moses and Khidr. Khidr here emphasizes the importance o f unmitigated submission to
one’s own shaykh. This dialogue shows that Khidr symbolizes the ideal that continued
submission to one’s own shaykh is more valuable than a singular encounter with even
Khidr himself.
107 Mevlana Rumi, M athnaw i 4302 in Chittick, ibid., p. 131.
108 Shams ud-Din Ahmad al-Aflaki, Manaqib a l-’Arafin, translated, James W. Redhouse as
The Legends o f the Sufis. (London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1881, rpt. 1977). I have revised
Redhouse’s version in the following ways: although Redhouse makes it clear through his citation o f the
Qur’anic verses o f the story o f Khidr and Moses that the stranger in the comer is Khidr, he chose
(perhaps for the ease o f his nineteenth-century readers) to substitute the name Elias, based on traditions
which associate Khidr and Elijah. I have also omitted Redhouse’s explanatory parenthetical remarks
which in the context o f this work are redundant.
267
It is worth noting the m otif o f the seized skirt in this episode in relation to the
question o f the corporeality o f Khidr’s manifestations, which is one of the issues
underlying the comparison between Khidrian and Uwaysi encounters, as we discussed
above. This detail would seem to conform to and corroborate the typical understanding
that Khidr’s manifestations are physical.
Nizam ad-Din Awliya (1242-1325)
Among the collected discourses (malfuz!malfuzat) o f the Chishti Pir Nizam ad-Din
Awliya, entitled Faw a’id al-F u’adm appear a number o f references to Khidr. Two
which may be distinguished significantly from what we have reviewed in the foregoing
are instructions in two types o f prayers o f Khidr. In the first case, a murid receives
instruction in what Nizam ad-Din identifies as the “prayer o f Khizr” which calls for
performing ten raka ’a t in which the second qira 'a consists o f Sura al-Ekhlas, and in
which the raka ‘at are punctuated by five tahiyyat. 110 Nizam ad-Din explains that “it is
known as the prayer o f Khizr. [bjecause whoever performs this prayer continually is
assured o f meeting Khidr.” 111 In a second instance, Nizam ad-Din emphasizes the
necessity (particularly in regard to compensating for missed prayers) o f invocatory
109 Nizam ad-Din Awliya, F aw a’idal-F u’ad. Translated and edited by Bruce B. Lawrence as
Morals o f the Heart (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).
110 Ibid., pp. 102-3.
268
prayers, the “epitome” o f which is he says is the musabba’at a l- ’ashr (the ten
[prayers] repeated seven-fold). The musabba ’at al- ‘ashr was gained as a favor given
to Ibrahim Tamimi by Khidr, in the vicinity o f the Ka’ba.112 Khidr imparted the
prayer with these words o f blessing: “I transmit it to you on the authority of God’s
messenger—blessings and peace be upon him!” 113 Nizam ad-Din gives as an example of
the prayer’s protective capacity the story o f a traveler attacked by robbers who is
saved by ten horsemen.114
Nizam ad-Din presents two other narratives involving Khidr. In one,
concerning “renouncing worldliness,” a “saint among saints” prayed atop the water “ O
God, Khidr has committed a heinous sin. Make him repent o f it.” Khidr appears to
hear the saint’s accusation that the sin lies in having made a tree sprout up in the desert
and then resting in its shade,115 while claiming to have acted for God. The saint
1,1 Ibid. p. 103.
112 cf. Abu Talib Muhammad al-Makki (d. 996), Qut al-Qulub f i mu 'amalat al-mahbub wa
w asf tariq al-murid ila maqam al-tawhid (Cairo: 1884-5), first section, p. 7.
113 Nizam ad-Din Awliya, ibid., p. 333. Lawrence gives instructions for performing the prayer
on p. 383, n. 93. These instructions specify the performance as foliowingâ/V and 'asr prayers (and, as
Nizam ad-Din counsels, at other times, for the resolution o f important matters [cf. p. 226]),
commencing with three durud, and proceeding to recitations o f the following suras: (1) Fatiha, (2)
Nas, (3) Falaq, (4) Ikhlas, (5) Kafirun, and (6) Ayat al-Kursi (The Throne Verse). The basmala precedes
each recitation. Translations o f the remaining three portions, a tasbih, a tasliya, and two du ’a follow
op. cit.
114 Nizam ad-Din Awliya, ibid., p. 332. (An interesting detail illustrating narrative analogy
presents the horsemen as bald, which turns out to correspond to the traveler’s omission o f the basmala
before the recited suras).
115 This m otif echoes the hadith o f the origins o f Khidr’s name as related to his fertile
greening influence upon the desert. Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.23.614
269
proceeded to challenge Khidr to be and act as he does, unattached to the world to such
an extent that he would reject the world even if that rejection itself caused him to end
in the punishments o f hell.116 We are not explicitly told that the saint’s accusation
against Khidr is valid. But this tale is nonetheless distinctive for its presentation o f a
saint who so explicitly challenges Khidr’s actions and motives. This narrative may
possibly be meant to teach the superiority o f a mortal living Pir over ones o f
ambiguous supernatural or immortal status such as Khidr and Uways.117 As a contrary
example, it is nonetheless significant, since it underscores a sincere creative tension in
the articulation o f the role o f Khidr as model o f the Pir, in that the model is o f such
power that it elicits suspicion o f danger and evokes responses o f challenge. The
tension in this tale potentially relates to the distinction, parallel to the narrative in the
Qur’an, o f Khidr’s apparently questionable behavior on the surface (zahir) and his
essentially excellent intentions and actions at a fundamental or inner (batin) dimension.
The second story o f Khidr refers in passing to the two prayers o f Khidr and
continues the themes o f Khidr’s status and the question o f seeking good in the world.
Also in this story, Khidr is presented in more than one light. During one o f the nights
o f Ramadan, Shaykh Qutb ad-Din Bakhtiyar performed both the two raka ’at prayer
116 Nizam ad-Din Awliya, ibid., pp. 175-6.
117 Some thematic similarities appear between this story and an apocryphal narrative about a
meeting between Baha ud-Din Naqshband which is recounted in Arthur F. Buehler, Charisma and
Exemplar, p. 90, which Buehler presents as a narrative intended to privilege the living (mortal) Pir over
Uways, and in a sense Khidr. H ow ever in the Baha ud-Din Naqshband narrative, his Pir, Amir Kulal,
270
o fK h id ran d th e musabba'at a l-‘ashr, seeking to meet Khidr. After waiting, he began
to leave in disappointment, when a man conversed with him and asked what a man like
him would want o f Khidr, especially since Khidr is a “mere vagabond.” In light o f the
shaykh’s intention to see Khidr, the man specifically asked whether the shaykh was
seeking worldly gain or needed to repay a debt. A t that moment a luminous stranger
(Khidr) appeared and the man fell at his feet. Rising and respectfully retreating he tells
Khidr, “This dervish, does not seek to repay a debt nor to make a worldly gain. He
simply wants to meet you.” Immediately the adhan is called and “dervishes and
Sufis” appear from all directions. Assembling, they proclaim the takbir and perform
tarawih prayers. The following day between dawn and daybreak the shaykh returns to
the mosque but no one appears.118
In the foregoing tale we are treated to bivalent visions o f Khidr. Khidr on the
one hand is a “vagabond,” to be sought only by those seeking relief from debt or
worldly gain. Furthermore, the shaykh, who sincerely seeks Khidr purely for the
purpose o f meeting him receives a vision, and engages in no direct encounter with the
immortal sage. On the other hand, Khidr is luminous, commands the respect (enacted
in prostration) o f the man in the mosque, and appears if he were a ray o f light
immediately before the assembling o f the congregation o f dervishes and Sufis for
who followed Ghujduvani, praises Khidr in these terms: “The nisbat o f the Khwajagan is from four
people, the first o f which is Khidr.” (op. cit. P. 90).
118 Nizam ad-Din Awliya, ibid., pp. 222-223.
271
tarawih prayers— as if Khidr dematerialized into the stream o f worshippers. Such a
story-telling technique would seem to be built on the distinction, parallel to the events
in the Qur’anic narrative, between the outer (zahir) aspect o f Khidr’s uniqueness as an
aggravating type o f peculiarity, and the inner (batin) dimension which requires a
subtlety o f vision to see the true nature o f Khidr’s being.
A remaining narrative shows Nizam ad-Din encouraging a servant who had four
marriageable daughters that a daughter is a “barrier against hell” and that fathers o f
daughters are blessed. Nizam ad-Din then refers to the incident in the story o f Khidr
and Moses in which Khidr kills the boy and explains, “[B]lessed Khizr, due to the
perfection o f his spiritual state, gave him a satisfactory explanation.” Nizam ad-Din
paraphrases the hadith that the son was replaced by a daughter whose seven sons were
each a “paragon o f saintliness.” In this story, unlike in preceding tales, Nizam ad-Din
here shows no ambivalence in praising to Khidr, above all for the “perfection o f his
spiritual state.”119
Sharafuddin Maneri (1263-1381)
In his letters, Sharafuddin Maneri identifies five degrees o f spiritual guidance, and the
“five supports” upon which rest the “qualifications and claims to rank o f a shaykh,”
1,9 Ibid., pp. 287-288.
272
extracted from the narrative o f Khidr and Moses, particularly from 18.65.120 The first
is the submission o f servanthood and freedom from all that is not God. Second is the
capacity for direct and unmediated instruction, which requires going beyond the
“natural m an with all his disordered inclinations.” Third is a specially graced degree o f
submission. Fourth is the honor o f receiving divine knowledge from God without any
intermediary, in which the heart is wiped clean o f knowledge obtained by the intellect,
or by hearing, or by sense perception. The fifth stage is the conferring o f “infused
knowledge” which includes that o f the “divine essence.” 121 Here Maneri bases his
criteria for identifying a true and specifically appropriate shaykh from the example of
the narrative o f Khidr and Moses.
Maneri explains the distinctive “hidden knowledge” o f the saint as “ ‘infused
knowledge,’ a title derived from the story o f Moses and Khidr.” Again Maneri finds an
‘Occam’s razor’ explanation for the co-existence o f prophetic and saintly knowledge in
the story o f Moses and Khidr.
Maneri further underscores the role o f this narrative as a model for submission
to the authority o f the spiritual guide: “Let him consider the story o f Moses and
Khidr, so that he can understand what abandonment o f self-control entails; for if a
120 Sharafuddin Marieri, The Hundred Letters, Translated, Paul Jackson, (New York: Paulist
Press, 1980), Letter 6, p. 30.
121 Maneri, ibid., Letter 6, p. 30-31.
273
novice rejects the authority o f the guide, he becomes an apostate o f the Way. None o f
the guides o f the Way will be able to help such a person reach his destination.”122
Ahmad ibn Idris (d. 1253/1837) and ‘A bd al-'Aziz ibn M as'ud ad-Dabbagh (d.
1131/1719)
Ibn Idris is perhaps the best known shaykh within a lineage traced back to the
Maghribian order named for Khidr, the Khidriyya. Ibn Idris’ first initiation into Sufism
was by Abu’l-Mawahib ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Tazi and was an initiation into the tariqa
o f the Khidriyya. The Khidriyya was a silsila begun in 1125/1713 by ‘Abd al-’Aziz
ibn Mas’ud ad-Dabbagh (d. 1131/1719). Ibn Idris describes the importance o f Khidr to
his lineage and the exception al status o f this “shaykh o f shaykhs [and] universal sage” :
We took the Way from the succor o f the time and imams o f his age, the exalted
shaykh, our lord and master, ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Tazi, then al-Fasi, where he was bom
and grew up. He took it from the succor o f his time and imam o f his age, the Hasani
Sharif, our lord and master, sayyid ‘Abd al-’Aziz, known as al-Dabbagh (and ) al-
Fasi, where he was bom and grew up. He took it from the shaykh o f shaykhs, the
universal sage ( al-fard al-jam i’), sayyid Abu ‘I ‘Abbas Ahmad Khidr.123
Ad-Dabbagh’s disciple, Ahmad ibn M ubarak as-Sijilmasi (d. 1156/1743) describes the
meeting underneath a tree during which Khidr initiated ad-Dabbagh into a special litany
(wird) and recollection (dhikr):
122 Ibid., Letter 37, p. 143.
123 Ibn Idris from an undated letter to Muhammad ‘Uthman al-Mirghani in Majmu ‘jawabat,
ms. Khartoum, Miscellaneous 1/18/1294, p. 104, quoted in R.S. O ’Fahey, Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad
ibn Idirs and the Idrisi Tradition (Evanston: Northwestern University Press), p. 44.
274
I [ad-Dabbagh] remained in this perplexity from the age o f 21. In the course o f those
years I passed each Friday watch in the tomb o f Saint Sidi ‘Ali b. Hirzam and recited
the entire Burda (the poem o f the mantle) with his companions. One night after we
had recited the Bitrda as w e did customarily, I came out. And in front o f the gate o f
the cemetary, I saw a man sitting under a tree ( as-sidra al-muharrara). He addressed
me and revealed (yakashijuni) things o f m y inner heart. I understood that he was a
saint possessing the knowledge o f God Almighty ( ‘orif bi-llahi). I said to him, “O
my master, give me the litany ( wird) and teach me the recollection ( dhikr).” But he
avoided the conversation. I insisted, but he refused because his purpose was to test
the extent o f m y endurance so that I would not forget what he told me. We stayed
thus until dawn and the light appeared on the minaret. He told me, “I will give you
the w ird i f you give me the oath that you will not forget it.” I took the oath with
him. I believed that he would give me a wird such as those o f the shaykhs with
whom I had associated, but he said to me, “Repeat each day 7,000 times: ‘O my God
for the honor o f our master Muhammad b. ‘Abdallah, blessing and greeting ( sallut) o f
God be upon him, unite us, m e and our master Muhammad b. ‘Abdallah in this
world before the world beyond.’ “ Then we arose. Sidi ‘Umar b. M u h a m m a d al-
Huwari, the administrator o f the tomb joined us and the man [Khidr] said to him,
“Take care o f him.” “He [ad-Dabbagh] is my master, O my master,” Sidi ‘Umar
responded. Much later, he [Sidi ‘Umar] returned and asked me, “Do-you know who
taught you the dhikr by the tree.” As I did not know he answered it is our master
Khidr, peace be upon him.” It was not until that moment o f revelation that I
understood the remark o f Sidi ‘Umar.124
Atlagh suggests that the relationship between ad-Dabbagh and Khidr was ongoing:
“This period o f apprenticeship began in 1121 with the meeting with al-Khidr.”125 Sidi
‘Umar, the eyewitness in the episode quoted above, announced on his deathbed that
ad-Dabbagh had been initiated by Khidr.126
After the death o f his shaykh AbuT-Qasim al-Wazir, Ibn Idris met with the
Prophet and Khidr and received instruction in the Shadhili dhikr:
124 Ahmad ibn Mubarak as-Sigilmasi (d. 1156/1743), Al-Ibriz min Kalam 'A bdal-’Aziz,
quoted in Ridha Atlagh, “Topologie d’une Hagiographie al-Ibriz min Kalam ‘A b d a l-’Aziz: Etude
thematique des propos et des idees du Sayh ‘Abd al-’A ziz ad-Dabbagh (m. 1131/1719) (Unpublished
paper).
125 Atlagh, p. 16.
126 Atlagh, p. 18.
275
... I met after his death [i.e., o f Abu’I-Qasim al-Wazir], may the mercy o f God be
upon him, with the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, together with
Khidr, upon whom be peace, in order that he should teach m e the dhikrs o f the above-
mentioned Shadhiliyya order, and I learnt them in his presence.127
The text continues with the details that the Prophet recited the dhikr to Khidr who
taught them to Ibn Idris, who in turn repeated them back before both the Prophet and
Khidr.128 Ibn Idris’ student Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Sanusi (1202-76/1787-1859)
explains that through the involvement o f Khidr Ibn Idris emerges as a ‘fourth
generation’ inheritor o f the lineage. In this sense as-Sanusi proposes that both ad-
Dabbagh and Ibn Idris are akin to the successors (tabi’im) to the Prophet owing to
their transmissions from Khidr:
This is among the most exalted o f the short sanads because Khidr, on whom be
peace, met the Prophet, may G od bless him and grant him peace, during his lifetime
in the same way that all the Companions took from the Prophet. Likewise sayyid
‘Abd al-’A ziz (ad-Dabbagh) took from the Prophet in the same way as all the
successors ( al-tab 'iyyun, successors to the Companions) took on the authority o f the
Companions who were the contemporaries o f the Prophet, may God bless and grant
him peace and so on. Thus the intermediaries between us and the Prophet, may God
bless and grant him peace are four.129
These examples show the role o f Khidr in the emergence o f the Idrisiyya and in some
o f its rhetoric o f legitimation. Ibn Idris and Ibn ad-Dabbagh, both teachers in a lineage
127 Ibn Idris, Kunuz al-jawahir, quoted in R.S. O’Fahey, Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad ibn Idris
and the Idrisiyya Tradition (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1990), p. 48.
128 R.S. O ’Fahey, Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad ibn Idris and the Idrisiyya Tradition (Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1990), p. 48.
129 Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Sanusi, al-Manhal al-rawiy in al-Majmu ‘a al-mukhtara, 49 and
61, quoted in O ’Fahey (1990), p. 108.
ne
known as the Khidriyya asserted the quality and directness o f their spiritual
inheritance by attesting to encounters with Khidr.
Baba Rexheb: Dialogue and Metalogue
In a recent socio-linguistic study o f the teaching relationship between an
Albanian Bektashi Murshid and his American disciple, socio-linguist Frances Trix,130
the story o f Khidr and Moses works on two levels: at one level, the book profiles a
specific teaching encounter between Baba Rexhab and Frances Trix in which the
content of his teaching is the narrative o f Moses and Khidr; on a second level, the
application and context o f the teaching event itself is framed by the story o f Khidr as a
meta-discourse guiding their dialogue.
Trix describes the workings o f two socio-linguistic processes in her 75-minute
sohbet (spiritual conversation) with her Shaykh Baba Rexhab. Trix identifies the
processes of “attunement,” (a concept applied from John Dewey) in which socio-
linguistic boundaries are harmonized, and the process o f “appropriation,” ( a concept
adapted from Paul Ricoeur) in which cultural distance and historical alienation are
bridged, to achieve what Gadamer calls a “fusion o f horizons.” Trix describes how
these processes at work in the dialogue with her shaykh are informed by the narrative
o f Khidr and Moses.
130 Frances Trix, Spiritual Discourse. Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
277
Concerning the content o f the story, Trix examines the way her Baba applies
the contents o f the narrative o f Khidr and Moses to illuminate the method and adab o f
the immediate teaching situation and the specific relationship o f spiritual guidance
which Trix and Baba share, and to discuss issues o f spiritual guidance and submission
to the shaykh.
An important contribution o f this study is also the presentation o f a significant
alternative episode. Trix reports that Baba Rexhab customarily and intentionally omits
the second spisode o f the slaying o f the youth and substitutes for it an alternative
story which deeply underscores dimensions o f the murshid-murid relationship.131 In
this episode, Khidr instructs Moses to walk across a river, on the very surface o f the
water, repeating the words “Ya Pir Haqq” (“My true guide.”) Khidr leads Moses
across, with Moses repeating this phrase and Khidr calling out the divine name Allah.
A t some point in this crossing, Moses discerns that it is incorrect for him to call upon
his Pir in lieu o f calling upon Allah, and so switches to conform to the practice of
calling on the name o f Allah, as Khidr has been doing. At that very moment, Moses
begins to sink under the surface o f the water. By identifying the adab o f the murshid-
m urid relationship in the lives o f Khidr and Moses, this narration attempts to
legitimate the practice o f focusing on the shaykh as the point of orientation to God.
Validation for the murshid-murid relationship is taken from Moses’s relationship o f
companionship with Khidr.
131 Ibid., pp. 100, 122.

278
Conclusion: Khidr as Living Qibla and Model o f Spiritual Masters
In gathering these hagiographical episodes about Khidr, we see the ultimate implication
o f the motif “where two seas meet.” The figure o f Khidr provides a point o f direct
transmission o f the knowledge and presence o f God. Khidr stands between the
temporal world o f human experience and the eternal world o f divine majesty, grace, and
truth with all its force o f paradox. Where questions o f authority are raised, where
chains o f transmission falter, where certainty o f connection is unclear, Khidr arrives as
the symbol, proof, and presence o f divine transmission, continuing revelation, and
theophanic witness in human form. Khidr stands at the horizon o f that potentiality
intimated in Adam and Joseph and the succession o f Sufi masters: that certain gifted
persons function as a human qibla, the point o f orientation and direction by which one
knows and fulfills the summation and essence o f the spiritual path. This acceptance of
the master as qibla is expressed in a story about Muhammad ‘Uthman (d. 1314/1896)
seeking to go into the service o f the shaykh Dost Muhammad. At first Dost
Muhammad refused his request for initiation. In his reply (which turned Dost
Muhammad’s heart to initiate him), Muhammad ‘Uthman addressed Dost Muhammad
as his “Qibla:”
279
O Qibla, I have become absolutely ready for this work. [Although] I have tolerated
being connected with everything, now I have turned a cold shoulder to it and have
irrevocably divoiced m yself from everything that I have loved.132
This sense o f Khidr as the qibla is implicit in Rumi’s story o f Bayazid who seeking
the “Khidr o f his time,” found a dervish who declared himself to Bayazid as the “Ka
‘ba o f sincerity,” a human Ka’ba around whom Bayazid circled seven times. Since the
qibla is a point o f orientation to the Ka‘aba, Rumi’s trope o f the “Khidr o f one’s time”
as a human K a'aba includes and surpasses the sense o f Khidr as a human qibla. In
Rumi’s Mathnawi Bayazid finds that the Khidr o f his time is a living K acaba:
Bayazid on his journey (to the Ka’ba) sought much to find some one that was
the Khizr o f his time.
He espied and old man with stature (bent) like the new moon; he saw in him majesty
and Oofty) speech o f (holy) men;
His eyes sightless and his heart (illumined) as the sun; like an elephant dreaming o f
Hindustan133
He said, “Make a circuit around me seven times, and reckon this (to be) better than the
circumambulation ( o f the Ka‘ba) in the pilgrimage.
Albeit the Ka‘ba is the House o f His religious service, my form too, in which I was
created, is the H ouse o f His innermost consciousness.
Never since God made the Ka’ba hath He gone into it, and none but the Living (God)
hath ever gone into this House (o f mine).
When thou hast seen m e thou hast seen God: thou hast circled round the Ka’ba o f
Sincerity.
To serve me is to obey and glorify God: beware thou think not that God is separate
from me.
Open thine eyes well and look on me, that thou masyest behold the light o f God in man.” 134
132 Muhammad Isma’il, Mawahib rahmaniyyaJifawa’id wa fuyudat hadarat thalatha

damaniyya: kamalat-i uthmaniyya (Lahore: Urdu Art Printers, 1986), 37-38 quoted in Arthur Beuhler,
Sufi Heirs o f the Prophet: the Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise o f the Mediating Shaykh (Columbia,
SC: University o f South Carolina Press, 1998), 154-155.
133 Rumi, Mathnawi H: 2231-33.

280
In this sense, Khidr’s position at the place “where two seas meet,” his role as the
conveyor to Moses o f inner knowledge and divine mercy, and his being the object o f
Moses’ divinely-commanded quest, make o f Khidr a human qibla, the focal point o f
the fulfillment o f the spiritual life.
It is this sense o f Khidr standing “where two seas m eef ’ —serving as a living
qibla in that in-between space -- that grants a vivid metaphor to the role o f the shaykh
as the bearer o f spiritual blessing, the summation o f the prophetic sunna in action, and
the possessor o f inner knowledge and grace. The story o f Khidr and Moses explains
the spiritual master’s role and guidance as the point o f engagement with God and the
Prophetic sunna. This story raises the question: without the guidance o f the teacher,
how can anyone know and live the spiritual path? This was the point that ‘Ayn al-
Qudat al-Hamadhani (1098-1131) stressed:
A sound tradition [a hadith o f the Prophet] informs us that God’s Messenger (God bless
him) said, “Whoever dies without an imam dies the death o f a pagan.” Abu Yazid al-
Bistami said, “If a man has no master, his imam is Satan” ‘Amr b. Sinan al-Manjibi,
one o f the great Sufi shaykhs, said, “A man who has not been to school with a master,
such a man is an imposter.” The Sufi expositors o f the true reality are unanimous in
declaing that he who has no shaykh is without religion.”1'’5
134 Ibid., n : 2240, 2245-49.
135 ‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamdhani, ‘Complaint o f a Stranger Exiled from Home,” trans. A.J.
Arberry, in Arberry, A Sufi Martyr: the Apologia o f ‘A yn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani. London: George
A llen and Unwin , Ltd. 1969, p. 33.
281
Further, in the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr, a hermeneutic o f truth is explored
and a resolution o f the question o f theodicy is attempted: without knowing the
comprehensive context o f the truth o f events, how can one be qualified to judge
whether, or how, divine compassion is being expressed?
In the eyes o f the Sufi mufassirun, these qualifications for complete
understanding result only from directly-bestowed divine knowledge. The Quranic
story o f Khidr and Moses presents such knowledge under the terms “directly-
disclosed divine knowledge” ( ‘ilm ladunni) and “true meaning” (ta ’wil). It is such
knowledge which Sufi commentators have recognized in the story o f Moses’ journey
with Khidr as reflecting their own mystical experience. These commentators have
elaborated the sense o f this knowledge under the terms “directly-disclosed divine
knowledge” ( ‘ilm ladunni), “unveiled discovery” (kashj), “divine decree” (hukm),
“divine inspiration” (ilham), and “witnessing” (mushahada). Further, the Sufi
commentators have affirmed the role o f the spiritual guide (murshid) in training the
disciple to receive this knowledge, through the right relationship (adab) and mentoring
companionship (suhba) with the grude or master.
282
C hapter Six
C o n c l u s io n :
M o s e s ’ J o u r n e y w it h K h id r —
I n n e r K n o w l e d g e a n d M a n if e s t P r a c t ic e
in M e n t o r in g R e l a t io n s h ip s
Recently a scholarly conference panel described the activity o f Sufi exegetes as “taking
the Qur’an to heart.”1 The Sufi hermeneutic o f “taking the Qur’an to heart,” requires
that one internalize, incorporate, and practice what the Qur’an teaches. If as the
conference panel’s title implies, “taking the Qur’an to heart” describes Sufi
hermeneutics, then this calls an exegete to be open to being taught. This in turn raises
to the question of what the Qur’an teaches about teaching and teachers. As we have
seen in this work, one place where the Qur’an addresses the phenomena o f teaching
and teachers is in the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr. The Sufi commentators
interpret that journey as a journey of moral training (safar al-ta ’dib). The mentoring
companionship (suhba) o f that journey shared by Khidr and Moses serves as the lens
through which Sufi commentators recognize and interpret the master-disciple
(murshid-murid) relationship.
In this work we have examined interpretations of Moses’ journey with Khidr
and focused especially on interpretations o f Khidr as a teacher, guide, or mentor to
Moses. We have followed the development o f this thread from the Qur’an and hadith
283
to the classical tafsir o f al-Tabari and three Sufi commentaries o f al-Qushayri (d. 1072),
Ruzbihan Baqli (d. 1209), and al-Qashani (d. 1329). How has mentoring
companionship (suhba) as a theme been traced and interpreted across these genres?
Does the Quranic Story Imply a Mentoring Relationship?
Is it valid to assert that the story o f Moses’ journey o f moral training with
Khidr expresses a Quranic perspective on teaching and teachers? On one level the
story seems to involve a teaching relationship. Semantic clues within the story suggest
that it does involve such a relationship. First, God has “taught” inner knowledge ( ‘ilm
ladunni) to Khidr ( ‘allamanahu min laduna ‘ilma [18.65]). Moses then asks to be
“taught” (tu ‘allimani) the guidance (rushd) which Khidr allegedly has been “taught”
( ‘ullimta). (18.66) In response to M oses’ request that Khidr “teach” him, Khidr offers
to Moses that Moses may “follow” (ittaba ‘tani) him. These motifs, and the
arrangement and agreement between Khidr and Moses which they imply are
suggestive. Such contextual clues o f Khidr’s acts and statements, suggest that Khidr
and Moses are engaged in a teaching relationship. In addition to this dialogue on
teaching, the keynote term suhba (mentoring companionship) is suggested by its use in
M oses’ second excuse when he says, “I f I ask anything...do not keep companionship
with me Qusahibni)” (18.76) But is this evidence sufficient for drawing and
1 "Taking the Qur'an to H eart Sufi Interpretations of the Qur'an," Panel at the American
Academy o f Religion Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, November 18,2000.
284
establishing the conclusion that the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr deals with or
can be applied to teaching relationships?
What Issues Engage the Hadith Collectors and al-Tabari in His Tafsir?
In the hadith and in the classical tafsir o f al-Tabari, Jami ‘a al-bayan ‘an ay
ta ’wil al-Qur ’an, Khidr’s status is given as a learned person or sage ( ‘alirri). But the
nature o f the relationship between Moses and Khidr is not explored. Instead, the
hadith and received commentary (tafsir bi ‘l-ma ’thur) are primarily devoted to the
narratological and prophetological implications and dimensions o f the story. The
hadith only suggest a teaching relationship in their discussions o f Moses’ conduct
(adab). Even though in the hadith the Prophet Muhammad reflects on Moses’ failure
to fulfill the terms o f his relationship with Khidr, the teaching context is either
assumed or ignored. In light o f the clearly identified motifs o f Moses’ request to be
taught and K hidr’s assent to let M oses follow, the absence o f explicit discussion o f
teaching is striking.
One important point established in the hadith is that Moses’ journey with
Khidr occurred after Moses had received the Torah. This implies that Moses’
knowledge and his decisions are at least potentially informed by the Torah.
Consequently this establishes the narrative’s protagonists as symbolizing a
complementary pair o f epistemological and authoritative modes. Ultimately the Sufis
285
designate this pair as prophethood (nubuwwa) and sainthood (wilaya). The story o f
Moses’ journey with Khidr explicitly compares prophecy and scripture on the one
hand with directly-disclosed inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni) and the “hermeneutics of
origins” (ta ’wit), on the other. This pair also suggests an encoding o f the relationship
between orality and literacy in the transmission o f knowledge and the development of
culture. It is the question o f the transmission from Khidr to Moses that is left
unexplored in the hadith.
Why would the hadith and received commentaries ignore or downplay this
aspect o f the story as involving teaching and spiritual guidance? Obviously, Moses’
special status as a Prophet sets up a barrier to the use o f Moses as a model for an
ordinary disciple. In the hadith, Moses’ vow to journey for ages provides an
exemplary precedent for the scholar’s journey (rihla) for the collection o f hadith
accounts.2 So here Moses emerges as a seeker o f knowledge, but this quest is not
emphasized within the context o f a teaching relationship. Is the scholarly pursuit of
hadith reports, even though a devotional enterprise, an activity that shares the
intimacy and intensity o f the type o f master-disciple relationship which the Sufi
commentators ascribe to Khidr and Moses?
The hadith collections’ provide a catalogue o f narrative embellishments, and
varied ethical applications. Among this material, a number o f points potentially related
to mentoring relationships also emerge. We shall review these here. Bukhari takes the
286
story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr as a precedent for seeking knowledge with
diligence and humility.3 Moses’ journey teaches the importance o f persevering in
gaining knowledge and remembering that all knowledge belongs to God. But the hadith
collections do not suggest the possibility that such journeying might entail the
companionship with, and training under a teacher. For this perspective, we will have to
wait for the Sufi tafsirs. One motif given in the hadith is that Khidr is covered in a
garment (musaja ’ bi-thawb). This m otif o f the garment ('thawb) is adopted in Sufi
hagiography as the mantle o f initiation (khirqa). This is especially so in the case o f Ibn
‘Arabi, who considered the garment o f Khidr (Jchirqa) to be mentoring companionship
(suhba) itself.4 The hadith reports only begin to sort out the question o f how the
complementary modes o f knowledge o f Moses and Khidr co-exist. When Moses
approaches Khidr seeking to be taught, Khidr explains:
O M oses, I have some o f the knowledge from the knowledge o f Allah which Allah
has taught me and not you; and you have som e o f the knowledge o f Allah which he
has taught you and not me.”5
The Prophet Muhammad, as recorded in the hadith, reflects on the pattern o f Moses’
answers and excuses: Moses first gives the excuse o f forgetfulness, then promises to
Khidr the right to desert him, and finally intentionally asks for and causes his own
2 Muhammad ibn Isma'il b. al-Mughirah al-Bukhari (194-256), Sahih Bukhari, Volume I, Book 3,
Chapter 20, Number 78. Ed. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Medina: Islamic University, 1976).
3 ibid., 1.3.17. 74; 1.3.20. 78.
4 See Claude Addas, Questfar the Red Sulphur, (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993), pp. 143,
145; William Chittick, The Self Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn ‘Arabi's Cosmology (Albany: S.U.N.Y.,
1998), p. 395, n. 20.
287
condition o f separation from Khidr.6 But the Prophet Muhammad does not situate his
observations on M oses’ pattern o f answers in the context o f a mentoring relationship.
It is the Sufi commentators who recognize their own ideals o f the relationship o f
training and guidance as reflected in the story.
In the hadith, the Prophet Muhammad identifies M oses’ shortcomings, as
reflected in his inappropriate answers, as an issue of short, the legal limits,
stipulations, or conditions o f responsibility. But the context here is one o f oaths, not
teaching. As narrated by the Prophet’s wife ‘Aisha’, M oses’ request not to be called
to account for what he forgot (18.73) is legitimated by the Quranic principle that
“Allah will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths.7 Al-
Qushayri and Ruzbihan apply the Prophet’s observations about the pattern o f M oses’
answers and M oses’ fault in issuing stipulations to the right conduct o f a mentoring
relationship.8 We shall discuss this below when we review the Sufi tafsirs.
One o f the most significant points in the hadith reports concerning Moses’
journey with Khidr is the Prophet Muhammad’s summary evaluation o f Moses’
performance: “W e would have wished that Moses had been more patient; then Allah
5 ibid., IV. 55.23. 613.

6 Ibid., m . 50.12.888.
7 Sahih Bukhari 8. 78. N o. 656. This hadith correlates Moses' excuse (18.73) with Qur'an 2.225
quoted here.
8 Abu'l-Qasim al-Qushayri, Lata'if al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim Basyuni (6 vols.; Cairo: Dar al-Kutub
al-'Arabi, 1968-71). Vol. 2, p. 410-411.
288
would have narrated more o f their story.”9 As we see from the Prophet’s remarks
M oses’ failure to adequately respect and obey Khidr was a problem o f patience
(sabr), a term used seven times in the Quranic narrative. While the Prophet
Muhammad did not articulate the context o f suhba as the mentoring companionship
meant by the Sufi exegetes, his observations presage the particular evaluation o f the
implications o f the story presented by the Sufi commentators.
In his tafsir, al-Tabari primarily addresses grammatical, semantic, historical, and
narratological concerns which parallel and complement earlier hadith reports. In one
citation, al-Tabari paraphrases Khidr’s speech to suggest his teaching relationship with
Moses: “Certainly I have taught you and the work that I do is in the realm o f the
unseen which you cannot encompass.”10 Al-Tabari identifies Khidr’s knowledge as
knowledge o f the unseen ( ‘ilm al-ghayb), and an inner [aspect of] knowledge (bi-batin
al- ‘ilm). These terms suggest a potential for al-Tabari’s interpretations to offer insights
into Khidr’s role as a teacher, without explicitly examining the question o f a teaching
relationship between Moses and Khidr.
Al-Tabari concludes by presenting the story as a lesson about God’s deferral of
punishment o f disobedient societies. However this is lesson can only be gleaned by the
saints (awliya ). By claiming this, al-Tabari has at least implicitly established what we
might call a “hermeneutics o f the saints.” Al-Tabari has thus indirectly described Khidr
9 Sahih Bukhari, I. 3.124; VI. 60. 249; VI. 60. 251.

10 Abuja 'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (224/5-310/839-923), Jami' al-bayan 'an ta'wil ay
al-Qur'an (30 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Alamin, 1992), vol. 15, p. 256, no. 23214.
289
as a saint and suggested one particular aspect o f his knowledge which has political
implications. By suggesting that only saints can understand God’s deferral of
punishment, al-Tabari has suggested a dimension o f the saint’s hermeneutical capacity
which might rival or surpass that o f a prophet.
This “hermeneutics o f the saints” would implicitly correspond to the
“hermeneutics o f origins” (ta 'wil) which is described explicitly within the story o f
Moses’ journey with Khidr. Al-Tabari alludes to a “hermeneutics of the saints” as a
mode o f understanding the postponement o f punishment. Similarly, the “hermeneutics
o f origins” elucidates the relationship between actions and their consequences.11 As a
hermeneutics which explains the causes, nature, and timing o f punishment
(consequences) al-Tabari’s “hermeneutics o f the saints” corresponds to Sufi
commentator’s definitions o f the “hermeneutics o f origins” (ta ’wil).
These interpretations in hadith and tafsir only approach the question o f
teaching relationships to the extent that they discuss the different levels o f knowledge
with which Khidr and Moses complement each other, the theme o f Khidr as a learned
person or sage, and the points o f right conduct in their relationship. But hadith and
tafsir based on received reports (tafsir bi ’l-ma ’thur) do not explore and exploit the
teaching motifs and context to allow the story to provide a basis for understanding the
nature and correct practice of a teaching relationship (suhba).
u On the concept of ta'zvil in Sufi commentaries see, Paul Nwiya, Exegese Coranique et Langage
Mystique. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1970), pp. 59-60.
290
How D id Sufi Commentaries Introduce a Teaching Context?
What are the main insights into the master disciple relationship which the Sufi
exegetes have recognized in the story o f M oses’ journey with Khidr? And what other
topics have they recognized as conveyed in this narrative?
The Sufi tafsirs examine the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr to explicitly
develop the themes o f comportment and the right conduct (adab) o f a master-disciple
relationship (suhba). Sufi exegetes engage in a “hermeneutic o f recognition” in which
the Q ur’an, in addition to being a light which illuminates the exegetes’ mystical
experience, also serves as a mirror which reflects the exegetes’ own mystical knowledge
and experience. Their insights into interpretation join “the horizons” o f the Qur’an’s
text with “the signs within themselves.” 12 This is the exegetical process which
Bowering has described as keynotes resonating in a matrix o f Quranic discourse.13 In
the sense in which I descri be this process as a “hermeneutic o f recognition,” the term
“recognition” invokes Plato’s sense o f archetypal knowledge as a form of memory.14
Such innate and primordial exegesis is reflected in the concept o f din al-fitra, 15 the
inherent morality and knowledge narrated in the dialogue between God and humanity
12 Qur'an Surat al-Fussilat (41.53).

13 Gerhard Bowering, "The Qur'an Commentary o f al-SuIami," in Islamic Studies Presented to
Charles J. Adams, ed. Wael B. Hallaq and Donald P. Little (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), p. 51.
14 Plato, Meno, trans. W.K.C. Guthrie (London: Penguin Books, 1961), 115-157; e.g., "...there is
no such thing as teaching, only recollection." (82A, p. 130).
15 The locus classicus for this concept is Qur'an Sura Rum (30. 30).
291
in which God asked the descendents o f Adam, “Am I not your Lord,” to which the
progeny o f Adam answered, “Yes.” 16 The Sufi exegetes’ “hermeneutic o f recognition”
relies on God-given knowledge and Quranically-inspired experience to provide a
professedly objective foundation for interpretation. In this sense the Sufi exegetes
consider themselves free o f the wiles o f interpretation based on personal opinion
(tafsir bi ‘l-ra ’y ), which is considered a sin: “Whoever interprets the Qur’an through
his personal opinion (ra ’y ), has taken his place in hell fire.” 17 Instead the Sufi exegetes
understand themselves as “people o f understanding,” or “possessors o f the inner
heart” (ulu’ al-albab) “rooted [in knowledge] (rasikhun):”
But no one knows its [the Qur’an’s] true meaning (ta ’w/7)except Allah and those
who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in the Book, the whole
o f it is from our Lord,” and none grasp the message but men o f understanding. 18
They are engaged in an unveiled discovery (kashf) o f true meaning (ta ’wil). The term
ta ’wil appears as a key term in both this key Quranic text on interpretation (3.7) and
the story o f M oses’ journey with Khidr. One implication o f the meaning o f ta 'wil is
shown by the exegetical reply in this verse (3.7). The expression o f the qualified
16 Qur'an Surat al-A'raf (7. [172]). For a discussion o f the role of this verse as a basis for Sufi
exegesis, see Gerhard Bowering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Quranic
Hermeneutics of the Sufi Sahl al-Tustari (d. 283/896) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980, 148, 153, 155, 186,
193, 194, 195, 240.
17 Al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892) al-fami' al-sahih (Sunan al-Tirmidhi), vol. 5 ed. Ibrahim 'Itwah
'Awad (Cairo: Mustafa al-Bibi al-Halabi, 1395/1975); tafsir, bob 1, vol. 5, p. 199, cited in Alan Godlas,
"Psychology and Self-Transformation in the Sufi Qur'an Commentary of Ruzbihan al-Baqli, unpublished
paper.
18 Sura A1 Imran 3.7. This is the alternative reading of the verse which is otherwise punctuated
w ith a stop (waqfa lazim) equivalent to a period so that it reads: "...those who are firmly rooted [in
knowledge] say: 'We believe in the Book..."
292
exegetes’ understanding describes the origin or source o f the text as “...from our
Lord.” Another primary sense in their response includes their declaration that they
“believe in the Book.” This is also a statement o f origins, as it presents belief as the
foundation o f the hermeneutical relationship with the Book. These perspectives, taken
together with the use o f the word in the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr,
contributes to our expression o f ta ’wil as a “hermeneutics or origins.” The question
then remains: how is ta 'wil taught?
Following Abu Yazid al-Bistami (d. 874) and ‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadani (d.
1131), a long tradition attests to the essential importance o f relying on a teacher for
guidance and understanding in the fulfillment o f faith, submission, and virtue:
...I have spoken o f the need o f a neophyte for a spiritual instructor to conduct him on
the path o f truth and to guide him on the straight road, so that he may not stray from
the right way. A sound tradition [a hadith o f the Prophet] informs us that God’s
Messenger (God bless him) said, “Whoever dies without an imam dies the death o f a
pagan.” Abu Yazid al-Bistami said, “I f a man has no master, his imam is Satan.”
Amr b. Sinan al-Manjibi, one o f the great Sufi shaykhs said, “A man who has not
been to school with a master, such a man is an imposter.” The Sufi expositors o f the
true reality are unanimous in declaring that he who has no shaykh is without religion.
19
In recognition o f this fact, the Sufi commentators seize on the details o f the story o f
M oses’ journey with Khidr as a clear lesson o f the need for and the nature o f a master-
disciple relationship.
In the Sufi “hermeneutic o f recognition” Sufi commentators “recognize” the
relationship o f Khidr and Moses as a relationship between the spiritual guide and
293
disciple. Ruzbihan identifies Khidr’s station as the station o f unveiled discovery and
contemplative witness (maqam al-kashfw a ’l-mushahada) and Moses’ station as a
station o f moral cultivation and training {maqam al-ta ’dib).20 For al-Qashani, the
treasure which Khidr protects is a metaphor for Khidr’s gnosis which is only learned
in the station o f the heart (maqam al-qalb).21 It is only in the station o f the heart
(,maqam al-qalb) that one combines the apprehension o f universals and particulars, and
thus embodies and fulfills the work o f a mediator. This insight is al-Qashani’s
philosophical gloss on the phenomena o f Khidr’s discerning insight into the events o f
Moses’ life.22 It is an insight surpassing M oses’ knowledge. Ruzbihan, following leads
in the hadith, clearly articulates that Moses and Khidr each have authority in a
particular realm o f knowledge.23 While Moses manifests a superiority in knowing
God’s truth as eternal principles, Khidr surpasses him in discernment {firasa
[idiakresis]), or insight into the events o f M oses’ life.24 In other words, Khidr’s
particular gift is the ability to read hearts and understand how to administer spiritual
guidance or training through mentoring companionship {suhba).
19 'Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadharti, "Complaint o f a Stranger Exiled from Home," trans. A.J.
Arberry, in idem, A Sufi Martyr: the Apologia of 'Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani (London: George Allen and
Unwin, Ltd., 1969), 33.
20 Ruzbihan Baqli,'Ara'is al-bayan al-Haqa’iq al-Qur'an, 593. For commentary on this passage, see
chapter four, section IV.5.5.1.2.
21 Al-Qashani, Tafsir, p. 771.
22 ibid. For commentary on this passage, see chapter four, section XI.3.2.
23 Sahih Bukhari, IV. 55. 23. 613.
24 ibid., 592 (ad. 18.66).
294
In describing these qualities o f Khidr, Ruzbihan identifies Khidr as a “shaykh”
knowing Moses’ condition.25 But Ruzbihan also specifies that because Khidr is a saint
(wall), “it is not [his] role to impart insight (yatafarisu) to a prophet.”26 In addition to
defining the mercy (rahma) with which Khidr has been imbued by God as “sainthood
(wilaya), nearness, witnessing,”27 Ruzbihan’s explicit designation o f Khidr as a “saint”
(wali) also encapsulates Khidr’s virtues o f patience, his establishment in the station o f
unveiling and witnessing (maqam al-kashf wa ’l-mushahada), and his discernment o f
M oses’ condition All o f these characteristics contribute to the value o f the guidance
and training he gives to Moses. In Ruzbihan’s view, Khidr, like a saint or shaykh can
guide and train Moses, but not necessarily impart insight to him. This perspective also
helps address the question o f whether —or how much —Moses learned from Khidr in
his journey. Here Ruzbihan attests the particularity o f the situation between Khidr and
Moses as one that is not merely a model for other apparently similar relationships. At
the same time Ruzbihan uses the concepts o f saint and shaykh to explain the dynamics
o f Khidr’s relationship to Moses. The analogies work in a hermeneutical circle: at one
level the relationship between shaykh and murid explains the story o f Khidr and
Moses; at a second level, the story in turn explains the relationship between shaykh
and murid.
25 ibid., 592b (ad. 18.67a).

26 ibid., 593 (ad. 18.67a).
27 ibid., 591 (ad. 18.65b).
295
Al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan Baqli both emphasize right conduct (adab) and
mentoring companionship (suhba) as keys to understanding and applying the story of
M oses’ journey with Khidr. Al-Qushayri assesses discipleship (suhba) as based on
patience and obedience.28 Obedience is demanded by a higher order o f knowledge
embodied in Khidr’s acts. Khidr’s knowledge is direct ( ‘ilm ladunni), divinely inspired
(ilham), and unveiled discovery (kashf/mukashafa). It is a knowledge o f divine decree
(hukm) outside the limits o f exoteric knowledge ( ‘ilm). And Moses’ failure before
Khidr is one o f short al- ‘ilm: it was the limits o f Moses’ knowledge, and his acts o f
imposing stipulations based on that limited knowledge that lead to Khidr’s parting
w ith Moses. As Ruzbihan expresses it, it is the “duty o f discipleship” (haqq al-
mutabi ‘at) to remain silent during the spiritual activity (tasarruf) o f the teacher.
For the seeker to acquire direct knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni) under the auspices of
a teacher requires facing what I call the “paradox o f mediation.” The term “paradox of
mediation” describes al-Qushayri’s observation that Moses had asked to be taught
something that had not initially been transmitted by a human teacher. Can direct or
inner knowledge ( ‘ilm ladunni) be taught? For al-Qushayri, Ruzbihan, and al-Qashani,
Khidr’s knowledge cannot be learned by instruction (ta 7/m), but can only be imparted
through mentoring companionship (suhba) and the proper conduct (adab) o f that
relationship. Khidr’s training o f Moses involves action (tasarruf) and silence, more
than words and concepts. This simple observation that Khidr’s pedagogy is one of
28 ibid., 408 (ad. 18.69).

296
action and silence informs the interpretations o f al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan. Moses
acquires his knowledge by watching in silence and bearing with Khidr’s intolerable
actions. If there is a resolution o f the paradox o f mediation, it lies, according to al-
Qushayri in following the agreement o f patience and obedience which Khidr and
Moses established. Al-Qushayri identifies in Moses’ answer, “You will find me
patient, God willing, and I will not disobey you in any affair,” (18.69) three keys: (1)
patience (sabr); (2) obedience (la a ‘siya; “I will not disobey.”); and (3) acknowledging
the essential role o f God’s will (in sh a ’Allah) in expressing and fulfilling one’s
intention to follow.29 As al-Qushayri concludes, Moses’ insistence on explanation was
incompatible with the need to wait for unveiled discovery (kashj). Since Moses’
process of learning is like a journey (safara al-ta ’dib, the journey o f moral training), no
description o f the map can substitute for the actual traveling.30
Ruzbihan identifies this dichotomy between spiritual training and conceptual
mediation or instruction when he critiques Moses’ questioning as a sign o f Moses’
insufficiencies. Questions, says Ruzbihan are appropriate to instruction (ta ‘lim), but
not to this training (ta ’dib). This terminology echoes the distinction which had emerged
by the 4th/! 1th century between two types o f masters in Sufism: the teaching master
29 al-Qushayri, ibid., 408 (ad. 18.69).

30 In assessing Moses' journey with Khidr as a metaphor for teaching, it w ill be helpful to
achieve a fuller and more realistic sense of the teaching act as indescribable. To do this I propose
borrowing insights from Kenneth Burke's theory o f rhetoric. Burke describes speech acts with a pentadic
model whose elements, while symbolic, are non-verbal and focused on action: (1) the scene; (2) the act; (3)
the agent; (4) the agency; (5) the purpose. This model identifies the essential non-verbal elements in the
encounter between Khidr and Moses. See Kenneth Burke, The Grammar of Motives (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1945), pp. xv-xxiii, et. al.
297
(shaykh al-ta ‘lim ) and the spiritual director (shaykh al-tarbiyya; shaykh al-ta ’dib) who
is also known, even more appropriately as the teaching companion (shaykh al-suhba).
Both al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan emphasize that by his act o f questioning and by the
content o f his questions as well, Moses had imposed stipulations based on the limits
o f his knowledge (short al- ‘ilm /shurut al- ‘ilm ). Khidr’s fluid process o f mystical
discovery (mukashafa) transcends these limits o f the ordinary requirements o f
knowledge.31 As al-Qushayri puts it, while Moses possessed knowledge ( ‘ilm) Khidr
knew wisdom’s decree (hukm). The first suggests a relatively fixed form; the second a
fluid process. This incongruity between Moses and Khidr necessitated the parting
between them.
Al-Qashani devotes comparatively less attention to the master-disciple
relationship. Khidr symbolizes the sacred intellect (al- ‘aql al-qudsi), the noetic faculty
(nous) which directly apprehends universals, and receives prophecy. The spiritual
companionship between Khidr and Moses serves as a metaphor for traveling the path
to perfection and establishing a contented soul (nafs al-mutma ’inna).32 Al-Qashani
exploits the narrative as an allegory o f the soul. Al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan identified
Khidr as the spiritual guide (murshid) and Moses as the aspirant (murid). Ruzbihan
opened his discussion by examining the aspects o f Moses’ psyche: his heart (qalb),
intellect ( ‘aql), and soul (nafs) failed to grasp the wisdoms o f the unseen (hikam al-
31 Al-Qushayri, ibid., 410; Ruzbihan, ibid., 593.

32 Al-Qashani, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim, p. 76.
298
ghayb) which are granted to the inner sense (sirr). Al-Qashani interprets Khidr,
Moses, and the youth as symbols o f an inner psychology. Khidr is the spirit (ruh);
Moses, the heart (qalb) and soul (,nafs); and the Moses’ young servant symbolizes the
soul (nafs) attached to the body (fism ).33
In his allegorization, al-Qashani develops the story’s motifs to outline the
stages o f the soul’s development in spiritual training (riyada). Al-Qashani links the
motifs o f the story to three levels o f the soul: the commanding soul (nafs al-ammara),
the blaming soul (nafs al-lawwam a), and the contented soul (nafs al-m utm a’inna). The
commanding soul (nafs al-ammara) is represented by the king seeking to overtake
boats. The elimination o f the commanding soul (nafs al-ammara) is symbolized by the
killing o f the youth. M oses’ two excuses, “Don’t blame me that I forgot...” (18.69)
and “If I ask you anything,” (18.76) represent his recognition o f his sin and are
utterances from his blaming soul (al-nafs al-lawwama). The rebuilding o f the wall
symbolizes the establishment o f the contented soul (al-nafs al-mutma ’inna) which
replaces the authority o f the commanding soul (al-nafs al-mutma ’inna). Thus the
goring o f the hull o f the boat and the slaying o f the youth represent clearing out the
inferior ego modes o f the commanding soul (al-nafs al-ammara) and blaming soul (al-
nafs al-lawwama) to allow the stronger wall-like soul o f contentment (al-nafs al-
mutma ’inna) to be raised. The solidity o f the wall represents quelling the stirrings in
the soul and will. The m otif o f the wall “on the verge o f destruction” points to the
33 ibid., 766.
299
soul’s weakness. For al-Qashani the wall and the companionship with Khidr represent
the establishment o f the soul o f contentment {al-nafs al-mutma ’inna).
Many other motifs receive al-Qashani’s allegorizing, but this thread o f
interpretation, ascribing the story’s events to the stations o f the soul’s development, is
linked across al-Qashani’s discussion. Further this allegory assumes, even though al-
Qashani does not specify this, that the tra in in g which produces the establishment o f
the contented soul is conducted under the auspices o f a guide or master. Al-Qashani
does explicitly identify the thread o f spiritual guidance in the story. In his exegesis o f
the verse, “If you would follow m e...do not ask anything o f me (18.70),” he describes
spiritual training in terms o f the master-disciple relationship as conducted through
emulation {iqtida 0, action, ethics, and efforts. These characteristics help distinguish
this relationship o f spiritual training {tarbiyya) from instruction {ta ‘lirri).
Elsewhere we have reflected on the use o f Moses as a measure o f Muhammad’s
mission.34 Moses’ difficult prophetic career serves as a comparison in relation to
Muhammad’s challenges in developing the Islamic community {umma). Moses was
challenged with personal shortcomings and circumstantial setbacks. Unlike
Muhammad, he asked to be granted more than he could receive (asking God to show
34 Hugh Talat Halman, " "We Have Found Muhammad, a Prophet like Moses...': How the
Hermeneutics of Genre Guide Comparisons between Muhammad and Moses in the Qur'an and Sira,"
(Master's Thesis, Duke University, 1993).
300
himself to him).35 Where Moses’ reach exceeds his grasp, Muhammad is described as
the one whose “sight did not overreach.”36 Like Muhammad, Moses faced dissension
from his community. The story o f M oses’ journey with Khidr extends some o f this
characterization o f Moses. His encounter with Khidr then may be read as one o f those
moments of Moses’ prophetic career which demonstrate his shortcomings. And the
Prophet Muhammad’s verdict on M oses’ failings supports this view o f Moses as an
exemplar of shortcomings: “We would have wished that Moses had been patient; then
Allah would have, narrated more o f their story.”37 The story o f M oses’ journey with
Khidr then further shows Moses’ rebelliousness, in this case against an exemplar of
God, one commissioned to teach M oses and directly imbued with the essential
qualities o f wisdom ( ‘ilm ladunni) and loving compassion (rahma) Moses in this
instance models the breach o f right conduct (adab). Moses’ breach o f proper conduct
allows the Sufi commentators to use his counter-example to affirm the importance o f
adab in the practice and fulfillment o f the teaching relationship.
The Sufi exegetes have found the richness of ambiguity o f the Quranic passages
which appear in the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr to be fertile ground for
developing a variety o f perspectives. The ambiguities open what Alan Godlas has
described as an “exegetical niche.” Following the model o f an “ecological niche,” an
35 Qur'an Surat al-'A'raf (7. [143]).

36 Qur'an Surat al-Najm (53.17).
37 Sahih Bukhari I. 3. 124; VI .60. 249; VI. 60. 251. See also Muslim, Al-Jami' us-Sahih Chapter
992, sec. 5864, trans. Abdul Hamid Siddiqui (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1973).
301
uninhabited pocket filled with latent energy which can accommodate life, an “exegetical
niche” is a semantic opening encouraging new exegesis to enter.38 The story o f Moses’
journey with Khidr is filled with the types o f ambiguities and tensions which invite
multiple readings. The story leaves open a number o f questions (1) Did Moses succeed
in learning Khidr’s level o f true meaning (ta ’wil)? Even the commentaries are silent on
this point: they either assume or ignore the question o f whether Khidr successfully
taught, or whether Moses successfully learned, the true interpretation (ta ’wil) which
Khidr offers to impart. We know that Khidr.announces he will tell Moses the true
meaning (ta ’wil), but does that mean that Moses grasped that true meaning? (2) To
what extent does this story serve to inform an Islamic theodicy? Folklorists are prone
to interpret the story as a theodicy tale, but what leads Muslim sources away from
perceiving this story as a resource for discussing theodicy? Do the special roles of the
protagonists (prophet and exceptional servant) outweigh the potential o f this story to
be adopted as a theodicy tale for ordinary mortals? One exception is al-Qushayri who
presents three implicit theodicies: (1) the boat was destroyed to protect its wholeness
(salaam) and for its preservation (baqa *); (2) the exchange o f the slain child with one
more pure and compassionate brings happiness (sa ‘add) to the parents; and (3) fixing
the wall protected the treasure and made it permanent (istibqa *) to allow its later
retrieval (tafrid). These interpretations are implicitly theodicies; however, al-Qushayri
38 Alan Godlas, "The Metaphysical Qur'aruc Hermeneutic and Esoteric Epistemology of

Ruzbihan al-Baqli," Conference Paper, American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting, Nashville,
Tennessee, November 18,2000.
302
neither emphasizes these exegetical implications, nor identifies the type o f
interpretation he is making. In fact, al-Qushayri explicitly frames these comments as
examples o f Khidr’s desire to leave in Moses’ heart no trace o f objection.
One o f the primary distinctions underlying the Sufi commentators’
interpretation is that o f the difference between moral tra in in g (ta ’dib) and instruction
(ta ‘lim). Al-Qushayri and Ruzbihan both emphasized that Moses’ mistake in asking
questions was in part his misunderstanding that Khidr’s teaching was not instruction
(for which asking questions would have been appropriate), but rather, moral training
(ta ’dib) which must be conveyed beyond verbal discourse and effort. As al-Qushayri
stipulated, three factors help to resolve the “paradox o f mediation,” the dilemma o f
human transmission o f what was received as a gift. These factors are patience,
obedience, and seeking God’s will. But these are pre-conditions and not causes: the
knowledge is beyond discursive inquiry or human effort. In this sense mentoring
companionship (suhba) describes the ambiguous and subtle quality o f this endeavor.
These points are implicit in the hagiographical accounts. In this literature,
Khidr models, encourages, and endorses the mentoring relationship. Typically he
summons those to whom he appears to pursue their relationship with their pre
existing living shaykh. He engages not so much in verbal instruction, but in
companionship and mentoring which reinvigorate an aspirant’s own path and
relationship with his shaykh. Khidr also serves to enhance the authority of mortal
303
masters. Where questions o f authority and transmission need resolution, Khidr
provides a deus ex machina, providing new authority or direct transmission from God
or the Prophet Muhammad. Often Khidr provides a necessary lesson, intervention, or
training in the spiritual development o f a master or disciple. Khidr thus becomes in
Sufi hagiography a trope o f authority, authorization, and direct transmission.
Both Ruzbihan and al-Qashani identified Moses with the heart. In the station
o f the heart (maqam al-qalb), those who persevere unearth the treasure o f gnosis. But
why would Moses make a suitable personification o f the qualities of the heart? It was
Moses who yearned and strove for the place “where two seas meet.” It was Moses’
heartfelt desire (irada) which made him a fitting disciple (murid), even as it was his
impatience which disqualified him and induced Khidr to part ways with him. In
returning to the place where Moses lost his fish, he found a mentor who challenged
both his hunger for justice and his alleged certainty. Limited to the perspectives o f his
heart and the stipulations o f knowledge (shurut al- ‘ilm), Moses could not perceive the
true meaning (ta ’wil) o f events before him.
Without guidance, Moses could not produce a “hermeneutic o f origins.” Such a
hermeneutic calls for seeing the source o f origin, the stages o f unfoldment, and the
resolution o f actions and their consequences. The “hermeneutics o f origins” appears
not as a conceptual procedure, but as a state o f being generated in part by patience
304
(sabr) and obedience. Moses’ inability to endure his teacher Khidr’s actions with
patience (sabr) interfered with his training (ta ’dib) under Khidr.
We began this dissertation with a story by Ibn ‘Arabi o f a visit from Khidr.
When Khidr appeared to Ibn ‘Arabi walking on the water, he “talked...in his own
language.” The role o f extra-linguistic factors in the “hermeneutics o f origins” suggest
why Khidr’s language is distinctive. It is as al-Qashani said the “language o f spiritual
states.” The “hermeneutics o f origins” (ta ’wil) requires a vital and existential
engagement with which the exegete returns with his whole being to “retrace his or her
steps” to a living source o f knowledge. In this sense Joseph’s interpretations o f
dreams, Khidr’s mentoring companionship (suhba), and the disciple’s engagement with
his or her guide (murshid), are related as knowledge expressed in the “language o f
spiritual states,” i.e., “in his [Khidr’s] own language.”
By “retracing the steps” which Moses took, Sufi commentators found their
own inner meanings, their own ‘lost fish,’ and ‘hidden treasure.’ The story o f Moses’
journey with Khidr allowed the Sufi commentators to explore the subtle and sensitive
questions o f the role o f mediators in Islamic spirituality. The Sufi commentators
recognized in the story o f Moses’ journey with Khidr the place “where two seas
meet:” Khidr’s ‘sea’ o f knowledge, beyond, but adjacent to, M oses’ sea of revelation
together describe the outer (zahir/shari ‘a) and inner (batin/tariqa) aspects o f the
spiritual life. As al-Qashani asserted, only in the station o f the heart (maqam al-qalb)
305
is gnosis acquired. Only in the “station o f the heart” does one apprehend both the
universal forms and the particular entities. The heart is the place “where two seas
meet.”
Seen collectively, al-Qushayri, Ruzbihan, and al-Qashani privilege the “inner”
(batiri) readings o f allegory and metaphor over “literal” or “obvious” (zahir) meanings.
It is not that they do not incorporate the literal dimension. Al-Qashani in particular
includes many explicit details that do not seem to contribute to allegorizing. But the
main focus o f the exegesis is on the soul’s work o f spiritual development. This
represents a defining characteristic o f Sufi tafsirs distinct from the methodology o f
commentaries based on received traditions (tafsir b i’l-ma ’thwr) exemplified by al-
Tabari’s Jam i ‘ al-bayan ‘a n ta ’w il ay al-Qur ’an. This “hermeneutics o f bating a
metaphorical and allegorical reading is meant to bring the meaning into one’s actions,
thoughts, and motives. It is a “hermeneutics o f origins” (ta ’wit) in that it summons the
reader to trace his or her steps back to a point o f inwardness and origin —the heart.
The Quranic story o f Khidr and Moses already suggests what Sufis assert: a
subtle level o f meaning lies buried like a treasure o f inheritance beneath the level of
explicit prophetic knowledge. Adopting and adapting the rich symbolic resources of
this narrative o f Moses’ journey with Khidr, the Sufi commentaries provide a map —or
at least some o f the landmarks —on the journey o f mentoring companionship or
spiritual guidance (suhba'). By applying the lessons o f this story one might then enter
306
into the paradox o f mediation, learn what eludes instruction, and so “take the Qur’an
to heart.” In this sense Rumi’s mentor, Shams-i Tabrizi took the story o f Moses’
journey with Khidr to heart:
Blessed is the one who finds such a ‘servant [from our servants]’ and who holds the
story o f Moses and Khidr in his heart, and makes it his Imam.”3
39 Shams- i Tabrizi, Maqalat. Edited by Muhammad 'Ali Muwahhid. (Tehran: Intisharat-i

Khawarazmi, 1990), p. 212-213. Unpublished translation by Omid Safi. I am grateful to Professor Safi for
sharing his work with me.
307
B iblio g ra ph y
cAbd al-Khaliq, ‘Abdur Rahman. Al-Khadir ‘A layhi l-Salam f i l-Fikr as-Sufi.

Kuwait, 1404/1984
‘Abdallah Yusuf ‘Ali, trans. The Meaning o f the Holy Q ur'an, new revised ed.
Brentwood, MA: Amana, 1991.
‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Sirr al-Asrar. Translated Tosun Bayrak, The Secret o f Secrets.
Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1992.
Abu Madyan Shu’ayb ibn al-Husayn al-Ansari, Bidayat al-M urid Translated by
Vincent J. Cornell, Basic Principles o f the Sufi Path in idem, ed. and trans., The
Way o f Abu Madyan: the Works o f Abu Madyan Shu 'ayb. Cambridge: Islamic
Texts Society, 1996.
Abu Talib Muhammad al-Makki (d. 996), Qut al-Qulub f i mu ‘am alat al-mahbub wa
w a sf tariq al-m urid ila maqam al-tawhid (Cairo: 1884-5)
Acharya, Francis. “The Guru: The Spiritual Father in the Hindu Tradition,” in Abba:
Guides to Wholeness and Holiness East and West. Ed. John R. Summerfeldt.
Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982.
Addas, Claude. The Questfo r the Red Sulphur: The Life o fIb n ‘A rabi. Cambridge:
Islamic Texts Society, 1993.
Al-Aflaki, Shams ud-Din Ahmad. Manaqib al- ‘Arafin. Translated, James W.

Redhouse, The Legends o f the Sufis. London: Theosophical Publishing House,
1881, rpt. 1977.
Ajmal, Muhammad. “Adab in the Murshid-Murid Relationship.” In Barbara Metcalf,

ed. M oral Conduct and Authority. Berkeley: University o f California Press,
1984.
Algar, Hamid. “Introduction,” in al-Qushayri, Principles o f Sufism. Translated by

Barbara von Schlegell Berkeley: Mizan, 1990.
308
Al-Alusi, al, Abu Fa.dl Shihab al-Din Mahmud (d.1270 AH; 1802-1853 C.YL) Ruh
al-M a ’a n ifi Tafsir al-Q ur 'an al- ’A zim wa al-sab ‘ a l -mathani (Beirut: Idarat
al-Tila‘at al-Muniriyah); D arlhya’ al-Turath al-’Arabi 1405/1985, vols. 15-
16.
Anderson, William. Green M an: the Archetypre o f Our Oneness with the Earth.
London and San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990.
A.J. Arberry. A Sufi Martyr: the Apologia o f Ayn al-Q udat al-Hamadhani. London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. 1969.
Arkoun, Mohammed. “Lecture de la Sourate 18,” in Lectures du Coran. Paris:

Editions G.-P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 1982: 69-86
Armstrong, Karen. A History o f God. New York: Ballentine Books, 1993.
Atlagh, Ridha. “Topologie d ’une Hagiographie al-Ibriz min Kalam A b d al- ’A ziz:
Etude thematique des propos et des idees du Sayh A b d al- 'Aziz ad-Dabbagh
(m. 1131/1719) (Ph.D. Diss., Sorbonne University).
‘Attar, Farid ad-Din. Tadhkirat al-Awliya ’ Translated, A. J. Arberry, M emorial o f the

Saints. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.
Augustinovic, A. “E lK hadr" and the Prophet Elijah. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing

Press, 1972.
Austin, R.W.J. The Sufis o f Andalusia. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1971.
Mahmud Ayoub, The Q ur’an and Its Interpreters 2 vols. Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1992,
1995.
’Azafi, Abu ’Abbas. D i ’amat al-Y aqinfi Z i ’amat al-M uttaqin: Manaqab al-Shaikh Abi
Ya 'azza. (The Buttress o f Certainty in the Leadership o f the God-Conscious)
n.p. Ahmad Tawfiq, n.d., s.v. al-Khidr, pp. 8 Iff.
Baldick, Julian. Imaginary M uslims: the ‘Uwaysis o f Central Asia. New York:
New York University Press, 1993.
Barks, Coleman, trans., The Essential Rumi. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,

1995.
309
Bates, Oric. Eastern Lybians. London: Macmillan, 1914.
Battye, Nicholas. “Khidr in the Opus o f Jung: the Teaching o f Surrender.” in Jung and
the M onotheisms: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. London: Routledge, 1994,
p p .166-191.
Bayrak, Tosun. “Introduction,” to ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Sirr al-Asrar, translated by

idem, as The Secret o f Secrets. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1992.
Beckson Karl, and Arthur Ganz, L'.iterary Terms: a Dictionary. New York: Noonday
Press, 1989.
The Bhagavad Gita: K rishna’s Counsel in Time o f War. Translated by Barbara Stoler
Miller, N ew York: Bantam Books, 1986.
Boratov, P.N. “Khadir-Ilyas.” la Encyclopedia o f Islam. H.A.R. Gibb, et. al. eds.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960.
Bowering, Gerhard. “Adab Literature o f Classical Sufism: Ansari’s Code o f Conduct.”

in Barbara Metcalf, ed. Moral Conduct and Authority. Berkeley: University o f
California Press, 1984.
_______ The M ystical Vision o f Existence in Classical Islam: the Q ur’anic

Hermeneutics o f Sufi Sahl al-Tustari (d. 283/896). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1980.
_______ ’T h e Qur’an Commentary o f al-Sulami.” in Wael B. Hallaq and Donald P.

Little, eds. Islam ic Studies Presented to Charles J. Adams. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1991.
Gary W. Bowerstock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press, 1997.
_______ Roman Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard, 1983.
Brown, Norman O. “The Apocalypse o f Islam.” in Apocalypse and/or Metamorphosis.

Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1991.
Brown, Peter. “The Saint as Exemplar in Late Antiquity.” Representations 1:2. Spring
1983.
310
de Bruijn, J.TJP. “Kharraqani,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960.
Buber, Martin. The Legend o f the Baal Shem Tov. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1954.
_______ Tales o f the Hasidim. 2 vols. New York: Schocken Books, 1947-8.
Buehler, Arthur F. Charisma and Exemplar: Naqshbandi Spiritual Authority in the

Punjab, 1857-1947. Ph.D. Diss. Harvard, 1993.
_______ Sufi Heirs o f the Prophet: the Indian Nqshbandiyya and the Rise o f the
M ediating Shaykh. Columbia: SC, University o f South Carolina Press, 1998
Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Isma’il b. al-Mughirah al- (194-256, A.H.) Sahih Bukhari.
Ed. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Medina: Islamic University, 1976.
Kenneth Burke, The Grammar o f Motives. Berkeley: University o f California Press,

1945.
Calder, Norman. “ Tafsir from Tabari to Ibn Kathir,” in G.R. Hawting and Abdul-
Kader A. Shareef, Approaches to the Q ur’an. London: Routledge, 1993, pp.
101-140
Chittick, William C.“Rumi and the Mawlawiyyah,” in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ed.
Islamic Spirituality: M anifestations. Vol 2. New York: Crossroads, 1991, pp.
105-126.
_______ The S e lf Disclosure o f God: Principles o f Ibn ‘A rabi’s Cosmology.

Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1998.
_______ The Sufi Path o f Love: The Spiritual Teachings ofRum i. Albany: S.U.N.Y.,
1983.
Chodkiewicz, Michel. Seal o f the Saints. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. “Khwaja Khadir and the Fountain o f Life in the Tradition
o f Persian and Mughal A it.” Ars Islam ica I, pt. 2 (1934): 173-182.
Cooper, John, ed. and trans. The Commentary on the Qur ’an by Abu Ja fa r
M uhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
311
Copenhaven, Brian. Hermetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Corbin, Henry. Creative Imagination in the Sufism o f Ibn ‘A rabi. Translated by Ralph
Manheim. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 53-67; 91-101.
Corcoran, Donald. “Spiritual Guidance.” Christian Spirituality. Vol 1. New York:

Crossroad, 1993.
_______ “The Spiritual Guide: Midwife o f the Higher Spiritual Self,” in Abba: Guides
to Wholeness and H oliness E ast and West. Ed. John R. Summerfeldt.
Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982.
Cornell, Rkia Elaroui, ed. and trans. Early Sufi Women: Dhikr an-niswa al-
M uta ‘abbidat as-Sufiyyat by Abu ‘A bd ar-Rahman as-Sulami. Louisville, KY:
Fons Vitae, 1999.
Cornell, V incent Vincent J. Cornell, “Mirrors o f Prophethood: The Evolving Image o f

the Spiritual Master in the Western Maghrib from the Origins o f Suflsm to the
End o f the Sixteenth Century.” PhD. Diss., University o f California at Los
Angeles, 1989.
_______ Realm o fthe Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism. Austin:
University o f Texas Press, 1998.
_______ The Way o f Abu Madyan: the Works o f Abu Madyan Shu 'ayb. Cambridge:
Islamic Texts Society, 1996.
Dalai Lama. Freedom in Exile: the Autobiography o f the Dalai Lama. New York:
Harper, 1990.
Dames, M.L. “Khwadja Khadir.” Encyclopedia o f Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.
Danner, Victor. “The Life and Works o f Ibn ‘Ata’illah” in Ibn ‘A ta ’illah ’s Sufi
Aphorisms Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984.
Ernst, Carl W. Ruzbihan Baqli: M ysticism and the Rhetoric o f Sainthood in Persian
Sufism. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996.
_______ The Shambhala Guide to Sufism. Boston: Shambhala, 1997.
_______ “The Symbolism o f Birds and Flight in the Writings o f Ruzbihan Baqli,” in
312
The Legacy o f M ediaeval Persian Sufism, ed. Leonard Lewisohn. London:
Khaniqahi Nimatullahi, 1992, pp. 353-366.
_______ Teachings o f Sufism. Boston: Shambhala, 1999.
Denny, Frederick M. “ ‘God’s Friends:’ The Sanctity o f Persons in Islam,” in Richard

Kieckhefer and George D. Bond, eds. Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World
Religions. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1988.
Duncan, David James. “On Mortal and Immortal Flyfishing Guides.” Unpublished
short story, 1997.
Elboudrari, Hassan. “Entre le Symbolique et l’Historique.” Studia Islamica. Vol. 76

(1992): 25-39.
The E pic o f Gilgamesh. Trans. N.K. Sandars. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Books, 1964.
Ernst, Carl. Ruzbihan Baqli: M ysticism and the Rhetoric o f Sainthood in Persian
Sufism . Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996.
________The Shambhala Guide to Sufism . Boston: Shambhala, 1997.
_______ Teachings o f Sufism. Boston: Shambhala, 1999.
________Words o f Ecstasy in Sufism . Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1985.
Faivre, Antoine. The Eternal Hermes. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1995.
Fox, Matthew. Illuminations o f Hildegard o f Bingen. Santa Fe: Bear and Co., 1985.
_______ The Reinvention o f Work. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994.
Fowden, Garth. The Egyptian Hermes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
_______ ’’The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society.” Journal o f Hellenistic
Studies. (1982): 33-59.
Friedlander, Israel. “Khidr.” Encyclopedia o f Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.
“Khidr” in Encyclopedia o f Religion and Ethics. (VII: 693-695) Ed. James
313
Hastings. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915.
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy o f Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
F. Gabrielli, “Adab,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam. Vol. 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960.
Garnett, Lucy M. J. M ysticism and M agic in Turkey. London: Pitman, 1912.
Gatje, Helmut. The Qur'an and its Exegesis. Edited and translated by Alford T.
Welch. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1976.
Glasse, Cyril. The Concise Encyclopedia o f Islam. San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1988.
Godlas, Alan. A. “The ‘A ra ’is al-bayan, the Mystical Qur’anic Exegesis o f Ruzbihan
al-Baqli,” (Ph.D. diss., University o f California, Berkeley, 1991), 60.
________“The Metaphysical Qur’anic Hermeneutic and Esoteric Epistemology o f

Ruzbihan al-Baqli,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American
Academy of Religion, Nashville, Tennessee, November 18,2000.
_______ “Psychology and Self-Transformation in the Sufi Qur’an Commentary of

Ruzbihan Baqli” unpublished paper.
_______ “al-Tafsir al-Sufi,” Encyclopaedia Iranica (www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/

sufitafitafsir/loc.html); accessed February 9, 2000.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. G oethe’s Reineke Fox, East-W est Divan, and
Achilleied. Translated by Alexander Rogers. London: George Bell and Sons,
1890.
Daniel Gold, The Lord as Guru: H indi Sants in North Indian Tradition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Goody, Jack. The Interface between the Oral and the Written. Studies in Literacy,
Family, Culture and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Gray, Ronald. Goethe the Alchemist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.
The G reek Alexander Romance. Trans. Richard Stoneman. London: Penguin Books,
1991.
314
Habil, ‘Abdurrahman, “Traditional Esoteric Commentaries on the Qur’an.” In Islamic
Spirituality. Vol. 1. Ed., Seyyed HosseinNasr. New York: Crossroad, 1987,
pp. 24-27.
Haddad, H.S. “ ‘Georgic’ Cults and Saints o f the Levant.” Numen 16 (1969): 28-29.
Hadot, I. “The Spiritual Guide.” In A.H. Armstrong, ed. Classical Mediterranean

Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman. New York: Crossroad, 1986, pp. 436-
459.
Halman, Hugh Talat. “We Have Found Muhammad, a Prophet Like Moses”:
How the Hermeneutics o f Genre Guide Comparisons between the Muhammad
and Moses in the Qur’an and Sira. Duke University, Unpublished Master’s
Thesis, 1993.
______ “Where Two Seas Meet”: The Quranic Story o f Khidr and Moses in Sufi
Commentaries as a Model for Spiritual Guidance. Duke University,
PhD Dissertation, 2000.
‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamdhani, ‘Complaint o f a Stranger Exiled from Home.” Translated

by. A.J. Arberry, in idem, A Sufi M artyr: the Apologia o f Ayn al-Qudat al-
Hamadhani (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. 1969)
Hasluck, F. W. Christianity and Islam under the Sultans. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1929..
Hawting, G.R., and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, Approaches to the Qur ’an. London:
Routledge, 1993.
Heath, Peter. Allegory and Philosophy in Avicenna (Ibn Sina). Philadelphia:

University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
_______ “Creative Hermeneutics: a Comparative Analysis o f Three Islamic

Approaches,” Arabica XXXVI (1989): 173-210.
Heer, Nicholas. “Abu Hamid al-Ghazali’s Esoteric Exegesis of the Koran,” in

Classical Persian Sufism from Its Origins to Rumi., ed. Leonard Lewisohn.
London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi Publications, 1993.
Herrigel, Eugen. Zen in the Art o f Archery. New York: Vantage Books, 1953,1981.
315
Hirtenstein, Stephen. The Unlimited M ercifier: The Spiritual Life and Thought o f Ibn
‘A rabi. Ashland, OR: White Cloud Press, 1999.
Hixon, Lex. Great Swan: M eetings with Ramakrishna. Burdett, NY: Larson
Publications, 1992, 1996.
Hodgson, Marshall. Venture o f Islam. 3 vols.. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press,

1974.
C. Hugh Holman, A Handbook to Literature. 4th ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,

1981.
A bu’l al-Hasan ‘Ali al-Hujwiri. K a sh f asl-M ahjub. Translated by Reynold A.

Nicholson, K ashf al-Mahjub: the O ldest Persian Treatise on Sufism. London:
Luzac, 1911; rpt., The Revelation o f the Mystery. Accord, N.Y.: Pir
Publications, 1999.
Hussaini, A.S. “Uways al-Qarani and the Uwaysi Sufis,” M uslim W orld 57/2 (April
1967).
Ibn ’Arabi, Muhyiddin. Fusus al-Hikam. Trans. R.W.J. Austin. The Bezels o f Wisdom.
Ramsey, NJ: Paulist Press, 1981.
_______ Fusus al-Hikam. Translated by Angela Culme-Seymour from the French

translation of Titus Burckhardt as The Wisdom o f the Prophets.
Gloucestershire: Beshara Publications, 1975.
_______ The Sufis o f Andalusia. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1971.
Ibn Khaldun, ‘Abd al-Rahman Abu Zayd ibn Muhammad b. Muhammad (1332-1406),
Kitab al- ‘Ibar. Translated by Franz Rosenthall; edited and abridged by N.J.
Dawood as The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Bollingen Series X Lm .
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.
Ism a’il Haqqi. Ruh al-Bayan f i Tafsir al-Q ur 'an. (6 vols.) Cairo: al-Matba’at al-
Amirah, 1870.
Jaeger, Werner. Early Christianity and G reekPaideia. Cambrige, Mass.: Belknap,

1961.
Paideia: the Ideals o f Greek Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 1939.
316
Jervis, James. Al-Khadir: Origins and Interpretations. A Phenomenological Study.
MA Thesis. McGill University, Toronto, Canada, 1993.
“Khizr: the Emerald Angel o f the Heart: the Symbolism o f the Color Green
in Islamic Spirituality.” in H ikm at Vol 3, no. 6. Muharram 1412 A.H.
Jung, Carl. “Dream Symbols o f the Individuation Process.” In Spiritual Disciplines:

Papersfrom the Eranos Yearbooks. Bollingen Series xxx.4. New York:
Pantheon Books, 1960, pp. 375-6.
_______ Flying Saucers: a M odern M yth o f Things Seen in the Sky. New York: New
American Library, 1959.
_______ Memories, Dreams, and Reflections. N ew York: Vintage Books, 1961, 1965.
_______ Psychology and Alchemy. Princeton: Bollingen, rev. ed., 1968.
_______ “A Typical Set o f Symbols Illustrating the Process o f Transformation.”

C ollected Works, vol. 9, pt. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959,
1969.
Lawrence, Bruce B. “Khidr (Elijah?).” in The Abingdon Dictionary o f Living

Religions. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981.
Shahrastani on the Indian Religions. Mouton: The Hague, 1976.
Leemhuis, Fred. “Origins and Early Development o f the tafsir Tradition,” in

Approaches to the History o f the Interpretation o f the Quran, ed. Andrew
Rippin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp. 13-30.
Lichtenstadter, Ilse. Introduction to Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Schocken

Books, 1976.
_______ “Origin and Interpretation o f Some Koranic Symbols.” in Arabic and Islamic
Studies in Honor o f H.A. R. Gibb. George Makdisi, ed. Cambride, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1965, pp. 426-436.
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. “Quranic Hermeneutics: The Views o f al-Tabari and Ibn
Kathir.” in Andrew Rippin, ed. Approaches to the H istory o f the Interpretation
o f the Q ur’an. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988
317
Macdonald, D.B. and M.G.S. Hodgson. “Ghayba.” in The Encyclopedia o f Islam
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960
Mahdi, Muhsin. “The Book and Master as Poles o f Cultural Change in Islam.” in
Islam and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages: Fourth Giorgio Della Vida
Biennial Conference. Ed. Speros Vryonis Jr. Weisbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz,1975, pp. 3-14.
Malamud, Margaret. “Gender and Spiritual Self-Fashioning: The Master-Disciple

Relationship in Classical Sufism.” Journal o f the American Academy o f
Religion. 64/1 Spring 1996: 89-117.
_______ “Sufi Organizations and Structures o f Authority in Medieval Nishapur.”

International Journal o f Middle Eastern Studies 26 (1994): 427^442.
Maneri, Sharafuddin, The Hundred Letters, Translated, Paul Jackson. New York:
Paulist Press, 1980.
Massignon, Louis. Essay on the Origins o fth e Technical Language o f Islamic

M ysticism. Trans. Benjamin Clark. Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame
Press, 1997.
_______ Passion ofal-H allaj: M ystic and M artyr o f Islam A vols. Translated, Herbert
Mason. Princeton, 1922, 1982.
Meier, Fritz. “Ala al-Dawla al-Simnani,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1960.
_______ “The Transformation o f Man in Mystical Islam.” in Man and

Transformation: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks. Ed. Joseph Campbell.
Bollingen Series XXX.5. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.
Morris, James Winston. “Ibn ‘Arabi and His Interpreters, Pt. II. Journal o f the
American Oriental Society 107/1 (Jan. - Mar. 1987).
_______ “Situating Islamic Mysticism.” In R.A. Herrera, ed. M ystics o f the

Book: Themes, Topics, and Typologies. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.
Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj. Al-Jami ‘ us-Sahih. Translated by ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqui.

Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1973.
318
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Hermes and Hermetic Writings in the Islamic World.” in
idem, Islamic Life and Thought (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981),
102-119.
_______ ed. Islamic Life and Thought. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981.
_______ Islamic Spirituality: M anifestations. 2 vols. New York: Crossroads, 1991.
_______ ’’The Sufi Master as Exemplified in Persian Sufi Literature.” In idem, Sufi
Essays. New York: Schocken Books, 1977,57-67.
Newby, Gordon Darnell. The M aking o f the Last Prophet. Columbia, SC: South
Carolina University Press, 1989.
Netton, Ian Richard. “Theophany as Paradox: Ibn al-’Arabi’s Account o f al-Khadir in

His Fusus al-Hikam.” Journal o f the Muhyiddin Ibn ’A rabi Society. Vol. 11, pp.
11 - 22 .
Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin. A n Elegant Composition Concerning R elief after
Adversity. (Translation o f H ibbur Yafeh me-hay-Yeshu’ah) Trans. William M
Brinner. New Haven: Yale, 1977.
Nizam ad-Din Awliya, Fawa ’id al-Fu ’ad. Translated by. Bruce B. Lawrence, M orals
o f the Heart New York: Paulist Press, 1992.
Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad. “Suhba.” in Mircea Eliade, ed. Encyclopedia o f Religion.

New York: Macmillan, 1987.
Nurbaksh, Javad. Traditions o f the Prophet 2 vols. New York: Nimatullahi

Publications, 1983.
Nwiya, Paul. Exegese coranique et langage mystique. Beirut: Dar al-Machreq

Editeurs, 1970.
_______ “Le Tafsir Mystique Attribue a Ga ‘far Sadiq: Edition Critique.” M elanges
de I ’Universite Saint Joseph 43 (Beirut, 1968): 181-230.
Obermann, Julian. “Two Elijah Stories in Judeo-Arabic Transmission.” Hebrew

Union College Annual 23, no. 1 (1950-1951): 387-404.
319
Oberoi, Harjot. The Construction o f Religious Boundaries. Chicago: University o f
Chicago Press, 1994.
O’Fahey, R.S. Enigm atic Saint: A hm ad ibn Idris and the Idrisi Tradition. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1990.
Omar, Irfan. “Khidr in the Islamic Tradition.” Muslim World. 83, no. 3-4. (1993):
279-294.
Plato, The Meno. Translated by W.K.C. Guthrie. London: Penguin Books, 1956.
_______ The Symposium. Translated by W alter Hamilton. London: Penguin Books,

1951.
Qashani, al., ‘Abd al-Razzaq. (attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi, M uhyi’ al-Din). Tafsir al-
Q ur’an al-Karim. ed. M ustafa’ Ghalib. Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978.
Qushayri, AbuT-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim b. Hawazin al-. L a ta ’i f al-isharat. ed. Ibrahim

Baysuni (6 vols.; Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Arabi, 1968-71). Vol 2, pp. 406-412.
AbuT-Qasim al-Qushayri, Ar-Risala ila ‘s-Sufiyya. Trans. Barbara von Schlegell,

Principles o f Sufism (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1990.
Radtke, Bemd and John O’Kane, The Concept o f Sainthood in Early Islamic
M ysticism. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996
John Renard, A ll the K ing’s Falcons: Rumi on Prophets and Revelation. Albany:
S.U.N.Y., 1994
_______ “Introduction,” to Ibn ‘Abbad o f Ronda, Letters on the Sufi Path, trans. J.
Renard. N ew York: Paulist Press, 1986.
Rippin, Andrew, ed. Approaches to the H istory o f the Interpretation o f the Qur ’an.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988
Rosenthal, Franz, The Concept o f Knowledge in M edieval Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1970.
Rumi, Mevlana Jalal ud-Din, F ihi m a fih i. Translated, Wheeler Thackston as Signs o f
the Unseen. Putney, VT: Threshold Books, 1994.
_______ M asnavi-ye M a 'navi. Translated by R. A. Nicholson, The M athnawi o f

320
Jalaluddin Rumi. E. J. W. Gibb Memorial, new series. London: Luzac & Co.,
1925,1929, 1933. Rpt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937.
Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr al-Fasa’i al-Daylami al-Baqli al-Shirazi, Sadr al-Din Abu
Muhammad Ara ’is al-Bayyan f i haqa ’iq al-Qur ’an. Cawnpore (1285/1868-9)
_______ K ashf al-Asrar. Translated by Carl W. Ernst as The Unveiling o f Secrets: The
D iary o f a Spiritual Master. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Parvardigar Press, 1997.
Sadan, J. “Ludd.” In Encyclopedia Islamica (1961) vol. V, pp. 798-803.
Sells, Michael. Early Islamic M ysticism: S u f, Qur 'an, M i ‘raj, Poetic, and
Theological Writings. N ew York: Paulist Press, 1996
Al-Shahrastani ,Abu’l-Fath Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Karim. ‘A ra ’ al-H ind(Views o f

the Indians) trans. Bruce B. Lawrence in idem, Shahrastani on the Indian
Religions. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
Shams- i Tabrizi, Maqalat. Ed. Muhammad ‘Ali Muwahhid. Tehran: Intisharat-i

Khawarazmi, 1990. Translated by Omid Safi, forthcoming.
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Trans. Brian Stone. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books,
1959, 1974.
Smithers, Stuart, “Spiritual Guide.” in The Encyclopedia o f Religion. Ed. Mircea

Eliade, New York: Macmillan, 1987
Southgate, Minoo, trans. Iskandamamah: a Persian M edieval Alexander-Romance.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.
Speight, R. Marsdden, “The Function o f hadith as Seen in the Six Authoritative

Collections,” in Approaches to the history o f the Interpretation o f the Qur 'an,
ed. Andrew Rippin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp. 63-81.
Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi, Kitab Adab al-Muridin. trans. Menahim Milson, A Sufi
Rule fo r Novices (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 46-47.
Sara Sviri, “Where the Two Seas Meet: the Story of Khidr,” SUFI. Issue 31 (Autumn
1996): 28-37.
321
Haim Schwartzbaum, “The Jewish and Moslem Versions o f Some Theodicy Legends
(Aa-Th. 759).” Fabula 3 (1959): 119-169.
Tabari. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-. Jami ‘ al-Bayan al-Tafsir ay al-Qur 'an. (30
vols.) Cairo: Dar al- Ma’arif, 1969.
_______ Ta ’rikh al-Rusul wa ’l-M uluk, ed. M.J. de Goeje et al, III series Leiden 1879-
1901. Translated as The H istory o f al-Tabari, 39 vols. Ed., Ehsan Yar-Shatar
Albany: S.U.N.Y, 1987.
_______ Ta ’rikh al-Rusul wa-al-M uluk. Trans, and annotated by William M. Brinner.
Albany: S.U.N.Y., 1991. Vol. 3 o f The History o f al-Tabari, 39 vols. Ed.,
Ehsan Yar-Shatar Albany: S.U.N.Y, 1987.
Ter Harr, Johann G.J. “The Importance o f the Spiritual Master in the Naqshbandi
Order.” in The Legacy o f M ediaeval Persian Sufism, ed. Leonard Lewisohn.
London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi, 1992, pp. 311-321.
Thackston, Wheeler M., trans. The Tales o f the Prophets o f al-Kisa 7. Boston, 1978.
Toorawa, Shawkat. “Khidr: the History o f a Ubiquitous Master,” SUFI. Issue 30

(Summer 1996), 45-49.
J. Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1969.
Trix, Frances. Spiritual Discourses: Learning with an Islamic M aster. Philadelphia:

University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Tweedie, Irina. Daughter o f Fire. Inverness, California: Golden Sufi Center

Publishing, 1986.
Veled, Sultan. Veled-nameh (an edition o f Ibtida-nameh) Ed. Jalal ad-Din Homa’i.
Tehran: Ketabkhaneh-ye Iqbal, 1956. Translated by Omid Safi, forthcoming.
Waldman, Marilyn Robinson. “Sunnah” in Encyclopedia o f Religion. Ed. Mircea

Eliade. New York: Macmillan, 1987.
Walker, Warren and Ahmet Uysal. “A n Ancient God in Modem Turkey: Some
Aspects o f the Cult o f Hizir.” Journal o f American Folklore. 86, no. 341. July-
Sept. 1973.
322
More Tales Alive in Turkey. (Lubock, Texas: Texas Tech. University Press,
1992.
R. Walzer, “Akhlak,” in Encyclopedia o f Islam . Vol 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. 325-329.
Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary o f M odem W ritten Arabic. Ed. J. Milton Cowan. Ithica,
NY: Spoken Language Services, 1976.
Wensinck, Arent Jan. s.v. “al-Khadir (al-Khidr)” Encyclopedia o f Islam II. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1978.
Wheeler, Brandon. “The Jewish Origins o f Qur’an 18.65-82? Reexamining Arent Jan
Wensinck’s Theory.” Journal o f the Am erican Oriental Society (118.2): 153-
. 171.
. “Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis o f Qur’an 1860-65.” Journal o f

Near Eastern Studies. Vol 57, no. 3. (July 1998): 191-215.
Wilson, Peter Lambom. “The Green Man: the Trickster Figure in Sufism,” Gnosis
M agazine No. 19, (Spring 1991):22-26.
_______ Sacred Drift: Essays on the M argins o f Islam. San Francisco: City Lights
Books, 1993.
Yearley, Lee. “Teachers and Saviors.” The Journal o f Religion. 65/2 (April 1985):
225-243.
323
B iog raphy
Hugh Talat Halman was bom in New York City on February 23, 1955. He has
attended the following universities and received the following degrees: Baruch College,
City University o f N ew York (B.A., with Honors, Philosophy, 1988) and Duke
University (M.A., Islamic Studies and the History o f Religions). He has published an
illustrated children’s book, Al-Khidr: The Green One (Chicago: IQRA, 2000) and has
presented the following conference papers: “A Silk Road Runs in the West: The Rifa’i-
Marufi Order in America” (paper presented at the Islam in America Conference, De
Paul University, Chicago, Illinois, September 28, 1995) and “Moses’ Journey with
Khidr: Interpreting the Master-Disciple Relationship (paper presented at the annual
meeting o f the American Academy o f Religion, Nashville Tennessee, November 18,
2000). He has taught courses in Religion and Islamic Studies at Duke University
(1994-1999) and Miami University o f Ohio (1999-2000).
Hugh Halman has received the following fellowships:
Kearns Fellowship (Duke University, Spring 1998)
Duke University Graduate School Dissertation Fellowship (Autumn
2000).
He is a member o f the American Academy o f Religion (1998 to present).
324

"Where Two Seas Meet" The Qur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Where Two Seas Meet" The Qur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Where Two Seas Meet" The Qur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO U SER S

The quality of this reproduction is d e p en d en t upon th e quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

Hugh Talat Halman

Bruce B. Lawrence, Supervisor

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

All rights reserved.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

Hugh Talat Halman

Date 12* J> '~L'(T5~b

Bruce B. Lawrence, Supervisor

An abstract o f a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

disciple (jnuridp. To investigate this question, we have presented original translations

master (shayfch a l-ta ‘lim) and mentor (shaykh al-suhba).

The commentator’s approaches to master-disciple relationships are related but

M oses’ mistake is to have imposed stipulations o f conventional knowledge on Khidr’s

inspired knowledge. Ruzbihan follows this approach but accents as attributes o f

“discernment” (firasa [<diakresis]), “inspiration” (ilham), and “inner knowledge” ( ‘ilm

While al-Qashani also alludes to the master-disciple relationship, he identifies

al-lawwama) to the establishment o f the contented soul (al-nafs al-mutma ’inna).

phenomena o f Sufism and its institutional expressions.

Bruce Lawrence, who first awakened my academic interest in al-Khidr, has

been a stalwart advocate o f my research and has helped me in innumerable ways as a

insight, and critical acumen has been outstanding.

challenging passages o f this endeavor. His understanding o f Sufi hermeneutics and

institutions has been a great gift to my work.

true amat o f these luminaries.

disciple relationship heightened my sense o f the importance o f this project.

Miriam Cooke took an interest in some o f the more perplexing passages o f

tranlation and generously contributed insightful suggestions on the translator’s craft.

Their friendship has been an inspiration.

I appreciate the support I received from two fellowships at Duke University:

Dissertation Fellowship (Autumn 2000).

Fakir Mehmet Sherif Catalkaya al-Rifa‘i inspired me to seek the interpretive

and universal teachings.

Alfred B. Urzi helped me understand the process o f the work, how to

persevere, and how to complete it.

the place “where two seas meet.”

Shams-i Tabrizi, Maqalat, 2:161

Sahih Bukhari IV. 23. 614

Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi

Mevlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi

North and South and West are crumbling,

Johann Wolfgang Goethe, “Hijra, o r Flight,”

1. In t r o d u c t io n : In t e r pr e t in g the M a st er -D isciple R el a tio n sh ip — T he

2. T he Faces of K h id r a s E x c e p t io n a l S e r v a n t , M y st ic a l M entor , and

(1) Abu T-Qasim al-Qushayri (376 A.H./986 C.E.- 465 A.H./1072

4. I n te r te x tu a lity am on g Sun T a f s ir s : C om p an ion sh ip , T r a in in g , a n d

traveling by boat from Tunis when he witnessed an extraordinary event:

subsequent chapters, we follow an exegetical stream o f Islamic sources which interpret

practice o f mentoring or spiritual guidance in Islam’s mystical tradition o f Sufism

The Story o f M oses' Journey with Khidr

companionship, spiritual guidance, or mentoring (suhba). Ironically, this story which

yields diverse exegetical applications, is at once brief, elliptical, and opaque:

K hidr‘s Roles and Representations

popular culture Khidr is commonly recognized as a legendary immortal, a patron saint

o f travelers, and a symbol o f saintly proximity to God. In the tradition o f Sufism,