The two retraced their footsteps, and found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed grace from Ourselves, and unto whom We had imparted knowledge issuing from Ourselves.
Inevitably, one does a little backtracking in order to reach one’s goal! And at that goal stands another servant, this time a servant of Allah rather than of Moses the human. He is full of the wisdom and beneficence issuing from Allah (and, as we will see, is free of self-interest). But no matter how much wisdom and beneficence he displays, he must not be mistaken for Allah. On an interior level, we are told that no matter how deep and profound our intuition may seem, we must never mistake it for divine wisdom itself.
Moses said to him, ‘May I follow you on the understanding that you will impart to me something of that consciousness of what is right which has been imparted to you?’
Moses is direct and honest about what he is seeking: consciousness of what is right, which has been imparted to Khidr by the grace of Allah. He knows what he needs and seeks to fulfill that need. Wise as he is, he seeks a greater understanding that is not limited to that obtainable through his personal experience. This is what Khidr has to offer. Venturing inward again, we are told that if we follow the signs, we will eventually find ourselves seeking guidance in intuition, in a supra-rational source of understanding.
The terms of the relationship between the student and the teacher are then discussed between the parties involved. However, we are given no assurance of mutuality in their respective understanding of the challenges to come.
The man answered, ‘You will never be able to have patience with me –how could you be patient about things that you cannot comprehend within the compass of your experience?’
Khidr knows that Moses is a logical man, and makes it clear the divine logic does not always coincide with human logic. He acknowledges that Moses’ understanding grows directly out of his experience. He unequivocally states that Moses is destined to fall short of a full understanding of divine will; this is an inherent human limitation. Not only is he destined to not understand in the moment; he is also likely to experience emotional agitation. This is not a condemnation, but a warning that Moses is in for yet another experience, this one guaranteed to be incomprehensible, frustrating, distressing – maybe even shocking.
Moses replied, ‘You will find me patient, if Allah so wills; and I shall not disobey you in anything!’
Moses, like his servant, is conscientious, and expresses his intention to follow Khidr with patience and without asking any questions. He means well! He intends to comply with Khidr’s demands as he understands them. He is aiming to please and to succeed.
But Moses will be patient only if Allah so wills. If he loses his patience and speaks out anyway, the will of Allah will have as much to do with that development as it will with any act of Khidr or its consequences.
Said the sage, ‘Well, then, if you are to follow me, do not question me about anything that I may do until I myself offer you an explanation!’
So they strike a deal: Khidr insists that Moses keep his mouth shut, no matter what. And because they go on their way together, we can assume that Moses agrees to do so. It will take a lot of trust on Moses’ part. It’s a no-win situation, at least as far as Moses’ understanding of the bargain is concerned – on the outer plane, the ilm az-zahir.
Undoubtedly, this is a test. However, from the outset, Khidr makes it emphatically clear that the demands he is making are impossible for Moses to fulfill. And Khidr possesses knowledge imparting from Allah – omniscience, from the ilm al-batin. So, what is being tested?
If this is a test of Moses’ ability to submit to authoritarian leadership, and maintain silence under any circumstance, it is no test at all, for there is no alternative to failure to comply with impossible demands. If Moses is created by Allah with no choice but to fail, and if Allah is just, how can Moses be judged personally responsible for that failure? Would Allah hold a blind man personally responsible for his "failure to see"?
But if this is a test of Moses’ capacity to exercise his reason and compassion and conscience, to respond appropriately to actions that – viewed with reference to the compass of his experience – are clearly ethically impermissible, there is a wide range of possible outcomes (rather than a simple grade of pass/fail), and a greater opportunity to derive meaning from the results. It would be a far more useful test.