al-Kahf 18:71-82 — Three acts and their explanation

Three acts come one after another, and each is built with the same structure: the act → the objection of Moses → the reminder.

And the force of the objections decreases: the first is a question, the second a sharper question (la-qad jiʾta shayʾan nukrā), the third not even an objection — a suggestion.

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the form of the third objection: in the third Moses brings no moral objection; he finds it strange that no return was taken. That is, the three acts also form a sequence with respect to how objectionable they are.

A record, per the method (Method): this act is not presented as work a human being could do on his own decision. Indeed the eighty-second verse will say this plainly: wa mā faʿaltuhu ʿan amrī — "I did not do it of my own accord."

This sentence is the ruling of the story, and I record this as my own reading: no general rule of conduct can be derived from the story; what can be derived is the deferral of judgement where knowledge is lacking — indeed the sixty-eighth verse had said this from the outset.

And in the third explanation one detail is worth recording: wa kāna abūhumā ṣāliḥā — "and their father was a righteous man."

I record this as an observation: what is protected is the property of the children; the reason mentioned is the state of the father. The verse establishes this bond and leaves it; it does not explain it.

فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَن يَبْلُغَآ أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِّن رَّبِّكَ — and in all three explanations the ascription of the act changes:

Three verbs, three separate subjects: I, we, your Lord. This is a gradation that can be verified from the text and it has been dwelt upon in the classical commentaries. I record this as an observation about the word order; I content myself with transmitting the explanations of why the ascriptions change, and I do not impose a preference.