It is seen that some Islamic sources provide information about the real name and lineage of Hızır. According to the narrations, the authenticity of which is debatable, Hızır is Hazrûn, the son of Kabil, one of the children of Hz. Adam, or Belya ibn Melkan, one of the grandsons of Hz. Noah's son Sam, or Hazrûn ibn Amayîl, one of the grandsons of Hz. Ishak. In addition, it is suggested that he was descended from Hz. Harun, that his name was Hadir ibn Amiya or Hadir ibn Firaun, or that the Ilyas or Elyesa mentioned in the Quran is Hızır himself (Abu Hatim al-Sijistani, p. 3; Maqdisî, III, 77; İbn Kathir, I, 295; Diyarbekrî, I, 106). In some sources, it is recorded that his mother was Greek and his father was Persian (İbn Kesir, I, 299; Diyarbekrî, I, 106-107). Ibn Kesir stated that the real name of Hızır in Islamic sources, Belyâ b. Melkân, is actually a corruption of the name İlya in the Bible (el-Bidaye, I, 299). Based on this view, researchers such as A. J. Wensinck and A. Yaşar Ocak have suggested that Hızır's real name may be Belyâ, the Arabicized form of İlya. However, according to the descriptions of Hızır and İlyas in the Quran, hadith, tafsir and history books, İlya and İlyas are the same person, Hızır and İlyas are different people; moreover, there is no information that they acted together. Accordingly, it becomes clear that the concept of Hıdrellez, which expresses the unity of Hızır and İlyas in folk culture, is not based on a solid foundation.

The story in the Surah Kahf, which is not mentioned by name in the Quran but is accepted by commentators as belonging to Hızır, is summarized as follows: Hz. Moses tells his young man that he has decided to reach the place where the two seas meet, so they set off together. When they reach the place where the two seas meet, they forget the dried fish they took with them somewhere, and the fish comes to life and jumps into the sea. After a while, Moses tells his young man to bring the provisions; however, the young man remembers what happened and expresses his sadness for forgetting to inform Moses about this before. Thereupon, Moses says that that is the place they are looking for and they return. Here they encounter a pious servant who has been granted “mercy and knowledge” by Allah. Moses tells him that he wants to be his friend so that he can teach him some of the knowledge he has; this person, whose name the Quran does not mention, states that he cannot bear this togetherness due to events that he cannot be privy to, but upon Moses’ insistence, he accepts the offer on the condition that he does not ask him any questions unless he explains the events that have taken place. After Moses promises to comply with this condition, they set off on their journey. First, this person sinks the ship they board, then kills a child, and then, even though the people of a town they stop by do not host them, he repairs a wall that is about to collapse. In each of these three incidents, Moses asks his friend the reason for his behavior; his friend warns him, “Didn’t I tell you that you would not be able to bear being with me?” Moses apologizes and asks them to continue their journey. Although the righteous servant accepts Moses’ request after the first and second incidents, in the third incident, he tells him that it is time to part ways; Meanwhile, he explains the reasons for his actions regarding the events in question and says that he did them by Allah's command (al-Kahf 18/60-82). Of the three people in this story, only Moses' name is mentioned, while the other two people are referred to as "the young man" (fatā) and "the servant of Allah" who has been granted divine mercy and knowledge.

The subject of Khidr is mentioned in various sections of the hadith books of Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, especially by Bukhari and Muslim, and in these, the information in the Surah Kahf is repeated and other information is also given. According to one of the narrations in the nature of interpretation of the story in the surah, Said ibn Jubayr told Ibn Abbas that Nawf al-Bikali claimed that the Moses mentioned in the story of Khidr was not the Moses ibn Imran who was sent to the Children of Israel, but another Moses. Ibn Abbas, saying, “The enemy of Allah is lying,” sent Hz. He narrated a long narration centered on Moses from the Prophet (Musnad, V, 117-119; Bukhari, “ʿIlim”, 44; “Anbiyâʾ”, 27; “Tefsir”, 18/3; Muslim, “Fażâʾil”, 170-173; Tirmidhi, “Tefsir”, 19/1). According to the second narration on the same subject, upon a question from Ibn Abbas, Ubay b. Ka'b narrated the hadith stating that the Moses here is the Moses sent to the Children of Israel (Musnad, V, 116-117, 122; Bukhari, “ʿIlim”, 16, 19; “Anbiyaʾ”, 27; “Tawḥid”, 31; Muslim, “Fażāʾil”, 174). As stated in both narrations, when Prophet Moses was asked who the most knowledgeable person was while addressing the Children of Israel, he replied “I am” and was not reminded that absolute knowledge was with God, so he was condemned by God and it was said that there was someone named Hadir who was more knowledgeable than him. In another hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah, the reason for giving this name to Khidr is explained as “When he sits on dry land, grass will grow and wave under him” (Bukhari, “Anbiya’, 27; Tirmidhi, “Tafsir”, 19/1). This narration reminds us of the statement in the Old Testament, “Here is the man whose name is Filiz, and he will sprout from where he stands” (Zekarya, 6/12). In a hadith narrated by Ubay b. Ka‘b, one of whose narrators is considered weak, it is stated that Khidr was a young Israelite living in Egypt during the time of the Pharaohs, that he learned the true religion from a priest and adopted it, but he kept this secret, and when a woman he divorced finally revealed this secret, he ran away and took refuge on an island (Ibn Majah, “Fitan”, 23).

It is seen that the news about Khidr in reliable hadith sources, while maintaining the outline in the Quran, also contains some details that are not there or are vague. Indeed, while it is not stated in the Quran how Hz. Musa became aware of Khidr’s existence, the hadiths state that this was revealed to him by Allah upon a question posed to Musa. In addition, it is explained in the hadiths that the Musa mentioned in the Quran is not Musa ibn Misa as claimed by the Jews, but Musa ibn Imran, the young man with him is Joshua ibn Nun, and the pious person who was granted divine knowledge and mercy is Khidr, and Khidr is introduced as one of the notables of the Children of Israel. There is nothing in this news that contradicts the information in the Quran, nor is there any information that shows that Khidr was an extraordinary person who continued his existence until today, rather than being a righteous person who lived in history. In a narration that Bukhari gave as the opinion of Abdullah b. Abbas (“Tafsir”, 18/4), it is stated that there is a water source called “life” at the bottom of the rock at the meeting place, everything its drops touch comes to life, and a few drops of this water hit the fish in question, while in Tirmidhi (“Tafsir”, 19/1) it is stated that some people claim this.

In later hadith sources and history and Sufism books, there is information that Khidr was portrayed as a mythological person and that he lived for a long time in history and that he will continue to live until the apocalypse. According to narrations recorded by some hadith scholars and historians, Khidr's life was extended so that he would deny the dajjal (Ibn Hajar, al-Ithaba, I, 431), that Khidr will be the one to confront the dajjal (An-Nawawi, XVIII, 72), that he was alive during the time of the Hz. Prophet and that Anas met with him as the Prophet's messenger (Beyhaqi, V, 423), that when the Messenger of Allah passed away, he came and condoled with the Ahl al-Bayt (Ibn Kathir, I, 141), that Omar b. Abdulaziz and Ibrahim b. It has been reported by Sufis such as Edhem, Bishr al-Hâfî, Ma‘rûf-i Kerhî, Junayd-i Baghdâdî and Muhyiddin Ibn al-Arabi that he was seen there, that Khidr lived in the sea and Ilyas lived on land, that they often got together (Ibn Hajar, al-Ithaba, I, 432), and that they met with Gabriel, Michael and Israfil every year on the day of Arafat. Some of them attribute Khidr's living until the end of the world to a will and prayer of Hz. Adam (ibid., I, 431), and some to his drinking from the elixir of life (Tabari, Tarîḫ, I, 220). Those who say that Khidr had a long life say that he lived in the time of Hz. Moses, Hz. They claim that Muhammad died before his prophethood or within the first century after his death.

Many scholars of hadith and interpretation, especially Bukhari, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Hayyan al-Andalussi, Abu'l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi, Muhammad Abdurrauf al-Munawi, Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya and Suyuti, have said that Khidr is not alive; the news that was narrated about his life was rejected by hadith critics such as Ibn al-Jawzi, Ali al-Kari, Muhammad Darwish al-Hut. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya also stated that all the narrations about Khidr's life were fabricated (al-Manar al-Munif, p. 67). Those who claim that Khidr is not alive have cited various evidences based on the Quran, the Sunnah and reason for his death. They present as evidence the verses of the Quran that many prophets had come and gone before Muhammad and none of them were given eternal life (Aal-i Imran 3/144; al-Anbiya 21/34), that every soul will taste death (Aal-i Imran 3/185; al-Anbiya 21/35; al-Ankabut 29/57), and the words of the Prophet, which he said in the days leading up to his death, “In a hundred years, not one of those living will remain on the earth today” (Bukhari, “ʿIlim”, 41; Muslim, “Fażāʾilü’ṣ-ṣaḥâbe”, 219). Ibn Qayyim also tries to prove that the news about his life is not true by saying that there is a consensus of scholars on this issue with various rational evidences (al-Manār al-munīf, pp. 73-76). Authors such as Shahābeddin Mahmud al-Alusi and Kamil Miras, scholars of the last period, are of the opinion that Khidr died like every other human being.

Although a few scholars who accept that Khidr is still alive but will die when the time comes claim that this situation does not contradict the Quran and the Sunnah, it seems very difficult to reconcile their views with the verses recorded above. It is not easy to understand the wisdom of Khidr being alive and to explain the functions attributed to him. Because Allah states in various verses that He created and governed the universe, and also states that He bound His governance to the laws He established (for example, see Fatir 35/39-45). In order for people to achieve happiness in this world and the hereafter, they must obey Allah's commands and all His laws.

Islamic scholars have put forward different views on whether Khidr is a prophet, a saint or an angel. Those who claim that he was a prophet put forward the fact that Allah had given him mercy and knowledge (al-Kahf 18/65), that he explained that he did not do the things narrated in the story on his own (al-Kahf 18/82), that he was guided by revelation, and that he was presented in a position superior to Moses because of the knowledge he possessed. Those who accept that Khidr was a saint say that the knowledge given to him could have been a direct inspiration from Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah notes that it is wrong to say that saints can go beyond the law by putting forward the story of Khidr. According to him, the fact that Khidr did not go beyond the law of Moses is understood from the fact that Moses approved of the reason for the things he did when he explained them. It should also be noted that if Khidr is accepted as a prophet, he is not from the community of Moses and therefore is not obliged to comply with his law (Risalah fi ʿilmi’l-bâṭın ve’ẓ-ẓâhir, p. 250). The claim that Khidr is an angel (Ibn Hajar, el-Iṣâbe, I, 429) has not found many supporters. Sufi masters generally think that he is a saint, while most scholars of theology, tafsir and hadith think that he is a prophet.

The perception of Khidr has an important place among the extreme Shiites (Ghaliyya), Yazidis and Druze, especially the Nusayris. It is seen that many superstitions and mythological elements have been added to the issues narrated in the Quran and authentic hadith books over time, and as a result, interpretations that contradict each other and the Islamic faith have emerged. It can be said that these new elements originated from local cultures in the expanding Islamic geography, and that, for example, the beliefs of Elijah in Judaism and Saint George (Circîs) in Christianity were influential in the formation of folk culture.

The epics and legends that some orientalists claim to be the source of the story of Hızır are as follows: a) The Epic of Gilgamesh. The first example of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates back to the Sumerian texts of the 4th millennium BC, and has variants in the Akkadian, Babylonian, Hittite and Hurrian languages. As understood from the epic, Gilgamesh, a powerful king in Mesopotamia, befriends Enkidu, who is of divine origin. Gilgamesh, who tries to bring his friend back to life after his friend dies, learns that there is a herb that gives people eternal life. The only person who knows where this herb is is a person named Utnapishtim, who lives at the “confluence of rivers” and lives eternally. Gilgamesh finds it after a long and adventurous journey and learns where the grass is; but when he finds it, a snake grabs the grass and disappears. A. J. Wensinck establishes a relationship between Utnapishtim and Hızır in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim is a variant of Ea, the Sumerian god of wisdom. He knows the secret of eternal life, lives in water, and helps anyone in need (ERE, XII, 356; ER, V, 107). b) The Legend of Alexander. According to this legend, written down around 300 AD, Alexander learns that there is a fountain that grants eternal life to humans, and sets off with his army to find it. He is forced to leave his soldiers due to various events on the way. Only his cook, Andreas, is with him. The cook goes to a fountain to prepare food and wants to wash the salted fish that is their food there, but as soon as the fish touches the water, it comes to life and jumps into the water and disappears. Realizing that this water is the fountain of life they were looking for, the cook drinks from it. Upon the cook’s explanation of the situation, Alexander looks for the fountain, and when he can’t find it, he gets angry and throws Andrew into the sea. The cook turns into a sea genie and attains eternal life. Israel Friedlaender likens the cook Andrew in this story to Khidr. In the existing texts of the Alexander legend in Islamic sources, the person next to Alexander Dhul-Qarnayn is Khidr (see ÂB-ı HAYÂT). c) Jewish Legend. Although its beginnings go back to ancient times, the hero of this story, which was written down in the 11th century, is actually Elijah, who is shown as a prophet in the Old Testament. According to the story, which is not found in the Torah, Elijah befriends Rabbi Yeshua ben Levi for a while. During their travels, Elijah does some strange things, and Yeshua gets annoyed by them. Not understanding the nature of what is happening, Yeshua asks Elijah for the reasons; Elijah also says that he did these things by divine will and explains the reasons.

In addition to these three legends, the story of Glaukos (Iliad) in Greek mythology is also connected to the story of Hızır. According to this story, Glaukos is the king of Ephyra (Corinth), founded by the mythological hero Sisyphus. According to one story, he drank from the fountain of immortality and became immortal. Friedlaender says that when the legend was adapted into Arabic, the word Glaukos, meaning “green,” was translated as “Hadır.” According to orientalists, Moses in the story partly represents Gilgamesh and Alexander, and partly represents Yeshua ben Levi; Hızır represents Utnapishtim, Andrew, or Elijah. Of these three legends, which have some similarities with the story in the Quran, the Gilgamesh epic is the one that least resembles the story in the Quran. Utnapishtim’s personality may resemble Khidr in Islamic sources, but there is not even the slightest hint in either the verses or the authentic hadiths that Khidr has attained eternal life; in other words, there is no connection between the Khidr in popular belief and the “virtuous servant” mentioned in the story in the Quran.

Literature. The main sources providing information about Khidr are Quran commentaries and hadith commentaries. While some commentators based on narration were content with only narrating authentic hadiths, some also mentioned news and local perspectives that could be described as Isra’iliyyat. The most important of such commentaries is Tabari’s Jami’ al-Bayan. Tabari, while listing the relevant narrations and perceptions, does not make any statement or narration that Khidr was still alive (Jamiʿu’l-beyân, XV, 276-288; XVI, 2-7). Shawkani, who aims to interpret the verses through narration and acumen, criticizes the inaccurate or weak ones after including many hadiths and news (Fatḥu’l-ḳadîr, III, 297-306). It is seen that in acumen commentaries, the narrations on the subject are approached with a critical perspective and the Israiliyyat type news are eliminated. For example, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī did not only list the narrations about Khidr, which he gave extensive space to in his Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, but also criticized them (see XI, 142-162). In his Ruḥ al-Maʿānī (XV, 310-342; XVI, 2-24), Shahābeddin al-Alusī, after mentioning all the narrations, sorted them out and made choices among them. Elmalılı Muhammed Hamdi, who recorded the various views on Khidr in his Hak Dini Kur’an Dili (IV, 3256-3261), stated that the Sufi perspective was based on some news that were not considered authentic by the hadith scholars, and stated that when looked at from the perspective of apparent life, there was no doubt that the view of those who said that Khidr did not live was stronger. In Muhyiddin İbnü’l-Arabi’s Raḥmetün mine’r-raḥmân and İsmâil Hakkı Bursevî’s Rûḥu’l-beyân, which were written according to the İşârî interpretation method, the events and people in the story are interpreted with symbols as well as their apparent meanings. For example, the revival of the fish was interpreted as the movement of the disciple’s heart on the Sufi path, and it was claimed that this story pointed to the “maqam-ı Hızır” in Sufism, its rules and etiquette. Narrations that hadith scholars considered weak or even fabricated were also included in these works (Muhyiddin İbnü’l-Arabi, III, 18-30; İsmâil Hakkı Bursevî, V, 262-289).

Among the hadith commentators, an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Bedreddin al-Aynī are the leading authors who have given extensive space to the subject of Khidr (an-Nawawi, XV, 135-147). Ibn Hajar mentions Khidr both in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ-i Buḫārī (Fatḥu’l-bārī, XIII, 181-186; XVIII, 6-24) and in al-Iṣābah, and especially in the latter work, he treats the subject under separate headings (I, 429-452). Although he says that he is inclined to the view that Khidr is not alive, he also states that the narrations that Khidr is alive are also in total and that the evidence put forward by those who accept that he is dead is open to interpretation (az-Zahrü’n-naḍır, pp. 82-83). Another commentator on Bukhari, Bedreddin al-Aynī, makes explanations of the same nature (ʿUmdetü’l-ḳārî, XIII, 34-38; XV, 288-298). Narrations about Khidr also occupy an important place in the hadith literature, which deals with weak and fabricated hadiths. As examples, Ibn al-Jawzi’s al-Mawżūʿāt (I, 195-200), Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s al-Manār al-munīf (pp. 67-76), Suyuti’s al-Laʾāli al-maṣnûʿa (I, 164 ff.) and Ali al-Kari’s al-Mawżūʿāt (p. 112) can be mentioned.

The subject of Hızır also occupies an important place in works on history and literature. Tabari’s Tarik al-umam wa’l-muluk (I, 220-226), Sa‘labî’s ʿArāʾisu’l-mecālis (pp. 217-231), Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidāya wa’n-nihāya (I, 295-299) and Diyarbekrī’s Tarik al-ḫamīs (I, 106-107) are among these works. The theme of Hızır also has a large place in works of epic, Hızırname, menaqibnamā, story, tale and legend (Ocak, pp. 38-42).

Some independent works have been written about Hızır, some of which are known only by their names. The main ones whose existence has been determined are as follows: Dâvûd-i Kayserî, Taḥḳīḳu mâʾi’l-ḥayât ve kashfü esrâri’ẓ-ẓulümât (A copy of the work, in which it is stated that Hızır is a prophet who did not bring the law and did not live in this world with a physical body, is available in the Nuruosmaniye Library, no. 2687/2; see DİA, IX, 35); Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, az-Zehrü’n-naqir fi nebaʾi’l-qahir (the section on Khidr in al-Iṣāba, published in Majdi al-Sayyid Ibrāhim [Cairo, t.d.]); Abdulwahab al-Sha‘rānī, al-Mizānu’l-qahiriyya (Cairo 1989); Ali al-Qārī, Maqijāla fî bayāni ḥāli’l-qahir (Faculty of Language, History and Geography Library, Part I, no. 5389); Nûh b. Mustafa er-Rûmî, el-Ḳavlü’d-dâl ʿalâ ḥayâti’l-Ḫaḍır ve vücûdi’l-abdâl (Süleymaniye Library, Esad Efendi, no. 1446; Beyazıt State Library, Veliyyüddin Efendi, no. 571, 1147); Köprülüzâde Nûman Pasha, el-ʿAdl fî beyâni ḥâli’l-Ḫaḍr (Köprülü Library, Part III, no. 148); Ahmed b. Muhammed al-Guneymi, al-Khawlu’l-maḳbûl fî enne’l-Ḫaḍır ʿaleyhi’s-salam leyse bi’n-nebî (Süleymaniye Library, Esad Efendi, no. 1446); Abu Saîd al-Hâdimî, Kashfü’l-ḫadir ʿan ḥâli’l-Ḫaḍır (Îżâḥu’l-meknûn, II, 359; Risale fî ḥaḳḳı’l-Ḫıżır [lithograph], place and date of printing not available); Muhammed Hayr Ramazan Yûsuf, el-Ḫaḍır beyne’l-vâḳiʿ ve’t-tehvîl (Damascus 1984); A. Yaşar Ocak, Hızır or Hızır-İlyas Cult in Islamic-Turkish Beliefs (Ankara 1985).

The following are some of the major works on this subject whose names appear in the sources: Ebü’l-Ferec İbnü’l-Cevzî, ʿUcâletü’l-muntaẓır fî şerḥi ḥâli’l-Ḫaḍır (Keşfü’ẓ-ẓunûn, II, 1125; Kâtib Çelebi states that the thesis that Hızır did not live is defended in the work); Şemseddin Muhammed b. Ahmed al-Bisati, Khati'atul-Khairah (ibid., II, 1327); Ibn al-Ahdal, al-Khairah al-Munta'ir al-Da'awli al-Fariqa bi-Khairah Abu'l-Abbas al-Khairah (Izaah al-Maknun, II, 255); Ibn Imām al-Kamiliyya, Risale-i-Khairah 'alayhi's-salam and Khayatih (Kashf al-Qa'nun, I, 862); Ibn al-Haydiri, er-Rawżu’n-naḍır fi ḥâli’l-Ḫaḍır and el-Iftirâż li-defʿi’l-iʿtirâż, which was written as a response to the objections made to this work (ibid., I, 921); Suyuti, el-Wachü’n-naḍır fî tercîḥi nübüvveti’l-Ḫaḍır (ibid., II, 2001); Mar‘î b. Yûsuf, er-Rawżu’n-naḍır fi’l-kelâm ʿale’l-Ḫaḍır (Îżâḥu’l-meknûn, I, 591); Abdulahad Nuri, Risalat al-Awliya wa Khayyatu'l-Khaqir wa Ilyas (ibid., I, 560); Abu'l-Awn al-Saffarini, al-Jawabul-muharrar fi'l-Kashf 'an Khalil-Khaqir wa'l-Iskander (ibid., I, 372); Muhammad Arif b. Ahmad b. Said al-Munayyir ad-Damashqi, Shekha al-'aqir fi Sayyidina Ilyas wa'l-Khaqir (ibid., II, 42).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Musnad, V, 117-122.

Bukhari, “ʿIlim”, 16, 19, 41, 44, “Tawḥid”, 31, “Anbiyāʾ”, 27, 29, “Tafsīr”, 18/2-4.

Muslim, “Fażāʾil”, 170-174, “Fażāʾilü’ṣ-ṣaḥābe”, 219.

Ibn Majah, “Fitan”, 23.

Tirmidhi, “Tafsīr”, 19/1.

Abu Hatim as-Sijistani, al-Mu'ammerun wa'l-waṣaya (ed. Abdulmun'im Amir), Cairo 1961, p. 3.

Ibn Qutayba, al-Ma'ārif (Ukkasha), p. 42.

Tabarī, Jami' al-Bayan, XV, 276-291; XVI, 2-7.

a.mlf., Tarīḫ (Abu'l-Fazl), I, 220-226.

Maqdisī, al-Bedʾ wa't-tarīḫ, III, 77-78.

Kādî Abdülcebâr, el-Muġnî, XI, 14.

Sa‘lebî, ʿArâʾisü’l-mecâlis, Beirut 1405/1985, p. 217-231.

Beyhakī, Delâʾilü’n-nübüvve (ed. Abdülmu‘tî Kal‘acî), Beirut 1405/1985, V, 423-424.

Hatîb el-Bağdâdî, er-Riḥle fî ṭalebi'l-ḥadîs̱ (ed. Nûreddin Itr), Beirut 1395/1975, p. 97-108.

Ibn Beshquwal, Iavâmiżü’l-esmâʾi’l-mubheme (ed. İzzeddin Ali es-Seyyid – M. Kamâleddin İzzeddin), Beirut 1407/1987, II, 575-576.

Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Mevżûʿât (ed. Abdurrahman M. Osman), [no place of printing] 1403/1983 (Dârü’l-fikr), I, 195-201.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafâtîḥu’l-Ghayb, XI, 142-162.

Mahmud Mahmud al-Ghurab, Raḥmetün mine’r-raḥmân fî tafsîr ve işârâti’l-Khurʾân min kalâmi’ş-Şeyhîl-Ekber Muḥyiddîn İbn al-ʿArabi, Damascus 1410/1989, III, 19-30.

Nawawi, Şerḥu Muslim, XV, 135-147; XVIII, 72.

a.mlf., Tahẕîb, I, 176-177.

Ibn Abu’l-Iz, Sharḥu’l-Aqīdati’ṭ-Ṭaḥaviyya (ed. Abdullah b. Abdulmuhsin et-Turki – Shuayb al-Arnaut), Beirut 1408/1987, II, 416.

Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, Risāla fī ʿilmi’l-bāṭin wa’ẓ-ẓāhir (in Majmuʿatü’r-resāʾili’l-munīriyya), Cairo 1343, I, 250.

a.mlf., Majmuʿu fetāwā, IV, 337-340.

Nüwayrî, Nihâyetü'l-ereb, XIII, 240-244.

İbn Kayyim el-Cevziyye, el-Menârü’l-münîf fi’ṣ-ṣaḥîḥ ve’ḍ-ḍaʿîf (ed. Abdülfettâh Ebû Gudde), Aleppo 1403/1983, p. 67-76.

İbn Kesîr, el-Bidaye, I, 141, 295-299.

Fîrûzâbâdî, Sifrü's-saʿâde, Beirut, ts. (el-Mektebetü'l-asriyye), p. 259.

Ibn Hajar, Fatḥ al-bārī (Sa‘d), XIII, 181-186; XVIII, 6-24.

a.mlf., al-Iṣābī, I, 429-452.

a.mlf., az-Zehrü’n-naḍir fī nebeʾi’l-Ḫaḍir (ed. Majdī al-Sayyid Ibrāhim), Cairo, ed. (Mektabatul-Qur’ān), pp. 82-83.

Aynī, ʿUmdetu’l-ḳārī, Cairo 1392/1972, XIII, 34-38; XV, 288-298.

Tecrid Translation, IX, 144-146.

Suyuti, el-Leʾâli’l-maṣnûʿa fi’l-eḥâdîs̱i’l-mevżûʿa, Cairo, ed. (Mektebetü’t-Ticâriyyeti’l-kübrâ), I, 164-169.

Diyarbekrî, Tarîḫu’l-ḫamîs, I, 106-107.

Şa‘rânî, el-Mîzânü’l-Ḫaḍıriyye (ed. by Abdurrahman Hasan Mahmûd), Cairo 1409/1989, ed. place.

İbrâhim b. Müferric es-Sûrî, Târîḫu’l-İskender, British Museum, Add., nr. 7366.

Umâre b. Zeyd, Târîḫu’l-İskender, British Museum, Or., nr. 5928.

Keşfü'ẓ-ẓunûn, I, 862, 921; II, 1125, 1327, 2001.

Ali el-Kārî, Mevżûʿât, Istanbul 1890, p. 112.

İbn Himmât ed-Dımaşkī, et-Tenkît ve’l-ifâde fî taḫrîci eḥâdîs̱i Ḫâtimeti Sifri’s-saʿâde (ed. Ahmed Bezre), Damascus 1407/1987, p. 26-27.

İsmâil Hakkı Bursevî, Rûḥu’l-beyân, İstanbul 1969, V, 262-289.

Şevkânî, Fetḥu’l-ḳadîr, III, 297-306.

Âlûsî, Rûḥu’l-meʿânî, XV, 310-342; XVI, 2-24.

The Epic of Gilgamesh (ed. B. Landsberger, tr. Muzaffer Ramazanoğlu), Istanbul 1942.

Elmalılı, Hak Dini, IV, 3256-3264.

Îżâḥu’l-meknûn, I, 56, 372, 560, 591; II, 42, 255, 359.

Said Nursi, Mektûbât, Istanbul 1991, pp. 5-6.

H. Corbin, Creative Imagination in the Ṣūfism of Ibn ʿArabī (trc. R. Manheim), Princeton 1969, p. 56.

Abdülvehhâb en-Neccâr, Ḳıṣaṣü’l-enbiyâʾ, Cairo, ts. (Dârü't-türâs), p. 352-354.

F. W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans (ed. M. M. Hasluck), New York 1973, I, 324.

Ahmed Eş-Şerebâsî, Yesʾelûneke fi’d-dîn ve’l-ḥayât, Beirut 1980, I, 510-512.

Muhammedî er-Reyşehrî, Mîzânü'l-ḥikme, Qum 1982, IX, 468-474.

Abdulkerim al-Khatib, al-Khaṣasu’l-Khurʾani mine’l-ʿâlemi’l-manẓûr and ġayri’l-manẓûr, Beirut 1404/1984, pp. 115-147.

M. Hayr Ramazan Yûsuf, al-Khaḍır beyne’l-vâqiʿ ve’t-tehvîl, Damascus 1984, ed. place.

Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Hızır or Hızır-İlyas Cult in Islamic-Turkish Beliefs, Ankara 1985, p. 38-42, 59, 61.

Zeyneb Mahmûd el-Hudayrî, Dirâse philosophicalyye li-baʿżi’l-fıraḳı’ş-Şîʿiyye, Cairo 1986, p. 87-88.

Ahmed Cemâl el-Ömerî, Dirâsât fi’t-tefsîri’l-mevżûʿî li’l-ḳaṣaṣi’l-Ḳurʾânî, Cairo 1406/1986, p. 282-291.

Muhammed al-Fiqī, Ḳıṣaṣü’l-enbiyâʾ: Aḥdās̱ühâ and ʿiberuhâ, Cairo 1410/1989, pp. 333-335.

Ukkasha Abdulmennan et-Tībī, al-Jinn: Telebbushu bi’l-insân ve ʿilâchu bi’l-Ḳurʾân, Cairo 1992, pp. 36-37.

Abdullah Aydemir, Prophets According to Islamic Sources, Ankara 1992, pp. 228-230.

Ahmed b. Abdurrezak al-Darwish, Fetawa’l-lecneti’d-da’ime li’l-buḥus̱i’l-ilmiyye ve’l-iftaʾ, Riyadh 1412, III, 208-211.

Yusuf Abdurrahman al-Barqawi, “Men huwa’l-Ḫaḍır ṣâḥibu Mûsâ ʿaleyhi’s-salam”, Majallatul-buḥus̱i’l-Islamiyye, no. 23, Riyadh 1409, pp. 281-308.

A. J. Wensinck, “Khidr”, İA, V/1, pp. 458-461.

I. Friedlaender, “Khidr”, ERE, VII, 693-695.

J. Rudhardt, “Water”, a.e., XII, 356.

D. Marcus, “Enki”, ER, V, 107.

Mehmet Bayraktar, “Dâvûd-i Kayseri”, DİA, IX, 35.