To begin a consideration of the passage from the Qur’an, I begin by considering the social environment from which the parable of Moses and Khidr emerged, and the assumptions regarding human relationships that pervade prevalent interpretations of the story.
The parable of Moses and Khidr emerged from a patriarchal tribal society, struggling to locate, utilize and preserve resources in exceedingly harsh terrain. In this society, authoritarian leadership was regarded as a necessity to ensure personal and collective survival, and to preserve the boundaries of the group. Family structure was patriarchal and authoritarian. The divine right of kings and patriarchs was not subject to question without such questioning being seen as a fundamental threat to social order. In every tribe there was at least one adult male who held the position of leader, and was thought to be the wisest among them – whether that was in fact the case, or whether the assumption of superior wisdom was based upon the leader’s elevated status within an existing ruling family. Such status was generally restricted to males, and was accompanied by explicit or implicit rights to the appropriation and possession of land, food and chattel, including women.
In Sufi tradition, Moses and Khidr have traditionally been characterized as the model for the ideal relationship between a teacher and student.
Having been accepted by the Pir, give thyself up to him:
submit, like Moses, to the authority of Khizr.
Whatever thy Khizr may do, bear it patiently, lest he say, "Begone, here we part."
Though he scuttle the boat, be dumb!
Though he kill a child, do not tear thy hair!
Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi
This invocation proceeds from the assumption that the Pir, or spiritual teacher, possesses knowledge of inner realities superior to that of the student, is free of self-interest, and fully devoted to the development of the student’s piety and realization of divine truths. The Pir is often presumed to have a right to cause distress to the student in order to further that person’s inner development or other sort of change. This is a fundamental element of the concept of the teacher-student relationship that has developed over the centuries within most Sufi lineages. One facet of the transformation of the nafs – the human soul – from the state of raw egotism to the state of annihilation in Allah (fana fi’Allah) involves the transcendence of narcissism. It is often taught that not only can this transcendence be promoted by submission to the spiritual guidance of a shaikh, but that such submission should be complete and unconditional. Although few would admit a willingness to require students to tolerate, witness or carry out acts that violate the requirements of sharia, more might admit to a sense of leniency regarding the inner sharia of the spiritual aspirant – that is, personal conscience – and discount the validity of the inner sharia, preferring to categorize an individual’s moral priorities as signs of immaturity if they differ from those of the teacher.
The story may therefore be interpreted as an esoteric justification for those in a position of spiritual leadership to behave or treat others in manner that causes exceeding distress to the aspirant.
However, the story of Moses and Khidr suggests that all human beings possess a measure of self-interest. Too often distress is inflicted by spiritual teachers upon those of lesser status for reasons relating to personal challenges that the teacher has yet to satisfactorily address. These may include the teacher’s own narcissism, a compulsion to bully and belittle others, or a taste for manipulating and controlling others, masterminding their personal lives and relationships. A teacher may be simply greedy, or unskilled at directing sexual impulses in a manner that respects the needs and rights of those with whom he is in relationship. Many of these character traits evolve from childhood experiences of abuse, exploitation or deprivation. It is common for people who have suffered such experiences to prefer to avoid facing the pain and anger they have experienced in their lives, and to deny their aggressive tendencies. It is common for those who gravitate toward mystical spirituality to regard themselves as having "transcended" the need to directly address their personal issues (otherwise known as "denying the shadow"). And it is common for people who find themselves in positions of power over others to exercise that power in ways that serve their own self-interest.
Distress may also be inflicted by a teacher as a means to destabilize the emotional equilibrium of those who hold secrets about behavior of the teacher, disclosure of which would threaten the teacher’s position, reputation, possessions or other relationships. Emotional destabilization or accusations of instability – a time-honored means of discrediting those experiencing grief or anger, and a particularly popular tool for discrediting women – serves to rob the secret-keeper of credibility in the public eye and to lower the secret-keeper in the affection and regard of her or his sisters and brothers in spiritual fellowship. Another motivator for the infliction of distress is envy – the teacher may envy a student’s insights, and fear that the student may pose a threat of competition within a hierarchy, or may simply be dismayed at the reminder that he or she is no more special than others.
So the story of Moses and Khidr is a powerful one in the imaginal lives of many spiritual seekers within the Sufi tradition. It has the power to confer divine authority upon those who would engage in destructive behavior in the name or guise of religion. It has the power to increase the suffering of those have been treated with irresponsibility and contempt by those from whom they have sought guidance and the protection of a spiritual lineage. If one does not question the desirability of authoritarian leadership, the story of Moses and Khidr may be readily interpreted as a validation of such leadership, a confirmation of a citizen’s obligation to submit to existing human authority no matter how harsh the treatment meted out by that authority, or a confirmation of a spiritual aspirant’s obligation to submit to the authority of a teacher no matter how unethical the teacher’s conduct might be.
However, a close scrutiny of the story of Moses and Khidr, free of the assumption of the desirability of authoritarian leadership, can lead to some very different conclusions. The story has the power to validate both the human desire to seek guidance from a source of knowledge not subject to the limitations of one’s own experience, and the expression of individual conscience as a legitimate and commendable human activity. This is the way of the prophet Moses. We are told in the Qur’an:
Say, We believe in Allah and that which was revealed unto us
and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ismail, and Isaac, and Jacob,
and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received,
and that which the Prophets received from their Lord.
We make no distinction between any of them and unto Him we surrender
Al-Baqarah, 2:136