Je, Mungu ni Mwenye Huruma? – Jibu la Uislamu kuhusu Uovu na Mateso - Uhalisia wa Kimungu

Je, Mungu ni Mwenye Huruma? – Jibu la Uislamu kuhusu Uovu na Mateso - Uhalisia wa Kimungu | Quran Course

0% read · 11 min left

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

Je, Mungu ni Mwenye Huruma? – Jibu la Uislamu kuhusu Uovu na Mateso

Is God Merciful? – Islam’s Response To Evil And Suffering

by By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis11 min readViewed 97 times

Nilipokuwa mtoto, wazazi wangu daima walinikemea kwa kujaribu kunywa whisky ya babu yangu. Unaweza kufikiria, mtoto mdogo mwenye bidii na udadisi akimtazama babu yake akinywa kidogo kidogo kimiminika hiki kinene, cha dhahabu na laini. Nilitaka nami nipate! Hata hivyo, kila nilipojaribu kunywa kinywaji hicho cha kuvutia kwa siri, nilijikuta nikiingia matatizoni mno. Sikuwahi kuelewa kwa nini, na hivyo mawazo hasi kuhusu wazazi wangu yalinijia kichwani mara kwa mara. Miaka mingi baadaye, sasa ninaelewa kwa nini hawakuniruhusu kunywa whisky ya babu yangu; ingeweza kuniletea sumu. Kinywaji cha kileo chenye asilimia 40 kisingekuwa kizuri kwa tumbo langu dogo wala ini langu. Hata hivyo, nilipokuwa mdogo sikuwa na ufahamu wa hekima iliyokuwa msingi wa uamuzi wa wazazi wangu, lakini nilidhani nilikuwa na haki ya kuwa na hisia hasi dhidi yao.

When I was a child, my parents would always chide me for trying to drink my grandfather’s whisky. You can imagine, an active and inquisitive young child observing his grandfather sip this thick, gold, smooth liquid. I wanted some! However, every time I attempted to secretly drink the enticing beverage, I would get into big trouble. I never understood why, thus negative thoughts about my parents would race through my mind. Fast-forward many years, I now realise why they didn’t allow me to drink my grandfather’s whisky; it could have poisoned me. A 40 percent volume alcoholic drink would not have been pleasant on my young stomach or liver. However, when I was younger, I did not have access to the wisdom that formed the basis of my parents’ decision, yet I thought I was justified in my negativity towards them.

Hii ndiyo inayofupisha mtazamo wa wasioamini Mungu wanapojaribu kuelewa uovu na mateso duniani. Hadithi iliyotangulia haikusudiwa kudharau mateso na maumivu ambayo watu wanayapata. Kama binadamu, ni lazima tuhisi huruma na kutafuta njia za kupunguza mateso ya watu. Hata hivyo, mfano huu unakusudiwa kuibua hoja ya kifikra. Kutokana na wasiwasi halali na wa dhati kwa binadamu na viumbe wengine wenye hisia, wasioamini Mungu wengi wanasema kwamba kuwepo kwa Mungu mwenye uwezo na rehema hakuendani na kuwepo kwa uovu na mateso duniani. Kama yeye ni Mwingi wa Rehema, basi angetaka uovu na mateso yakome, na kama yeye ni Mwenye Uwezo Wote, angeweza kuyakomesha. Hata hivyo, kwa kuwa uovu na mateso vipo, ina maana kwamba either yeye si Mwenye uwezo, au hana rehema, au vyote viwili. Hoja ya uovu na mateso ina aina mbili: ya kimantiki na ya kiushahidi. Aina ya kimantiki inajaribu kuhoji kwamba kutokuwepo kwa Mungu ni hitimisho la lazima. Inashikilia kwamba haiwezekani uovu na mateso kuwepo na wakati huo huo Mungu kuwepo akiwa na sifa za uwezo, ujuzi na wema. Hata hivyo, aina ya kimantiki imeshindwa kuonyesha kwa nini hitimisho hilo linafuata kwa lazima. Hoja ya kimantiki iliyo hapa chini inaonekana kukosa pendekezo moja:

This sums up the atheist attitude towards God when trying to understand evil and suffering in the world. The above story is not intended to belittle the suffering and pain that people experience. As human beings, we must feel empathy and find ways of alleviating people’s hardships. However, the example is meant to raise a conceptual point. Due to a valid and genuine concern for human and other sentient beings, many atheists argue that the existence of a powerful and merciful301 God is incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If He is The-Merciful, He should want the evil and suffering to stop, and if He is All-Powerful, He should be able to stop it. However, since there is evil and suffering, it means that either He is not powerful, or He lacks mercy, or both. The evil and suffering argument has two forms. The logical and the evidential. The logical form attempts to argue that God not existing is a necessary conclusion. It maintains that it is impossible for evil and suffering to exist and at the same time God to exist with attributes of power, knowledge and goodness.302 However, the logical form fails to show why the conclusion necessarily follows. The logical form below seems to be missing a premise:303.

Sharti ya siri inayokosekana ni: "Ikiwa kuna kiumbe kinachojua uovu wote, kinachotaka kuuondoa uovu, na kinachoweza kuuondoa uovu, basi kiumbe hicho kisingeruhusu uovu wowote duniani." Sharti hili la siri linajaribu kuthibitisha uhusiano wa lazima wa kimantiki kati ya masharti yaliyotangulia na hitimisho. Ili kuvunja dai hili, yote yanayohitajika ni kutoa maelezo yanayowezekana kwa kuwepo kwa Mungu na uovu. Kwa kuwa kuna maelezo mbalimbali yanayowezekana, sharti la siri la umbo la kimantiki linadhoofishwa. Umbo la kiushahidi linashikilia kwamba, kutokana na asili na wingi wa uovu, na mateso yasiyo ya lazima yanayoonekana duniani, haiwezekani sana kwamba Mungu mwenye sifa za wema, huruma na nguvu yupo. Toleo hili la tatizo la uovu na mateso ni dhaifu kifikra kwa sababu linategemea dhana mbili kuu zisizo za kweli. La kwanza linahusu asili ya Mungu. Linadokeza kwamba Mungu ni Mwenye Huruma na Mwenye Uweza wote pekee, hivyo kutenga sifa mbili na kupuuza nyingine ambazo Qur'ani imefunua kuhusu Mungu. Ingawa dhana ya umbo la kiushahidi inajumuisha ujuzi wa Mungu, inadhania kimakosa kwamba tutaweza kuelewa ujuzi wote wa Mungu. Ukweli ni kwamba tuna mipaka ya kielimu, na hatuwezi kamwe kufahamu ujuzi wote wa Mungu. Dhana ya pili ni kwamba Mungu hajatupa sababu zozote za kwa nini ameruhusu uovu na mateso kuwepo. Hili si kweli. Ufunuo wa Kiislamu unatupatia sababu nyingi za kwa nini Mungu ameruhusu uovu na mateso kuwepo. Dhana zote mbili zitashughulikiwa hapa chini.

The missing premise is: “If there is a being that knows about all evil, wants to eliminate evil, and is able to eliminate evil, then that being would not allow there to be any evil in the world.”305 This hidden premise attempts to assert a necessary logical relation between the previous premises and the conclusion. To dismantle this assertion all that needs to be done is to provide a possible explanation for the existence of God and evil. Since there are a range of possible explanations the logical form’s hidden premise is undermined.306 The evidential form maintains that given the nature and abundance of evil, and the apparent unnecessary suffering in the world, it is highly unlikely that a God with attributes of goodness, mercy and power exists. This version of the problem of evil and suffering is intellectually weak because it is based on two major false assumptions. The first concerns the nature of God. It implies that God is only The-Merciful and All-Powerful, thereby isolating two attributes and ignoring others that the Qur’an has revealed about God. Even though a conception of the evidential form includes God’s knowledge, it falsely assumes that we will are able comprehend the totality of God’s knowledge. The fact is we have epistemic limitations, we can never grasp the totality of God’s knowledge. The second assumption is that God has provided us with no reasons for why He has allowed evil and suffering to exist. 307. This is not true. Islamic revelation provides us with many reasons for why God has allowed evil and suffering to exist. Both assumptions will be addressed below.

Kulingana na Qur'an, Mungu ni Al-Qadeer, maana yake Mwenye Uwezo wote, na Ar-Rahmaan, maana yake Mwingi wa Rehema, jambo ambalo pia linadokeza huruma. Uislamu unamtaka mwanadamu amjue na kuamini Mungu wa uwezo, rehema na wema. Hata hivyo, mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu anampotosha vibaya sana dhana kamili ya Uislamu kuhusu Mungu. Mungu si Mwingi wa Rehema na Mwenye Uwezo wote tu; badala yake, ana majina na sifa nyingi. Hizi zinaeleweka kwa ujumla kupitia umoja wa Mungu (ona Sura ya 15). Kwa mfano, mmoja wa majina yake ni Al-Hakeem, maana yake Mwenye Hekima. Kwa kuwa asili ya Mungu yenyewe ni hekima, inafuata kwamba chochote anachokitaka kinaendana na hekima ya Kimungu. Pale jambo linapoelezwa kwa hekima iliyo nyuma yake, hiyo inamaanisha kuna sababu ya kutokea kwake. Kwa mtazamo huu, mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu anampunguzia Mungu sifa mbili tu, na kwa kufanya hivyo anajenga hoja dhaifu ya kujitengenezea adui (straw man), akipotosha dhana ya Kiislamu ya Mungu, na hivyo anajihusisha na monolojia isiyo na maana. Mwandishi Alom Shaha, aliyeandika The Young Atheist's Handbook, anajibu dai kwamba hekima ya Kimungu ndiyo maelezo ya uovu na mateso kwa kuieleza kuwa ni kukwepa hoja kiakili.

According to the Qur’an, God is Al-Qadeer, meaning the All-Powerful, and Ar-Rahmaan, meaning The-Merciful, which also implies compassion. Islam requires that mankind know and believe in a God of power, mercy and goodness. However, the atheist grossly misrepresents the comprehensive Islamic conception of God. God is not only The-Merciful and All-Powerful; rather, He has many names and attributes. These are understood holistically via God’s oneness (see Chapter 15). For instance, one of His names is Al-Hakeem, meaning The-Wise. Since the very nature of God is wisdom, it follows that whatever He wills is in line with Divine wisdom. When something is explained by an underlying wisdom, it implies a reason for its occurrence. In this light, the atheist reduces God to two attributes and by doing so builds a straw man, misrepresenting the Islamic conception of God, thereby engaging in an irrelevant monologue. The writer Alom Shaha, who wrote The Young Atheist’s Handbook, responds to the assertion that Divine wisdom is an explanation for evil and suffering by describing it as an intellectual cop-out:

Alom, kama wanaotokea wasioamini Mungu wengine, anafanya kosa la kimantiki la argumentum ad ignorantiam, yaani kuhoja kwa kutegemea ujinga. Kwamba yeye hawezi kupata hekima ya Mungu haimaanishi kuwa hekima hiyo haipo. Aina hii ya hoja inafanana na ya watoto wadogo. Watoto wengi hukemewa na wazazi wao kwa kutaka kufanya jambo fulani, kama kula pipi nyingi mno. Watoto hao kwa kawaida hulia au kufanya hasira kwa sababu wanadhani mama na baba wao ni wabaya, lakini mtoto hafahamu hekima iliyo nyuma ya katazo hilo (katika mfano huu, pipi nyingi ni mbaya kwa meno yake). Zaidi ya hayo, hoja hii inakosea kuelewa maana na asili ya Mungu. Kwa kuwa Mungu ni wa juu kuliko viumbe, ni mwenye ujuzi wote na mwenye hekima, basi inafuata kimantiki kwamba binadamu wenye mipaka hawawezi kuelewa kikamilifu mapenzi ya Mungu. Kudai kwamba tunaweza kuelewa ukamilifu wa hekima ya Mungu kungemaanisha kwamba sisi ni kama Mungu, jambo linalokanusha ukuu wake, au kwamba Mungu ana mipaka kama binadamu. Hoja hii haina nguvu kwa muumini yeyote, kwa sababu hakuna Mwislamu anayeamini Mungu aliyeumbwa na mwenye mipaka. Kutaja hekima ya Mungu si kukimbia kufikiri kiakili, kwa kuwa hekima hiyo si fumbo lisilojulikana. Badala yake, hoja hiyo inaelewa kwa kweli asili ya Mungu na kufikia hitimisho sahihi la kimantiki. Kama nilivyoeleza hapo awali, Mungu anaona picha kamili, nasi tunaona pikseli moja tu.

Alom, like many other atheists, commits the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium, arguing from ignorance. Just because he cannot access Divine wisdom does not mean it does not exist. This reasoning is typical of toddlers. Many children are scolded by their parents for something they want to do, such as eating too many sweets. The toddlers usually cry or have a tantrum because they think how bad mummy and daddy are, but the child does not realise the wisdom underlying their objection (in this case, too many sweets are bad for their teeth). Furthermore, this contention misunderstands the definition and nature of God. Since God is transcendent, knowing and wise, then it logically follows that limited human beings cannot fully comprehend the Divine will. To even suggest that we can appreciate the totality of God’s wisdom would imply that we are like God, which denies the fact of His transcendence, or suggests that God is limited like a human. This argument has no traction with any believer, because no Muslim believes in a created, limited God. It is not an intellectual cop-out to refer to Divine wisdom, because it is not referring to some mysterious unknown. Rather, it truly understands the nature of God and makes the necessary logical conclusions. As I have pointed out before, God has the picture, and we have just a pixel.

Kama ilivyoelezwa katika Sura ya 1, tatizo la hoja ya uovu na mateso linafichua upendeleo wa kiakili unaojulikana kama 'egocentrism' (kujiona kitovu cha kila kitu). Mtu wa namna hii hawezi kuona mtazamo wowote juu ya jambo fulani isipokuwa wake mwenyewe. Baadhi ya wanaoamini kwamba hakuna Mungu wanaathiriwa na upendeleo huu wa kiakili. Wanadhani kwamba, kwa kuwa hawawezi kabisa kufikiria sababu zozote nzuri za kuhalalisha uovu na mateso yaliyoko duniani, basi kila mtu mwingine—pamoja na Mungu—lazima awe na tatizo hilo hilo. Hivyo wanamkana Mungu, kwa sababu wanadhani kwamba Mungu hawezi kuhalalishwa kwa kuruhusu uovu na mateso yaliyoko duniani. Ikiwa Mungu hana uhalali wowote, basi rehema na uweza wa Mungu ni udanganyifu. Hivyo dhana ya kimapokeo ya Mungu inabatilika. Hata hivyo, yote ambayo wanaoamini kwamba hakuna Mungu wamefanya ni kuweka mtazamo wao juu ya Mungu. Hii ni sawa na kusema kwamba Mungu lazima afikiri kama wanavyofikiri binadamu. Hili haliwezekani, kwa sababu binadamu na Mungu hawawezi kulinganishwa, kwani Mungu yuko juu ya viumbe vyote (Mtukufu) na ana ukamilifu wote wa hekima na elimu.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the problem of the evil and suffering argument exposes a cognitive bias known as ‘egocentrism’. Such a person cannot see any perspective on a particular issue apart from their own. Some atheists suffer from this cognitive bias. They assume that since they cannot possibly fathom any good reasons to justify the evil and suffering in the world, everyone else—including God—must also have the same problem. Thus they deny God, because they assume that God cannot be justified for permitting the evil and suffering in the world. If God has no justification, then the mercy and power of God are illusions. Thus, the traditional concept of God is nullified. However, all atheists have done is superimposed their perspective on God. This is like arguing that God must think how humans think. This is impossible because human beings and God cannot be compared, as God is transcendent and has the totality of wisdom and knowledge.

Katika hatua hii, mwanamapinduzi (atheist) anaweza kujibu kwa kueleza yaliyotangulia kama njia ya busara ya kukwepa tatizo: Ikiwa mwamini anaweza kurejea hekima ya Mungu kuwa kubwa mno hata isiweze kueleweka, basi tunaweza kueleza chochote "cha ajabu" kwa kurejea hekima ya Kiungu. Mimi naelewa kwa kiasi fulani jibu hili; hata hivyo, katika muktadha wa tatizo la uovu na mateso, ni hoja ya uongo. Ni mwanamapinduzi ndiye anayerejea sifa za Mungu tangu mwanzo; uwezo Wake na rehema Yake. Wanamapinduzi wanapaswa kumrejea Mungu kama alivyo, si kama wakala mwenye sifa mbili tu. Iwapo wangejumuisha sifa nyingine kama hekima, hoja yao isingekuwa halali. Iwapo wangejumuisha sifa ya hekima, ingewalazimu kuonyesha jinsi hekima ya Kiungu inavyopingana na dunia iliyojaa mateso na uovu. Hili lisingewezekana kuthibitishwa, kwa sababu kuna mifano mingi katika maisha yetu ya kiakili na kivitendo ambapo tunakiri udhaifu wetu wa kiakili; kwa maneno mengine, kuna visa ambapo tunanyenyekea mbele ya hekima tusiyoweza kuielewa. Tunakubali kwa busara uhalisia ambao hatuwezi kuuelewa mara kwa mara. Kwa mfano, tunapomtembelea daktari, tunadhani daktari ni mamlaka. Tunaamini utambuzi wa daktari kwa msingi huo. Hata tunatumia dawa anayoagiza daktari bila kufikiri mara ya pili. Mfano huu na mingine mingi kama huo unaonyesha wazi kwamba kurejea hekima ya Mungu si kukwepa tatizo. Badala yake, ni kuwasilisha kwa usahihi Mungu alivyo na kutokufanya kana kwamba Mungu ana sifa mbili tu. Kwa kuwa Yeye ni Mwenye Hekima, na majina Yake na sifa Zake ni kamilifu kabisa, inafuata kwamba kuna hekima nyuma ya kila kitu anachokifanya, hata kama hatujui au hatuelewi hekima hiyo. Wengi wetu hatuelewi jinsi magonjwa yanavyofanya kazi, lakini kutokuelewa kitu hakukanushi kuwepo kwake.

At this point, the atheist might respond by describing the above as an intelligent way of evading the problem: If the theist can refer to God’s wisdom as so great that it cannot be understood, then we can explain anything ‘mysterious’ in reference to a Divine wisdom. I somewhat empathise with this reply; however, in the context of the problem of evil and suffering, it is a false argument. It is the atheist that refers to God’s attributes to begin with; His power and mercy. Atheists should refer to God as who He is, not as an agent with only two attributes. If they were to include other attributes such as wisdom, their argument would not be valid. If they were to include the attribute of wisdom, they would have to show how Divine wisdom is incompatible with a world full of suffering or evil. This would be impossible to prove, because there are so many examples in our intellectual and practical lives where we admit our intellectual inferiority—in other words, there are cases where we submit to a wisdom we cannot understand. We rationally submit to realities that we cannot understand on a regular basis. For example, when we visit the doctor, we assume that the doctor is an authority. We trust the doctor’s diagnosis on this basis. We even take the medicine the doctor prescribes without any second thought. This and many other similar examples clearly show that referring to God’s wisdom is not evading the problem. Rather, it is accurately presenting who God is and not making out that God has only two attributes. Since He is The-Wise, and His names and attributes are maximally perfect, it follows that there is wisdom behind everything that He does—even if we do not know or understand that wisdom. Many of us do not understand how diseases work, but just because we do not understand something does not negate its existence.

Basi wakarudi nyuma, wakaifuata tena njia yao, na wakampata mmoja wa waja wetu—mtu ambaye tulimpa rehema yetu na tukamfundisha elimu itokayo kwetu. Musa akamwambia, ‘Je, naweza kukufuata ili unifundishe baadhi ya uongofu sahihi ulioelimishwa?’ Yule mtu akasema, ‘Hutaweza kuvumilia pamoja nami. Utawezaje kuvumilia mambo ambayo hayako ndani ya elimu yako?’ Musa akasema, ‘Mungu akipenda, utaniona mvumilivu. Sitakuasi katika jambo lolote.’ Yule mtu akasema, ‘Basi ukinifuata, usiniulize chochote mpaka mimi mwenyewe nikutajie.’ Wakaendelea safari. Baadaye, walipopanda chombo, akatoboa shimo ndani yake. Musa akasema, ‘Umekitobolea shimo ili kuwazamisha abiria wake? Umefanya jambo la ajabu!’ Yule mtu akajibu, ‘Je, sikukwambia kwamba hutaweza kuvumilia pamoja nami?’ Musa akasema, ‘Nisamehe kwa kusahau kwangu, wala usiniwekee ugumu katika kukufuata.’ Wakaendelea safari. Kisha walipokutana na kijana mdogo, yule mtu akamuua, Musa akasema, ‘Umemuua nafsi isiyo na hatia, wala hakuua mtu! Umefanya jambo baya sana!’ Yule mtu akajibu, ‘Je, sikukwambia kwamba hutaweza kuvumilia pamoja nami?’ Musa akasema, ‘Kuanzia sasa, nikikuuliza jambo lolote, nifukuze mbali nawe, kwani umekwisha nivumilia vya kutosha.’ Wakaendelea safari. Kisha walipofika mji mmoja wakaomba chakula kwa wenyeji wake, lakini wakakataliwa ukarimu. Wakaona ukuta pale ukiwa karibu kuanguka, naye yule mtu akaukarabati. Musa akasema, ‘Lau ungetaka, ungeweza kulipwa ujira kwa kazi hiyo.’ Akasema, ‘Hapa ndipo tunapoachana. Nitakueleza maana ya mambo ambayo hukuweza kuyavumilia: kile chombo kilikuwa cha watu maskini waliokuwa wakitafuta riziki baharini, nami nikakiharibu kwa kuwa nilijua kwamba nyuma yao alikuwa mfalme anayekamata kwa nguvu kila chombo kilichokuwa kizima. Kijana huyo alikuwa na wazazi waliokuwa watu wa imani, na hivyo, tukiogopa kwamba angewatia shida kwa uovu na kukufuru, tulitaka Mola wao awape mtoto mwingine—aliye safi zaidi na mwenye huruma zaidi—badala yake. 309 Ukuta ulikuwa wa mayatima wawili katika mji, na chini yake kulikuwa na hazina iliyofichwa ya wao. Baba yao alikuwa mtu mwema, hivyo Mola wako alikusudia wafikie utu uzima kisha wachimbue hazina yao kama rehema kutoka kwa Mola wako. Mimi sikuyafanya [mambo haya] kwa hiari yangu mwenyewe: haya ndiyo maelezo ya yale ambayo hukuweza kuyavumilia kwa subira.’”310

“So the two turned back, retraced their footsteps, and found one of Our servants— a man to whom We had granted Our mercy and whom We had given knowledge of Our own. Moses said to him, ‘May I follow you so that you can teach me some of the right guidance you have been taught?’ The man said, ‘You will not be able to bear with me patiently. How could you be patient in matters beyond your knowledge?’ Moses said, ‘God willing, you will find me patient. I will not disobey you in any way.’ The man said, ‘If you follow me then, do not query anything I do before I mention it to you myself.’ They travelled on. Later, when they got into a boat, and the man made a hole in it, Moses said, ‘How could you make a hole in it? Do you want to drown its passengers? What a strange thing to do!’ He replied, ‘Did I not tell you that you would never be able to bear with me patiently?’ Moses said, ‘Forgive me for forgetting. Do not make it too hard for me to follow you.’ And so they travelled on. Then, when they met a young boy and the man killed him, Moses said, ‘How could you kill an innocent person? He has not killed anyone! What a terrible thing to do!’ He replied, ‘Did I not tell you that you would never be able to bear with me patiently?’ Moses said, ‘From now on, if I query anything you do, banish me from your company— you have put up with enough from me.’ And so they travelled on. Then, when they came to a town and asked the inhabitants for food but were refused hospitality, they saw a wall there that was on the point of falling down and the man repaired it. Moses said, ‘But if you had wished you could have taken payment for doing that.’ He said, ‘This is where you and I part company. I will tell you the meaning of the things you could not bear with patiently: the boat belonged to some needy people who made their living from the sea and I damaged it because I knew that coming after them was a king who was seizing every [serviceable] boat by force. The young boy had parents who were people of faith, and so, fearing he would trouble them through wickedness and disbelief, we wished that their Lord should give them another child—purer and more compassionate—in his place. 309 The wall belonged to two young orphans in the town and there was buried treasure beneath it belonging to them. Their father had been a righteous man, so your Lord intended them to reach maturity and then dig up their treasure as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do [these things] of my own accord: these are the explanations for those things you could not bear with patience.’”310.

Zaidi ya kulinganisha hekima yetu finyu na hekima ya Mungu, hadithi hii pia inatoa mafunzo muhimu na mafundisho ya kiroho. Funzo la kwanza ni kwamba ili kuelewa mapenzi ya Mungu, mtu lazima awe mnyenyekevu. Musa alimwendea Khidhr, na alijua kwamba alikuwa na maarifa yaliyovuviwa na Mungu ambayo Mungu hakumpa Musa. Musa kwa unyenyekevu aliomba kujifunza kutoka kwake, lakini Khidhr alijibu kwa kuhoji uwezo wake wa kuwa mvumilivu; hata hivyo, Musa alisisitiza na kutaka kujifunza. (Hadhi ya kiroho ya Musa ni ya juu sana kulingana na mapokeo ya Kiislamu. Alikuwa nabii na mtume, lakini bado alimwendea mtu huyo kwa unyenyekevu.) Funzo la pili ni kwamba subira inahitajika ili kukabiliana kihisia na kisaikolojia na mateso na uovu duniani. Khidhr alijua kwamba Musa asingeweza kuwa mvumilivu kwake, kwa kuwa alikuwa karibu kufanya mambo ambayo Musa aliyaona kuwa maovu. Musa alijaribu kuwa mvumilivu lakini daima alihoji matendo ya mtu huyo na kueleza hasira yake kwa uovu aliouona. Hata hivyo, mwishoni mwa hadithi, Khidhr alieleza hekima ya Mungu iliyo nyuma ya matendo yake baada ya kutangaza kwamba Musa hakuweza kuwa mvumilivu. Tunachojifunza kutoka kwenye hadithi hii ni kwamba ili kuweza kukabiliana na uovu na mateso duniani, ikiwa ni pamoja na kutoweza kwetu kuyaelewa, lazima tuwe wanyenyekevu na wavumilivu.

In addition to contrasting our limited wisdom with God’s, this story also provides key lessons and spiritual insights. The first lesson is that in order to understand God’s will, one has to be humble. Moses approached Khidr, and knew that he had some Divinely inspired knowledge that God had not given to Moses. Moses humbly asked to learn from him, yet Khidr responded by questioning his ability to be patient; nevertheless, Moses insisted and wanted to learn. (The spiritual status of Moses is very high according to the Islamic tradition. He was a prophet and messenger, yet he approached the man with humility.) The second lesson is that patience is required to emotionally and psychologically deal with the suffering and evil in the world. Khidr knew that Moses would not be able to be patient with him, as he was going to do things that Moses thought were evil. Moses tried to be patient but always questioned the man’s actions and expressed his anger at the perceived evil. However, at the end of the story, Khidr explained the Divine wisdom behind his actions after exclaiming that Moses was not able to be patient. What we learn from this story is that to be able to deal with evil and suffering in the world, including our inability to understand it, we must be humble and patient.