فَانْطَلَقَا حَتَّى إِذَا رَكِبَا فِي السَّفِينَةِ خَرَقَهَا قَالَ أَخَرَقْتَهَا لِتُغْرِقَ أَهْلَهَا لَقَدْ جِئْتَ شَيْئًا إِمْرًا ﴿۷۱﴾ قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُلْ إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَسْتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبْرًا ﴿۷۲﴾ قَالَ لَا تُؤَاخِذْنِي بِمَا نَسِيتُ وَلَا تُرْهِقْنِي مِنْ أَمْرِي عُسْرًا ﴿۷۳﴾ فَانْطَلَقَا حَتَّى إِذَا لَقِيَا غُلَامًا فَقَتَلَهُ قَالَ أَقَتَلْتَ نَفْسًا زَكِيَّةً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ لَقَدْ جِئْتَ شَيْئًا نُكْرًا ﴿۷۴﴾

﴾71﴿ Fantalaqaa hattaaa izaa rakibaa fis safeenati kharaqahaa qaala akharaqtahaa litughriqa ahlahaa laqad ji'ta shai'an imraa
﴾72﴿ Qaala alam aqul innaka lan tastatee'a ma'iya sabraa
﴾73﴿ Qaala laa tu'aakhiznee bimaa naseetu wa laa turhiqnee min amree 'usraa
﴾74﴿ Fantalaqaa hattaa izaa laqiyaa ghulaaman faqatalahoo qaala aqatalta nafsan zakiy yatam bighairi nafs; laqad ji'ta shai'an nukraa

﴾71﴿ So they both set out until they boarded a ship, and he made a hole in it. Moses (peace be upon him) said, Did you make a hole in it to drown its passengers? Indeed, you have done something very strange
﴾72﴿ He said, Did I not tell you that you would never be able to have patience with me
﴾73﴿ Moses (peace be upon him) said, Do not hold me accountable for what I forgot, and do not make my task difficult for me
﴾74﴿ Then both of them went on until they came upon a young man. So he killed him. Moses, peace be upon him, said: Have you killed an innocent soul without any reason, Indeed, you have done a very evil thing

[71] From this point, the journey of seeking knowledge began for both of them. The mention of Yūshaʿ (peace be upon him) is omitted here because he was a follower, and the mention of a follower is not necessary.
As for those who claim that al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him) drank from the Water of Life without permission and threw it into the sea, and that he remains alive among its waves until the Day of Judgment—these are fabricated reports and part of the Isrā’īliyyāt (myths from Jewish traditions).
The apparent truth is that al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him) used to travel to call people to the oneness of Allah (tawḥīd), and these events occurred during his journey. Then al-Khiḍr and Moses (peace be upon them both) came to the seashore and intended to cross to the other side, so they boarded a ship. The ship belonged to poor believers in tawḥīd. They recognized al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him) as someone who traveled for the sake of religious daʿwah, so they did not charge him a fare.
Such conduct is praiseworthy for Muslims—that they should honor a sincere scholar and a preacher of religion in this way.
When they reached the middle of the sea, al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him), using an axe, broke a plank and made a hole in the ship. Moses (peace be upon him), driven by the pull of the Sharīʿah, objected to him, and he forgot his promise to remain patient. The reason for his objection has already been explained.
The phrase (litughriqa ahlahā) (to drown its people) refers, in outward terms, to the likely result of breaking the plank. The lām here is for the outcome (ghāyah), not the cause. Due to the miraculous nature of the act, the ship did not sink.
According to a hadith, a small bird came and perched on the edge of the ship and dipped its beak into the sea. Al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him) said to Moses (peace be upon him), “The combined knowledge of me and you, in comparison to the knowledge of Allah the Exalted, is like the drop of water in this bird’s beak compared to the entire sea.”
This indicates that the prophets (peace be upon them) cannot become equal to Allah the Exalted in knowledge.
[72,73] In this, when al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him) reminded Moses (peace be upon him) of his promise, Moses admitted his mistake and presented forgetfulness as his excuse. This indicates that forgetfulness (nisyān) is not subject to blame or sin.
The phrase (wa lā turhiqnī min amrī ʿusran) (do not burden me with hardship in my matter) points to the fact that whoever holds someone accountable for forgetfulness is causing unnecessary hardship.
[74] When they safely reached the other side of the sea, they saw some young boys playing. Al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him) approached them, seized one boy, struck his head with a small stone, threw him to the ground, slaughtered him, and then separated his head with his hand. (This explanation reconciles the differing narrations.)
To Moses (peace be upon him), this too appeared clearly against the law of the Sharīʿah, because no proof of apostasy, legal retaliation (qiṣāṣ), or any other legitimate reason supported by evidence or witnesses had been established against this boy. That’s why he referred to him as zakiyyah (innocent). Since this act visibly contradicted Sharīʿah, Moses again objected.
Note (1): According to some commentators, the boy was a minor, and the evidence for this is that he was described as zakiyyah (pure). However, most scholars say he was of age (bāligh), because it is later mentioned that this boy was rebellious and a disbeliever—traits that apply to someone mature. Also, the fact that a prophet killed him indicates he was deserving of death, and a minor is not held accountable.
In this context, al-Sarakhsī in al-Mabsūṭ (vol. 1, p. 30), quoting from Imām Ṭaḥāwī, mentions a reconciliation between the two views: the boy was a minor in terms of age, but mature in intellect. At that time, intellectual maturity was considered the standard for accountability, not merely age. This view is more accurate.
Note (2): In the first case, the word amran (a grave matter) was used, while in the second, the word nukran (a horrendous act) appeared. The difference is that amr is used for something slightly bad or unusual, while nukr denotes something intensely evil or shocking. In the first case, no life was lost, so the term amran was appropriate. In the second, a person was killed, so the stronger term nukran suited the situation better.
Also, nukran is used when something provokes great fear or awe, even if it is not immediately clear, and when the corruption of an act is apparent.