Appearance
Verses 63–82
This section of verses relates the return of Joseph’s brothers to their father and their efforts to persuade him to send Benjamin, Joseph’s full brother, to obtain further provisions from Egypt. This is followed by an account of their subsequent visit to Joseph and Joseph’s maneuver to keep Benjamin with him.
فَلَمَّا رَجَعُوا إِلَى أَبِيهِمْ قَالُواْ يَا أَبَانَا مُنِعَ مِنَّا الْكَيْلُ فَأَرْسِلْ مَعَنَا أَخَانَا نَكْتَلْ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ ٦٣
(12:63) So when they returned to their father, they said, ‘Father, the measure has been withheld from us, so let our brother go with us so that we may obtain the measure (naktal), and we will indeed take care of him.’
Iktiyāl (from whence the verb naktal is obtained) refers to procuring food in quantities by measure. Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says: ‘Kayl signifies the act of measuring out food. There is a distinction between the phrases ‘kaltu lahu al-ṭaʿām’ and ‘kaltuhu al-ta’am.’ The former means that I was directly involved in the act of measuring the food for him, whereas the latter implies that I gave him food using a measure or scale. The phrase ‘iktilatu ʿalayh’ means that I took from him using a measure. God says: ‘Woe to the defrauders who use short measures, who, when they measure from the people, take the full measure, but diminish when they measure or weigh for them’ ().
When they say, ‘Father, the measure has been withheld from us …,’ this implies that if they did not take their brother or if he didn’t accompany them to Egypt, they would not be allowed a measure of grain, evidenced by their plea, ‘so let our brother go with us.’ This is their summary of the interactions they had with the Egyptian governor (who, unbeknown to them, is their other brother Joseph) and his stipulation that they wouldn’t receive provisions unless they brought their brother from their father. They recount this to their father and request him to let their brother accompany them so that they can procure provisions and not face deprivation.
Their use of the term ‘our brother’ exhibits compassion and tenderness, aiming to reassure their father, similar to their assertion, and we will indeed take care of him,’ emphasizing their utmost commitment.
قَالَ هَلْ آمَنُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ إِلاَّ كَمَا أَمِنتُكُمْ عَلَى أَخِيهِ مِن قَبْلُ فَاللَّهُ خَيْرٌ حَافِظًا وَهُوَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ ٦٤
(12:64) He said, ‘Should I trust you (āmanu-kum) with him just as I trusted you with his brother before? Yet Allah is the best of protectors, and He is the most merciful of merciful ones.’
In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘Amn means for the heart to be reassured regarding the safety of something important.’ Therefore, the statement, ‘Should I trust you with him ...’ means: ‘Should I feel reassured entrusting this son of mine to you, just as I had felt reassured with his brother Joseph before? And we all know the outcome of that situation.’
In essence, this means: ‘You expect me to trust him with you and to be reassured by you, just as I trusted and felt reassured by you regarding his brother before. You promise me, saying, “and we will indeed take care of him”, just as you had promised with Joseph by saying, “we will indeed take care of him” (). I accorded you a similar level of trust concerning Joseph, but you failed me and brought back his blood-stained shirt, claiming a wolf had eaten him. To trust you with this brother, in the same manner as I trusted you with his brother before, is to trust someone whose assurance offers no true security and whose ability to protect what’s entrusted to him is uncertain.’
When Jacob says, Yet Allah is the best of protectors, and He is the most merciful of merciful ones,’ this is an elaboration on his previous statement: ‘Should I trust you with him?’ and so on. The implication is that if placing trust in you is without any benefit or real impact, then the best trust and reliance is that which is placed in God, for His protection. And if one is torn between relying on Him and delegating a matter to Him versus placing trust in someone else, then placing one’s trust in God Almighty is the best and necessary course.
His words, and He is the most merciful of merciful ones,’ serve as a rationale for the statement, ‘Allah is the best of protectors.’ While others might be entrusted with a task or responsibility and not show mercy to the one relying on them—failing in their duty—God, in His glory, is the most merciful of all, never withholding His mercy where it is needed. He has compassion for the weak and vulnerable who entrust matters to Him and rely on Him. Whoever relies on God, He is sufficient for them.
From this, it is clear that Jacob’s intention was not merely to emphasize relying solely on God because He is the only true agent, entirely unfettered by other influences (though this is certainly true). As God says elsewhere, And whoever puts his trust in Allah, He will suffice him. Indeed Allah carries through His command (). How could it be otherwise, when relying on anyone other than God in this sense would be akin to associating partners with Him, an act from which the prophets are far removed? God has explicitly stated that Jacob was one of his chosen servants and a leader of guidance for the rightly guided, and he himself acknowledges his earlier trust in his sons concerning Joseph. If this had truly been a form of association with others (shirk), he would never have done it.
Rather, Jacob intended to emphasize the necessity of placing trust in God over others because God alone possesses the most perfect attributes. These attributes assure that He will not betray those of His servants who rely upon Him and entrust their affairs to Him. Indeed, He is compassionate, merciful, forgiving, loving, generous, wise, and knowledgeable. Everyone agrees that He is the most merciful of the merciful, and He is irresistible and insurmountable in His decree. As for people, when they are trusted with something or someone entrusts them with a matter, they are easily swayed by whims and emotional impulses. Sometimes their sense of honor, loyalty, and mercy drives them to uphold what they are trusted with, and sometimes they betray this trust and fail. However, they neither possess the absolute power nor the autonomy in strength and will.
In essence, what he meant is that placing one’s trust in God’s protection is superior to relying on the protection of anyone else. This is because God, the Most High, is the most merciful of those who show mercy. He would never betray His servant, especially when the servant has entrusted something to Him with full confidence, unlike human beings. People sometimes do not uphold the trust placed in them, nor do they show mercy to those who rely on them, thereby betraying them. This is why, when he asked his sons to bring him a guarantee from God, he stated: ‘I will not let him go with you until you give me a pledge by Allah that you will surely bring him back to me, unless you are made to perish.’ Here he exempted circumstances beyond their control, such as unforeseen events, because they are beyond their capacity and they cannot be held accountable for them. What he requested as a guarantee was regarding matters within their control, like causing Benjamin harm or abandoning him. Understand this well.
From what has been mentioned, it becomes evident that when he said, ‘and He is the most merciful of merciful ones,’ this is intended as a subtle reminder and an allusion to the fact that they did not fully grant mercy—or perhaps did not show any mercy at all—regarding the matter of Joseph when they had promised to protect him. The verse, in any case, serves as a reply to their request.
وَلَمَّا فَتَحُواْ مَتَاعَهُمْ وَجَدُواْ بِضَاعَتَهُمْ رُدَّتْ إِلَيْهِمْ قَالُواْ يَا أَبَانَا مَا نَبْغِي هَذِهِ بِضَاعَتُنَا رُدَّتْ إِلَيْنَا وَنَمِيرُ أَهْلَنَا وَنَحْفَظُ أَخَانَا وَنَزْدَادُ كَيْلَ بَعِيرٍ ذَلِكَ كَيْلٌ يَسِيرٌ ٦٥
(12:65) And when they opened their baggage, they found their capital restored to them. They said, ‘Father, what do we want? (mā nabghī?) This is our capital, restored to us! We will get provisions (namīr) for our family and take care of our brother, and add another camel load of rations. That is an easy measure (kayl yasīr).’
The verb baghī means ‘to seek’ and is often used in the context of wrongdoing. Hence, it can sometimes be used to mean transgression or even adultery. In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘The verb mīra (of which the verb namīr is a cognante) refers to foodstuffs or provisions that are transported from one place to another.’
When they say, ‘Father, what do we want?’ this is a rhetorical question conveying their astonishment when they found their goods returned to them upon opening their belongings. This act was a testament to the governor of Egypt’s generosity toward them, suggesting that he bore them no ill intent. He had returned the goods they had traded for food and provided them with their food as well. Their journey to Egypt, therefore, was both beneficial and profitable. Upon their return, they addressed their father, saying, ‘O our father, what more could we ask from our journey to Egypt beyond this? We have received full measure and have been reimbursed for the goods we traded away.’ By saying, ‘Father, what do we want?! This is our capital, restored to us!’ they aimed to further reassure their father and convince him to let their brother accompany them, highlighting the safety guaranteed by the governor and their commitment to protecting their brother, as they had promised. This is further emphasized by their subsequent statement, We will get provisions for our family and take care of our brother, and add another camel load of rations. That is an easy measure’—the last phrase implies that they think this a simple task.
Some might suggest that the particle mā in mā nabghī signifies negation, meaning: ‘we do not seek to deceive you regarding what we have said regarding the governor of Egypt’s generosity toward us—look! These are our goods returned to us!’ Similarly, it has been said that the adjective yasīr here means ‘a small amount,’ meaning the quantity we have brought you on this occasion will not suffice. Therefore, we must seek an additional measure, equivalent to our brother’s camel load.
قَالَ لَنْ أُرْسِلَهُ مَعَكُمْ حَتَّى تُؤْتُونِ مَوْثِقًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ لَتَأْتُنَّنِي بِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يُحَاطَ بِكُمْ فَلَمَّا آتَوْهُ مَوْثِقَهُمْ قَالَ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَا نَقُولُ وَكِيلٌ ٦٦
(12:66) He said, ‘I will not let him go with you until you give me a pledge by Allah (mawthiqan min Allāh) that you will surely bring him back to me, unless you are made to perish (illā an yuḥāṭ bi-kum).’ When they had given him their pledge, he said, ‘Allah is a trustee (wakīl) over what we say.’
The term mawthiq (‘pledge’) means something upon which trust and reliance are placed. A mawthiq ‘by Allah’ means something that can be relied upon and is associated with divine authority. Giving someone such a guarantee means to make a promise that invokes God, such as a covenant or an oath, as a sort of collateral. One who makes an oath, saying, ‘I promise to God to do such and such,’ or ‘By God, I will surely do such and such,’ effectively stakes God’s honor and sanctity upon his fulfillment of this promise, making it a pledge to the party to whom he swears. If he fails to fulfill his promise, he loses his pledge and is accountable to God without doubt.
The verb iḥāṭa (lit. ‘to encompass,’ from whence yuḥāṭ is conjugated) is derived from ḥāṭ, which means ‘to guard.’ This is why a protective wall that encircles a settlement is called a ḥāʾiṭ (lit. ‘a guarder,’ which is the active participle of ḥāṭ). God is the muḥīṭ (lit. ‘encompasser’) of everything because He has authority over it, and preserves it from every angle, and no part of it is beyond his power. Equally, it can be said of someone that aḥāṭa bi-hi al-balāʾ wa al-muṣība (‘tribulation and calamity beseiged him’) when he is beset by misfortune and can find no escape from it. That is why it is sometimes said uḥīṭa bi-hi (‘he was besieged’) to convey that someone has perished, come to ruin, or can find no escape or refuge from a calamity. God says: And ruin closed in on his produce (uḥīṭa bi-thamari-hi), and he began to wring his hands for what he had spent on it (). And He says: and they think that they are besieged (anna-hum uḥīṭa bi-him(, they invoke Allah putting exclusive faith in Him (). The present verse says, unless you are made to perish (illā an yuḥāṭ bi-kum), meaning: ‘Unless some misfortune befalls you that renders you powerless and helpless and therefore unable to return Benjamin to me.’
Wakīl is derived from wikāla, which means to be entrusted with a matter on behalf of someone else and to act in their stead. When a person delegates another for a task, he grants them authority to act in his place. Trusting in them (al-tawakkul ʿalayh) implies confidence and assurance in their competence regarding the matter. Entrusting matters to God (al-tawakkul ʿalā Allāh) and relying on Him does not simply acknowledge Him as the Creator and Sovereign of all, but also recognizes that He has permitted the attribution of actions to their doers and events to their causes, despite these things lacking intrinsic power. Indeed, God, in His perfection, is the independent cause, who dominates over all others. Therefore, it is wise that when one seeks to achieve something and employs the usual means available to them, they recognize God as the sole independent director of affairs. This doesn’t entail disassociating oneself or the means from the outcome. Rather, true reliance is not about denying the role of oneself or the means one uses to achieve the outcome, but about negating any claim of independent power from oneself and the means one uses, attributing all independent and original power to God, while maintaining the basic, dependent relationship that exists between oneself and the means employed.
That is why, when we look at these verses about Jacob’s reliance on and trust in God, we see that he neither negated the means nor neglected them. Instead, he adhered to conventional methods. Firstly, he spoke to his sons about their brother, then took a pledge from them in the name of God, and thereafter placed his trust in God. This approach was also evident when he advised them in the subsequent verse to enter the city through separate gates, after which he once again proclaimed his trust in his Lord.
God, the Exalted One, oversees all matters that are dependent upon Him. He is the guardian of these matters, overseeing them in their entirety, even when they cannot function or exist by their own power and strength. He is the Lord of everything in that He is the possessor and the director of all.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is as follows: ‘Jacob said to his sons, “I will not let him go”—referring to Benjamin, who was their brother from Joseph’s mother—“with you until you give me a pledge by Allah”, one which he can rely on and trust, whether in the form of an oath or a vow: “You will surely bring him back to me (la-taʾtunnanī bi-hi)” The prefixed lām in la-taʾtunnani signifies an oath. As their promise was under the trust of God, it extended to whatever was within their capacity and ability to do. However, an exception was made when he stated, “unless you are made to perish”—meaning rendered powerless. When they had given him their pledge in God’s name, Jacob responded, “Allah is a trustee over what we say.” This means that all of us, including myself and you, are making this statement, and we are resorting to these conventional means to achieve our desired objective. May God Almighty be the guardian of these words, ensuring they are upheld. If anyone commits to something, they should fulfill it as promised. And if someone breaches this trust, may God recompense and seek justice.
وَقَالَ يَا بَنِيَّ لاَ تَدْخُلُواْ مِن بَابٍ وَاحِدٍ وَادْخُلُواْ مِنْ أَبْوَابٍ مُّتَفَرِّقَةٍ وَمَا أُغْنِي عَنكُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ مِن شَيْءٍ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلَّهِ عَلَيْهِ تَوَكَّلْتُ وَعَلَيْهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُتَوَكِّلُونَ ٦٧
(12:67) And he said, ‘My sons, do not enter by one gate, but enter by separate gates, though I cannot avail you anything against Allah. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah. In Him I have put my trust; and in Him let all the trusting put their trust.’
This is a piece of advice given by Jacob to his sons when they presented him with the pledge in God’s name and were preparing to depart for Egypt with Benjamin. It is inferred from the context of the story that he feared for his sons—all eleven of them. Not because he was worried the governor of Egypt might see them arriving together, for it was known that the governor would identify them and have them stand before him as a group of eleven brothers from the same father. Rather, Jacob’s fear was that the public might gaze upon them and afflict them with the evil eye—as some commentators have said—or harbor envy toward tem, or become fearful of them, which might cause something to befall them with the aim of dispersing their unity, be it an act of violence or another calamity.
Following that, his statement, I cannot avail you anything against Allah. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah, suggests an implicit indication or feeling that he was deeply worried about a particular outcome. It seems as if Jacob had a premonition when they were preparing to travel and stood before him to bid farewell, a divine intuition that their union, in their splendid state, would soon be dispersed and reduced in number. Thus, he commanded them not to present themselves collectively in such a manner and cautioned them against entering through one gate. Instead, he resolved that they should enter through different gates, in the hope that this would divert any calamity that might separate them or diminish their number.
Then he returned to the explicit message of his statement, acknowledging that the preventive measure he relied on to avert the feared disaster is not truly independent or foundational. In actuality, only God Almighty has any real effect on existence. So, he qualified his statement by saying, addressing them, ‘I cannot avail you anything against Allah.’ He then provided a rationale for this by saying: ‘Sovereignty belongs only to Allah.’ In other words: ‘I am not elevating your needs to God by commanding you to adopt a certain precautions to avoid any potential disaster or to seek safety and well-being, nor do I believe that such stratagems are sure to protect you. For these measures are ineffectual against the will of God, and they don’t hold any sway over God Almighty. Judgment is God’s sole and absolute prerogative. Such visible causes only take effect if God wills them to.’
This is why Jacob followed this statement by declaring, ‘In Him I have put my trust; and in Him let all the trusting put their trust.’ This means that even though he instructed them to take this precautionary measure to avert whatever disasters or misfortunes he feared might befall them, he, alongside this, placed his trust in God for this measure and for all other measures he adopted in his affairs. In this same vein, every wise and intelligent individual, who realizes that they are ultimately incapable of to controlling their own affairs and that conventional means, on their own, cannot achieve their goals, should resort in their matters to a guardian capable of handling their affairs and managing them best. That guardian is God, the Exalted, the Dominant One who cannot be dominated, the Overpowering One who cannot be overpowered. He does as He wills and decrees as He desires.
The verse thus clarifies firstly the essence of reliance (tawakkul), which means to entrust another with a matter related to the one relying on Him and the One on which they rely.
Secondly, that ordinary means, because they are not independent in their effect and are not self-sufficient without needing what lies beyond them, necessitate that anyone who appeals to them for vital objectives must rely, along with the appeal to these means, on a cause beyond them for these means to take effect. This approach ensures correctness and prudence, rather than neglecting the means upon which God has built the order of the universe and seeking an end without a means, as such negligence is misguided and ignorant.
Thirdly: The agent upon whom one must rely for matters is none other than God, the Exalted and Sublime, without any partner. For He is God, none is worthy of worship but Him, the Lord of everything. This exclusivity is indicated by Jacob’s words, ‘and in Him let all the trusting put their trust.’
وَلَمَّا دَخَلُواْ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَمَرَهُمْ أَبُوهُم مَّا كَانَ يُغْنِي عَنْهُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ مِن شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ حَاجَةً فِي نَفْسِ يَعْقُوبَ قَضَاهَا وَإِنَّهُ لَذُو عِلْمٍ لِّمَا عَلَّمْنَاهُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ ٦٨
(12:68) When they entered whence their father had bidden them, it did not avail them anything against Allah, but only fulfilled a wish in Jacob’s heart. Indeed he had the knowledge of what We had taught him, but most people do not know.
The context of the preceding and following verses, and pondering on these suggests that the phrase, they entered whence their father had bidden them, means they entered Egypt or the residence of the governor from separate gates, just as their father had instructed them to do when he bid them farewell. Jacob had advocated this strategy as a means to avert what he foresaw as a calamity that could scatter them or reduce their number, as alluded to in the previous verse. However, this tactic of entering as instructed by their father did not protect them from the adversity that God had predestined for them, for God’s decree was already in motion for them. The governor took their brother on the account of the cup’s theft, and the eldest brother stayed back in Egypt. This led to their separation and reduced their number. Neither Jacob’s strategy nor their manner of entry could shield them from God’s decree.
Yet, God, in His wisdom, turned this into a means to fulfill a need within Jacob, for this very cause, which deviated from Jacob’s plans and led to the separation and reduced number of his sons, became the reason for Jacob to be reunited with Joseph. Joseph took his brother for himself, while the rest, excluding the eldest, returned to their father. They later came back to Joseph, beseeching him and humbling themselves before his authority. He then revealed his identity to them and later summoned his father and family to Egypt, thereby reuniting with them. The statement, it did not avail them anything against Allah, means neither Jacob’s strategy nor the tactic he employed to save them from the impending calamity could guard them from God’s definitive decree. Instead, one was taken from them, another remained in Egypt, and he was their eldest.
Regarding the verse, but (illā) only fulfilled a wish in Jacob’s heart, it has been said that the particle of exception illā here means: ‘but there was a desire in Jacob’s soul that God was going to fulfill,’ referring to his longing for his lost son, Joseph.
It’s also plausible that illā here functions as an actual exception, such that when the verse says, it did not avail them anything against Allah, it means: ‘This precautionary measure taken by Jacob did not benefit him at all, nor did it benefit any of them. God did not fulfill their collective needs through it, except for the desire in Jacob’s soul.’ The phrase fulfilled is an answer to an implied question: ‘What did God do with that desire?’ The answer is: “He fulfilled it.”
The statement, Indeed he had the knowledge of what We had taught him, refers to Jacob. This means that Jacob was endowed with knowledge that God had granted him. The attribution of the act of teaching to God implies that this knowledge was divinely gifted, rather than acquired through experience or study. We have already discussed that the sincere and devoted practice of monotheism leads to such divine provision. Supporting this notion, the subsequent divine statement, but most people do not know, indicates that if this knowledge were of the commonly-acquired type, determined by apparent causes and reached by familiar conventional means, more people would know it and be guided by it.
Therefore, the statement, Indeed he had the knowledge of what We had taught him, but most people do not know, serves as God’s praise for Jacob. Divinely gifted knowledge does not err in its guidance or judgment. The context shows that Jacob anticipated trials ahead, and that he took recourse to whatever means he had at his disposal to avert them, and his that the continued to harbor a longing for Joseph, which he never forgot and always mentioned. From these perspectives, it is evident that the statement, indeed he had the knowledge of what We had taught him, validates Jacob’s instructions to his sons, and affirms his choice of means to fulfill his need, entrusting his affairs to God, who then fulfilled his personal longing for his long lost son.
This reading is based on our contemplation on the context of the verses. However, some exegetes have posited intriguing alternative explanations of the verse. Some say that when the verse says, it did not avail them anything against Allah, but only fulfilled a wish in Jacob’s heart, this implies that their entrance into Egypt in the manner bidden by their father did not shield them from harm or prevent any misfortune befalling them, such as envy or the evil eye, that God had intended to reach them. According to this reading, Jacob knew that such precautions do not avert the divine decree. Yet, what he conveyed to his sons was a reflection of his innermost desire. By expressing it, Jacob eased his own heart, dispelling his anxieties and disturbances.
Others have said it means that if God had ordained for them (the brothers of Joseph) to be affected by the evil eye, it would have affected them whether they were dispersed or traveling together.
Others understand the phrase, Indeed he had the knowledge of what We had taught him, to mean that Jacob possessed certainty and knowledge of God due to the fact he had received divine instruction, but that most people do not recognize his stature.
Some also argue that the lām in Indeed he had the knowledge of what We had taught him (wa inna-hu la-dhū ʿilmin limā ʿallamnā-hu) is for emphasis, and the meaning is that he acts according to what we taught him. Someone who knows something but does not act upon it is like one who does not know. And there are other explanations that scholars have provided beside the ones we have cited here.
وَلَمَّا دَخَلُواْ عَلَى يُوسُفَ آوَى إِلَيْهِ أَخَاهُ قَالَ إِنِّي أَنَاْ أَخُوكَ فَلاَ تَبْتَئِسْ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ ٦٩
(12:69) And when they entered into the presence of Joseph, he set his brother close to himself (āwā ilay-hi akhā-hu), and said, ‘Indeed I am your brother, so do not sorrow (lā tabtaʾis) for what they used to do.’
The term āwā ilay-hi means to draw someone close and position them nearby in an assembly or the like thereof. The term lā tabtaʾis means ‘do not be burdened or grieved,’ while the ‘they’ in ‘what they used to do’ was a reference to the other brothers.
Therefore, the essence of the verse’s meaning is: ‘After the brothers entered Egypt and met Joseph, he drew Benjamin—who he had instructed them to bring to him and who was his full brother (from the same mother and father)—close to him and said, ‘Indeed I am your brother.’ This means: ‘I am Joseph, whom you lost years ago.’ This statement is a second predicate, or the response to an implicit question. ‘So do not sorrow or be grieved for what they’—our brothers—‘used to do’—meaning the various kinds of mistreatment and oppression they subjected us to because of their extreme jealousy toward us, or perhaps what the young men had done with an intention of leaving him (Benjamin) with Joseph.
From the context, it appears that Joseph discreetly revealed his identity to his brother, reassured him about the actions of their siblings, and tried to console him. Contrary to the claim of some that when he said, ‘Indeed I am your brother,’ he meant that he was taking the place of a deceased brother—given that he had previously mentioned having a brother from the same mother who had died, leaving him as the only sibling. Therefore, according to this reading, Joseph was not admitting his lineage but was simply trying to comfort him.
Such a claim contradicts the emphatic tone that is evident in Joseph’s statement, ‘Indeed I am your brother,’ which fits more with him revealing his true identity. This is also evident from his later declaration to his brothers: I am Joseph, and this is my brother. Certainly Allah has shown us favor. Such a statement makes sense only if his brother already knew of their relationship to one another, as should be obvious.
فَلَمَّا جَهَّزَهُم بِجَهَازِهِمْ جَعَلَ السِّقَايَةَ فِي رَحْلِ أَخِيهِ ثُمَّ أَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ أَيَّتُهَا الْعِيرُ إِنَّكُمْ لَسَارِقُونَ ٧٠
(12:70) When he had furnished them with their provision, he put the drinking cup (saqāya) into his brother’s saddle (raḥl). Then a herald shouted: ‘O caravan (ʿīr)! You are indeed thieves!’
Saqāya refers to a vessel used for drinking; raḥl is a saddle placed on the back of a camel for riding’ ʿīr denotes a group who are traveling with their goods, and it can be used to describe both the men and the camels carrying their goods, even though it can sometimes refer to one without the other. This definition is provided by al-Rāghib in his Mufradāt.
The meaning of the verse is obvious. This was a strategy devised by Joseph to ensure that his brother stayed with him, as the detailed narrative reveals. God presented this as a prelude to Joseph eventually revealing his true identity to his brothers, by which time Joseph and his brother were recipients of God’s grace and honor.
Then a herald shouted: ‘O caravan! You are indeed thieves!’—this is directed toward Joseph’s brothers, including his maternal brother. It’s possible to address a group about a matter that pertains to only one or a few members, when the specific culprits are not known. There are several examples of this in the Qurʾan. In this situation, the ‘theft’—namely, the discovery of the drinking cup in the saddlebag—was solely associated with one person, Joseph’s maternal brother. However, since he had not yet been identified as the culprit among them, it was justifiable to address all of them with the proclamation, ‘You are indeed thieves!’ The underlying message here is that the drinking cup was missing and found among one of their number’s belongings, which would only be confirmed upon further inspection.
From the context, it’s clear that Joseph’s maternal brother was aware of this scheme and was expecting it. This is why he remained silent from the beginning to the end. He neither defended himself against the accusation of theft nor showed any signs of distress. Joseph had taken the time to reassure him and let him know that everything was part of a plan he had devised. By labeling him as a thief and discovering the drinking cup in his saddlebag, Joseph had intended not to accuse him, but to ensure that he stayed with him. In the eyes of the brothers, it was an accusation, but from Joseph’s perspective, this was not a genuine indictment, merely a formal designation that was necessary for his own designs.
Therefore, this attribution of theft—to view it from this perspective—was not a baseless accusation that was morally condemned or religiously forbidden, insofar as the one making this proclamation was the announcer who made the declaration, who presumably was unaware of the truth of the matter.
Some exegetes have said that the one who announced, ‘You are indeed thieves!,’ was one of Joseph’s people who had lost a measuring cup and did not know that Joseph had instructed that this be placed in his brother’s saddle.
Others have suggested that Joseph had ordered the crier to make this proclamation, not referring to the theft of the container but rather alluding to the brothers having ‘stolen’ Joseph away from his father and having thrown him into the well. This interpretation is attributed to the commentator Abū Muslim.
Others still argue that the statement is interrogative, with the intended meaning being: ‘Are you indeed thieves?,’ omitting the interrogative particle. However, the unlikeliness of such a reading is evident from a number of angles.
قَالُواْ وَأَقْبَلُواْ عَلَيْهِم مَّاذَا تَفْقِدُونَ ٧١
(12:71) They said, as they turned toward them, ‘What are you missing (mā dhā tafqidūn)?’
Here, faqd—as some have said—refers to the absence of something from a person’s perception, so much so that its location remains unknown. The pronoun in the phrase, They said …, refers to the brothers, also described as the ‘caravan.’ Their answer is ‘What are you missing?’ The pronoun in toward them refers to Joseph and his servants, as indicated by the context.
The meaning is that Joseph’s brothers approached Joseph and his attendants and asked: ‘What are you missing?’ This context indicates that the crier called out to them from behind as they had already started their journey.
قَالُواْ نَفْقِدُ صُوَاعَ الْمَلِكِ وَلِمَن جَاءَ بِهِ حِمْلُ بَعِيرٍ وَأَنَاْ بِهِ زَعِيمٌ ٧٢
(12:72) They said, ‘We miss the king’s goblet (suwāʿ).’ ‘Whoever brings it shall have a camel load (ḥamlu baʿīr), I will guarantee that (ana bi-hi zaʿīm).’
The suwāʿ here is the drinking vessel or saqāya mentioned in . Some have said that it refers to the standard measure called a sāʿ, which is used to measure out quantities of goods. The king’s goblet, then, was a container used both for drinking and measuring, which is why it was sometimes called a ‘drinking vessel’ (saqāya) and at other times a ‘measuring bowl’ (suwāʿ). Both masculine and feminine pronouns can be applied to it. Hence, it is said ‘he who produces it’ (wa li man jāʾa bi-hi, masculine) and also Then he took it out (thumma istakhraja-hā, feminine, ).
The term ḥaml (‘load’) refers to the burden that a bearer carries. Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says that external loads, like items carried on one’s back, are specifically named ḥiml (with an i after the ḥ as opposed to ḥaml), whereas internal loads, like a fetus in a womb, water in clouds, or fruit on a tree, are specifically termed ḥaml (with an a after the ḥ).
In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘The term zaʿīm is synonymous with kafīl (‘warrantor’) and ḍamīn (‘guarantor’), and zaʿīm can also refer to the person in charge of a group’s affairs, which would be their leader (raʾīs).’
Perhaps the one who said, ‘We miss the king’s goblet’ is one of Joseph’s servants, and the one who stated, ‘Whoever brings it shall have a camel load, I will guarantee that’ is Joseph himself. This is because he is the leader responsible for granting or withholding, ensuring, guaranteeing, and adjudicating. Reflecting on this, the dialogue is akin to saying: Joseph and his servants responded to them, with his servants saying, ‘We miss the king’s goblet,’ and Joseph stating, ‘Whoever brings it shall have a camel load, I will guarantee that.’ This is the promise of a reward for whoever finds it.
It appears that some interpreters believe that the phrase ‘Whoever brings it shall have a camel load, I will guarantee that’ is a continuation of the crier’s statement, ‘O caravan! You are indeed thieves!’ In this case, the statement, They said, as they turned toward them, ‘What are you missing?’ They said, ‘We miss the king’s goblet,’ is parenthetical.
قَالُواْ تَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتُم مَّا جِئْنَا لِنُفْسِدَ فِي الأَرْضِ وَمَا كُنَّا سَارِقِينَ ٧٣
(12:73) They said, ‘By Allah! You certainly know that we did not come to make trouble in this country, and we are not thieves.’
The country in this verse refers to the country of Egypt, which they were visiting. The meaning of this verse is clear.
‘You certainly know that we did not come to make trouble in this country’ implies that they were thoroughly questioned upon their first entry into Egypt by Joseph’s command, suspecting them of being spies or having malicious intentions. They would have questioned about their purpose, their place of origin, their lineage, and other similar matters. This supports the narratives that suggest that Joseph made it seem as if he was suspicious of them, inquiring about their affairs, their location, and their family. At this point, they mentioned their elderly father and a brother from the same father, and Joseph commanded that they bring them. This will be discussed further when we come to our treatment of the narrations.
Their statement, ‘… and we are not thieves!’ denies that they ever bore such a vile trait or that their family has a history of such behavior.
قَالُواْ فَمَا جَزَاؤُهُ إِن كُنتُمْ كَاذِبِينَ ٧٤
(12:74) They said, ‘What shall be its requital if you are lying?’
This means that Joseph’s servants or he and his servants together, asked them about the punishment: ‘What is the penalty for theft or for the one of your number who stole the cup if you are lying in your denial?’
The phrase, ‘if you are lying’ relating dishonesty to them, is similar in meaning to their previous statement, ‘You are indeed thieves!,’ which has been discussed earlier.
قَالُواْ جَزَاؤُهُ مَن وُجِدَ فِي رَحْلِهِ فَهُوَ جَزَاؤُهُ كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الظَّالِمِينَ ٧٥
(12:75) They said, ‘The requital for it shall be that he in whose saddlebag it is found shall give himself over as its requital. Thus do we requite the wrongdoers.’
This indicates suggests that the penalty for theft is the thief himself; in essence, that whoever stole property becomes a servant to the person from whom he stole. This was the law during the time of Jacob, as indicated by their saying, ‘Thus do we requite the wrongdoers’ meaning those wrongdoers, specifically thieves. But they refined their statement to ‘‘The requital for it shall be that he in whose saddlebag it is found shall give himself over as its requital’ to emphasize that only the individual thief should be penalized, not his companions or any of the other eleven persons. After all, it is not fair to punish anyone other than the specific thief, even if the act of theft is confirmed. Furthermore, the stolen item’s owner should have the right to take the thief himself and decide his fate.
فَبَدَأَ بِأَوْعِيَتِهِمْ قَبْلَ وِعَاء أَخِيهِ ثُمَّ اسْتَخْرَجَهَا مِن وِعَاء أَخِيهِ كَذَلِكَ كِدْنَا لِيُوسُفَ مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِي دِينِ الْمَلِكِ إِلاَّ أَن يَشَاء اللَّهُ نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَاتٍ مِّن نَّشَاء وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ ٧٦
(12:76) Then he began with their sacks, before his brother’s sack. Then he took it out from his brother’s sack. Thus did We devise for Joseph’s sake. He could not have held his brother under the king’s law unless Allah willed. We raise in rank whomever We please, and above every man of knowledge is One who knows best.
The clause ‘Then …’ at the beginning of this verse indicates that it followed logically and temporally from the exchange between Joseph and his brothers, above. The verse as a whole depicts Joseph undertaking a meticulous search of their belongings, in accordance with what was previously established concerning the thief’s punishment. Joseph started with the other brothers’ bags and only lastly turned to his brother Benjamin’s bag, in a move to disguise his true intent and prevent them from realizing or suspecting that he himself had planted the item in his brother’s bag. Upon finding the item in his brother’s bag, the consequence became settled due to its presence therein.
Thus did We devise for Joseph’s sake. He could not have held his brother under the king’s law unless Allah willed—This passage alludes to the strategy employed by Joseph to separate his maternal brother from the rest of their siblings. This act was indeed strategic, for it achieved Joseph’s objective without his brothers becoming aware of his intentions. Had they known, they would not have consented to it, thus preventing him from achieving his goal. This strategy was inspired or revealed to him by God. Therefore, God attributed this scheme to Himself, stating, Thus did We devise for Joseph’s sake.
Not all strategies or plans are removed from God’s domain, but His divine purity is above the deceitful schemes that involve oppression, betrayal, deceit, and other ill-intentioned acts.
The phrase, He could not have held his brother under the king’s law unless Allah willed, explains the necessity behind Joseph’s strategy. Joseph desired to keep his brother with him, yet there was no provision in the established law of the Egyptian king that would allow him to do so—the law did not enslave a thief. Thus, Joseph, by God’s guidance, created a situation where his brothers were accused of theft so that when they denied the charge, he could inquire about the punishment, knowing they would propose the thief’s enslavement. By their own standards, Joseph then took his brother, adhering to the very rules they acknowledged.
Thus, Joseph could only have taken his brother under the king’s law under circumstances that God willed. In this case, it was a situation that the brothers had accepted for themselves. From this incident, it is clear that the legal tradition of the time allowed the criminal to be subjected to the punishment they deemed suitable for themselves, often choosing the harshest one. Such practices were common in many traditional societies and royal policies.
The statement, We raise in rank whomever We please, and above every man of knowledge is One who knows best, is a testament to the grace bestowed upon Joseph by God in elevating him above his brothers. This serves as an elucidation of the previous statement, Thus did We devise for Joseph’s sake, and stands as a gesture of divine favor.
In the phrase, and above every man of knowledge (dhī ʿilm) is one who knows better (ʿalīm), it is clarified that knowledge is not a finite entity; there is always someone more knowledgeable than another.
It should be noted that the apparent meaning of dhī ʿilm here is someone with acquired knowledge, which is extrinsic to the knower. This is indicated by the word dhī (from dhū, lit. ‘possessor of …’), which suggests association or amalgamation. By contrast, God’s infinite knowledge, which is intrinsic to His essence and utterly without limits, is beyond the scope of human beings to articulate.
However, the statement, “and above every person of knowledge is one more knowledgeable,” only holds true in contexts where there’s a conceivable “above” or hierarchy. As for God, He is beyond notions of above, below, behind, or any limit or end.
It’s plausible that the statement, and above every man of knowledge is one who knows better indicates that God, in His transcendent wisdom, is above all possessors of knowledge. This is because ‘above every man of knowledge’ can only apply to those who can have something ‘above’ them. However, there is no one ‘above’ God, nor ‘below’ Him. There is nothing ‘beyond’ His existence, nor is there any ‘limit’ or ‘end’ to His essence.
It is also possible that and above every man of knowledge is one who knows better (ʿalīm)—it is possible that ʿalīm here refers to God, meaning that He is the one who is above every possessor of knowledge. The fact that the adjective ʿalīm is left indefinite here might be to emphasize His magnificence and the fact that His knowledge is beyond definition by human tongues.
قَالُواْ إِن يَسْرِقْ فَقَدْ سَرَقَ أَخٌ لَّهُ مِن قَبْلُ فَأَسَرَّهَا يُوسُفُ فِي نَفْسِهِ وَلَمْ يُبْدِهَا لَهُمْ قَالَ أَنتُمْ شَرٌّ مَّكَانًا وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمْ بِمَا تَصِفُونَ ٧٧
(12:77) They said, ‘If he has stolen, a brother of his had stolen before.’ Thereupon Joseph kept the matter to himself and he did not disclose it to them. He said, ‘You are in a worse state! And Allah knows best what you allege.’
The speakers in this verse are Joseph’s half-brothers from the same father. They attribute Joseph to their brother who was previously accused of theft because both he and Joseph were from the same mother and father. The implication is that if this individual was to steal the king’s measure, it wouldn’t be surprising given that he had a brother who was previously proven to be a thief. They mean to claim that the two of them inherited this trait from their shared maternal lineage, setting themselves apart from Joseph and Benjamin.
In this, they are making a clear attempt to disassociate themselves from the crime. However, it contradicts their earlier statement, ‘and we are not thieves’ (), since in saying this they were collectively denying any act of theft by all of Jacob’s sons. Their statement, ‘a brother of his had stolen before,’ is at odds with their initial denial. Evidently, with these words, they reveal the envy harbored in their hearts toward Joseph and his brother (perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves). This reveals a myriad of unfortunate underlying issues among them.
From this, the meaning of Joseph’s statement, ‘You are in a worse state,’ becomes clear. It appears that the entirety of the phrase, ‘You are in a worse state! And Allah knows best what you allege,’ is an explanation of the earlier passage, Thereupon Joseph kept the matter to himself and he did not disclose it to them, and the phrase and he did not disclose it to them for explains what is meant by his act of ‘keeping the matter to himself.’
Therefore, the meaning, to the best of my understanding, of thereupon Joseph kept the matter to himself is that Joseph concealed the truth about their words, specifically their accusation that he had committed theft. He did not address their insinuations or defend himself, nor did he clarify the reality of the situation. Instead, Joseph kept this sentiment to himself and did not expose it to them. One might ask: How did he conceal it within himself? The answer is evident in his statement, ‘You are in a worse state,’ as this hints at their contradictory statements, the evident envy within their hearts, and their audacity to lie in the presence of the governor of Egypt after all the benevolence he had shown them. Furthermore, when they said, ‘a brother of his had stolen before,’ he did not deny or contradict them.
Some commentators have suggested that when Joseph said, ‘You are in a worse state,’ he meant that they were in an even more reprehensible state than their accused brother since they had ‘stolen’ their own brother from their father, and God knows best whether their brother had previously stolen or not.
However, while it is possible that the meaning implied by Joseph’s words, ‘You are in a worse state,’ is as these commentators claim, given the context where his brothers were confronting him and Joseph did not want to reveal his identity, such an explanation would not align with what has been discussed earlier.
Others have suggested that what Joseph concealed and did not reveal to them was his statement, , ‘You are in a worse state.’ Thus, he did not address them with these words, but later openly stated, ‘Allah knows best what you allege.’ However, this interpretation seems rather far-fetched and does not match the context of the verse.
قَالُواْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْعَزِيزُ إِنَّ لَهُ أَبًا شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا فَخُذْ أَحَدَنَا مَكَانَهُ إِنَّا نَرَاكَ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ ٧٨
(12:78) They said, ‘O emir! Indeed he has a father, a very old man; so take one of us in his place. Indeed we see that you are a virtuous man.’
The context of these verses indicates that they uttered these words upon realizing that their brother was deserving of detention and enslavement. They remembered the solemn promise they gave to their father in God’s name to bring their brother back home safely, and they felt unable to return to face their father without him. Therefore, they resolved to offer one of themselves as ransom if the governor (who, recall, was actually Joseph) agreed. They beseeched him to take any of them he wished in place of their accused brother, allowing them to return him to their father.
The meaning of the verse is clear, and it is phrased in a way that suggests they were imploring and beseeching to governor in a way that would rouse his chivalry and kindness.
قَالَ مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ أَن نَّأْخُذَ إِلاَّ مَن وَجَدْنَا مَتَاعَنَا عِندَهُ إِنَّا إِذًا لَّظَالِمُونَ ٧٩
(12:79) He said, ‘God forbid that we should take anyone except him with whom we found our wares, for then we would indeed be wrongdoers.’
This verse is Joseph’s response to his brothers’ suggestion of taking one of them in the place of the accused brother, Benjamin. The meaning of the verse is evident.
فَلَمَّا اسْتَيْأَسُواْ مِنْهُ خَلَصُواْ نَجِيًّا قَالَ كَبِيرُهُمْ أَلَمْ تَعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ أَبَاكُمْ قَدْ أَخَذَ عَلَيْكُم مَّوْثِقًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَمِن قَبْلُ مَا فَرَّطتُمْ فِي يُوسُفَ فَلَنْ أَبْرَحَ الأَرْضَ حَتَّىَ يَأْذَنَ لِي أَبِي أَوْ يَحْكُمَ اللَّهُ لِي وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الْحَاكِمِينَ ٨٠
(12:80) When they had despaired of him (istayʾasū min-hu), they withdrew to confer privately (khalaṣū najiyyan). The eldest of them said, ‘Don’t you know that your father has taken a pledge from you by Allah, and earlier you have neglected your duty in regard to Joseph? So I will never leave this land until my father permits me, or Allah passes a judgment for me, and He is the best of judges.
In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes:
‘Yaʾs (from whence the verb istayʾasū is derived) means to lose all hope in something. The verb form used here (Form X or bāb al-istifʿāl) is similar to various other Arabic verb forms, such as sakhara / istaskhara (‘to mock’) ʿajaba / istaʿjaba (‘to be amazed’) that indicate intensity or reflexivity.
The verb najī / yatanājawn (‘to confer privately’) signifies when people converse secretly among themselves. This term can function both as a noun and a verbal noun. God has said elsewhere: We drew him near for confidential discourse (qarrabnā-hu najiyyan) (), and this is possible in language because it is a verbal noun that can be used adjectivally. The basis for the term munājā (‘private conversation’) comes from najwā, which refers to an elevated piece of ground; in this context, it refers to elevating a secret between individuals in confidentiality. The word najwā can also function as a noun and an infinitive. For example, God says: and when they hold secret talks (wa idh hum najwā) (), where it is used in the sense of the verb yatanājawn (‘they hold secret talks’). On another occasion, it is used as a verbal noun: Indeed secret talks are from Satan (inna-mā al-najwā min al-shayṭān) (). The plural of najī is anjiya.’
The pronoun ‘him’ in When they had despaired of him refers to Joseph, though it could also refer to his brother Benjamin. The meaning is that when Joseph’s brothers had lost hope that he would let their accused brother go, even in exchange for one of them, they withdrew privately to contemplate their situation. Should they return to their father without the brother they had promised by God to bring back safely? Or should they remain there, even if their stay has no benefit? What should they do?
Their eldest said, addressing the rest: ‘Don’t you know that your father has taken a pledge from you by Allah …?’ The promise was to bring the brother back home safely from their journey, ‘…and earlier you have neglected your duty in regard to Joseph.’ You had promised your father to protect him and bring him back safely, but instead, you threw him into a well, sold him to a caravan, and then told your father that a wolf had eaten him.
Then the eldest brother said: ‘So I will never leave this land …,’ meaning he would not leave Egypt, ‘until my father permits me, or Allah passes a judgment for me, and He is the best of judges.’ That is, unless God provides me with a way out of this difficult situation in which every path seems closed. This could either be through a miraculous release of my brother from the governor’s custody, through some means I cannot foresee, my own death, or another unexpected solution. I choose to remain here, while you should return to our father’—as described in the following two verses.
ارْجِعُواْ إِلَى أَبِيكُمْ فَقُولُواْ يَا أَبَانَا إِنَّ ابْنَكَ سَرَقَ وَمَا شَهِدْنَا إِلاَّ بِمَا عَلِمْنَا وَمَا كُنَّا لِلْغَيْبِ حَافِظِينَ ٨١
(12:81) Go back to your father, and say, “Father! Your son has indeed committed theft, and we testified only to what we knew, and we could not have forestalled the unseen.”
Some commentators suggest that ‘and we testified only to what we knew’ refers to their testimony, ‘Your son has indeed committed theft,’ which is based solely on their awareness of the theft. Another reading is that they only testified to the ruler that a thief should be apprehended and be liable for his theft, based on their understanding of the law. According to this reading, they said this in response to a question from Jacob, namely: ‘How would anyone know that when a thief is caught, he is held liable for his theft according to our law? They would only know this if you had told them!’ The more fitting interpretation given the context is the former one.
Regarding the phrase, ‘… and we could not have forestalled the unseen (al-ghayb),’ some have suggested that it means they didn’t know the boy would steal and be held accountable. They relied on apparent circumstances, and had they known he would steal, they would never have taken him with them or sworn an oath concerning him. The truth is that by ‘the unseen,’ it means their brother being a thief, which they were unaware of. According to this view, the verse means: ‘your son has stolen, and we testified about the punishment for theft only based on what we knew. We weren’t aware that he had stolen the drinking vessel and would be apprehended for it, otherwise we wouldn’t have testified in that manner. We never expected this from him.’
وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ الَّتِي كُنَّا فِيهَا وَالْعِيرَ الَّتِي أَقْبَلْنَا فِيهَا وَإِنَّا لَصَادِقُونَ ٨٢
(12:82) “Ask the town (qarya) we were in, and the caravan (ʿīr) with which we came. We indeed speak the truth.”
Here, they are suggesting that Jacob inquire of anyone who accompanied them during this journey or witnessed their dealings with the ruler, to ensure he has no doubt that they were not negligent in their duties and that the boy indeed committed theft.
The ‘town’ they referred to here most likely refers to the city they were in in Egypt. The ‘caravan’ refers to the group they were traveling with. These people accompanied them on their way to Egypt and their return from it. Thus, they further emphasize their statement with, ‘We indeed speak the truth.’ This emphasizes their sincerity about the boy’s theft and their insistence on questioning to remove any doubt from Jacob’s mind.