Abū Dharr—raising the report to the Prophet—said: “The treasure that Allah mentions in His Book was a solid tablet of gold. I marvel at the one who is certain of the Divine Decree: how can he feel weary? I marvel at the one who remembers the Fire and then laughs. I marvel at the one who recalls death and yet remains heedless. There is no god but Allah.”
Similar statements have been reported from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, ʿUmar the client of Ghufrah, and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq.
As for His words, “and their father was a righteous man,” it has been said that he was the seventh ancestor, and it has also been said the tenth. In any case, the verse shows that a righteous man’s offspring are guarded on his account—and Allah’s help is sought.
And His words, “as a mercy from your Lord,” prove that al-Khiḍr was a prophet who did nothing on his own but only by the command of his Lord. Some have said he was a messenger; others, a saint (walī). More improbable still is the opinion of those who claimed he was an angel—and Allah knows best.
We shall devote a separate biography to al-Khiḍr after this.
(1) In edition T it reads “min al-dhahab” (of gold). The reading musmat (مصمت) signifies “of solid, unalloyed gold.”
(2) This is how it appears in manuscripts A and T and in the author’s Tafsīr. In manuscript B it reads “yaghḍib” (he becomes angry).
(3) In the printed edition of al-Bīdāya wa’l-Nihāya there is an addition not found in manuscripts A and B. It runs as follows:
“I said: It is extremely strange that some claim he was the son of Pharaoh. Others say he was the son of Dhū-Ḥāk, who ruled the world for a thousand years. Ibn Jarīr stated that the majority of the People of the Book place him in the time of Afrīdūn; some identify him with the vanguard of Dhū-l-Qarnayn—whom some equate with Afrīdūn—while Dhū-l-Furs is said to have lived in the era of Abraham. They alleged that he drank from the water of life, thus becoming immortal and remaining alive to this day. Others assert he descended from one who believed in Abraham and emigrated with him from the land of Babylon; some give his name as Malakān; others call him Jeremiah son of Cheliakīyah; and some say he was a prophet in the time of Sabāsib ibn Lahrasb.
Ibn Jarīr added: Between Afrīdūn and Sabāsib there passed long epochs of which no one versed in genealogies is ignorant.
He then said: The correct view is that he lived in Afrīdūn’s time and remained alive until he encountered Moses (peace be upon him). Moses’s prophethood occurred in the reign of Manūshahr—descendant of Abraj son of Afrīdūn and one of the Persian kings—who succeeded his grandfather Afrīdūn by covenant. He was just, the first to dig trenches in siege warfare, and the first to appoint a dehqān (landholder) in every village. His reign lasted nearly 150 years. It is said he was of Isaac son of Abraham’s lineage. As for Khidr, he is credited with fine, eloquent, beneficial, and sound discourses that dazzle the intellect and astonish the listener, indicating he was of Abraham’s line. And God knows best.
Allah Almighty said: “And [remember] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, ‘Whatever I have given you of the Book and wisdom, then there will come to you a messenger confirming what is with you; you must believe in him and support him.’ He said, ‘Do you acknowledge?’” [Qur’an 3:81]
Thus, Allah exacted from every prophet the pledge to believe in and support those who would follow among the prophets. Were Khidr alive in his time, he would have had no option but to hasten to meet him and assist him, and he would have been among those under his banner on the Day of Badr—just as Gabriel and the noble angels were under it. In short, Khidr (peace be upon him) must be either a prophet—which is the truth—or a messenger, as some have said, or an angel, according to other views. In any case, Gabriel is the chief of the angels and Moses is superior to Khidr. If Khidr had been alive, he would have been obliged to believe in Muhammad and support him; so all the more if Khidr is a walī (friend of God), as many assert. Hence it is even more fitting that he be included in the universal resurrection. Moreover, there is no ḥadīth—sound or even weak but acceptable—that he ever came to the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) even once or that he met him. The ḥadīth mentioned regarding condolences, even if reported by al-Ḥākim, has a weak chain of transmission. And God knows best.”
(4) In manuscript B the phrase “ʿalā ḥidda” appears here.