And this indicates that, had it been possible to kill him before he reached puberty in order to put an end to his corruption, doing so would not have been forbidden. Otherwise, his young age would have been sufficient grounds for the ruling: when the more general ground independently establishes a ruling, the more specific ground has no effect. This is comparable to his saying about the cat:

“It is not impure; it is among those, male and female, who move about among you.”

As for rebuilding the wall, this involved only forgoing payment despite their hunger. Al-Khidr explained that its owners deserved his freely given assistance because of their character and their father’s righteousness, even though he himself was hungry.

Related to this is the fact that some grounds for obligation, prohibition and permissibility are apparent, so that people share knowledge of them. Others are hidden from some people but apparent to others through ordinary means. Still others are hidden and become known through unveiling. The story of al-Khidr belongs to this category.

This occurs frequently within our community. For example, someone may be served food and have it disclosed to him that it was unlawfully seized. It then becomes forbidden for him to eat it, although it is not forbidden for someone unaware of that fact. Or he may obtain property whose owner, he knows, has permitted him to use it; he may therefore lawfully make use of it, whereas someone unaware of that permission may not. There are other similar examples.

In such cases, if the shaykh is known for truthfulness and sincerity, the matter falls within the scope of his exercise of judgment, in which he is sometimes right and sometimes mistaken,