Verses 7–21

Chapter 12: Yūsuf (Joseph) · Printed edition: Volume 21, pp. 107–142

The Qur’anic account of Joseph begins after mentioning the glad tidings, which serve as a poignant introduction, alluding to the ultimate goal at which the story culminates. The present section of verses encompasses the first part of the narrative, in which Joseph departs from Jacob , leaving his father’s house to reside in the house of Potiphar in Egypt. In the course of this part of the story, Joseph’s brothers cast him into a well to be rid of him. A passing caravan subsequently extracted him from it, and his brothers sold him to the members of the caravan. The caravan then transported him to Egypt, where they sold him to Potiphar, where he remained.

لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي يُوسُفَ وَإِخْوَتِهِ آيَاتٌ لِلسَّائِلِينَ ٧

(12:7) In Joseph and his brothers there are certainly signs for the seekers

This verse introduces the story and underscores that it contains divine signs pointing towards God’s oneness. It demonstrates that God is the guardian, overseeing the affairs of His devoted servants, elevating them to positions of honor and firmly establishing them on thrones of virtue. God is supreme in His decree, orchestrating causes as He wills, not as others wish, deriving outcomes from them as He desires, and not necessarily in accordance with what outwardly seems probable.

Joseph’s brothers schemed against him out of envy, cast him into the dark depths of a well, and later sold him to a caravan as a slave, intending to lead him to his ruin. Yet, through the very means they thought would cause his destruction, God gave him life. When they sought to humiliate him, God honored him through the very avenue of that intended humiliation. They aimed to detract from their father’s love for him, but God reversed the situation. They deprived their father of sight by presenting him with Joseph’s blood-stained shirt, but God restored his vision using the very shirt brought by the bearer of good news.

Throughout this story, whenever harm approached Joseph, God shielded him, demonstrating His might and revealing Joseph’s grace. Every time he was set on a path leading to potential ruin or misfortune, God, through that very path, guided him to a favorable outcome and an evident honorable position. It is to this that God alludes when He has Joseph reveal his identity to his brothers, saying: ‘He said, ‘I am Joseph, and this is my brother. Certainly Allah has shown us favor. Indeed if one is Godwary and patient Allah does not waste the reward of the virtuous’ (). Later, in the presence of his brothers, he said to his father: ‘Father! This is the fulfilment of my dream of long ago, which my Lord has made come true. He was certainly gracious to me when He brought me out of the prison and brought you over from the desert after that Satan had incited ill feeling between me and my brothers’ (). Joseph’s spiritual inclination led him to turn wholly toward his Lord, distancing himself from all else, as he said: ‘My Lord! You have granted me a share in the kingdom, and taught me the interpretation of dreams. Originator of the heavens and earth! You are my guardian in this world and the Hereafter!’ ().

The phrase, … for the seekers (li al-sāʾilīn, lit. ‘those who ask’), indicates that there was a group of people who asked the Prophet about the story or related matters, and that this is what led to the revelation of this chapter.

إِذْ قَالُوا لَيُوسُفُ وَأَخُوهُ أَحَبُّ إِلَىٰ أَبِينَا مِنَّا وَنَحْنُ عُصْبَةٌ إِنَّ أَبَانَا لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ ٨

(12:8) When they said, ‘Surely Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than us, though we are a hardy group (ʿuṣba). Our father is indeed in manifest error.’

According to al-Ṭabrisī, writing in Majmaʿ al-bayān, the term ʿuṣba (‘hardy group’) refers to a group of people who are bonded closely with one another, typically ranging from ten to fifteen members, though some state it’s between ten to forty. The term does not have a singular form, similar to the other Arabic words qawm (‘people’) or rahṭ (‘band’).

When they said, ‘Surely Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than us …’—The speakers in this verse are Jacob’s sons, excluding Joseph and his brother whom they mention. There were ten of them, strong men who took charge of managing their father, Jacob’s household, overseeing his livestock, and handling his wealth, as indicated by their statement, ‘we are a hardy group.’

When they say, ‘Joseph and his brother’, they specifically associate the brother with Joseph, despite all of them being sons of Jacob and brothers among themselves. This implies that Joseph and his brother were siblings from the same mother and only half-brothers to the rest through their father. Narrations mention that the name of Joseph’s brother was Benjamin. The context suggests that both were young and, as such, had not yet become involved in the management of Jacob’s household or handling his livestock and wealth.

Their claim, ‘we are a hardy group’, translates to them being ten strong men, each complementing the strength of one another. This statement, following the previous one, illustrates the cause of their jealousy and resentment towards Joseph and Benjamin, and their anger towards their father, Jacob, for his apparent favoritism. It essentially serves as a justification for their subsequent assertion, ‘Our father is indeed in manifest error.’

When Joseph’s brothers say, ‘Our father is indeed in manifest error (fī ḍalāl mubīn)’, they criticize their father for what they see as a lapse in judgement. By ḍalāl, they mean a misalignment of his priorities and incorrect behavior, rather than misguidance in matters of religion.

First of all, this judgement arises because they believe that they are a group of strong brothers who manage their father’s essential affairs, maintain his livelihood, and fend off any threats. By contrast, Joseph and his brother were young children, inexperienced in life’s challenges. Therefore, they considered their father’s deep affection for the two brothers and his consistent engagement with them at the expense of the others as incorrect. Wise living, they believed, required a person to invest in every available resource according to its importance. To them, the fact that Jacob focused solely on the two younger children, who were unable to contribute to their collective living in any significant way, while simultaneously neglecting those who hold the keys to his livelihood, deviates from the path of good sense.

Second, they acknowledged their belief in God and recognized the prophethood of their father, Jacob. This is evident from their statements, ‘and that you may become a righteous lot after that’ (), and later on, ‘Father! Plead for forgiveness of our sins!’ (). This is also evident in their final words to Joseph, By Allah, Allah has certainly preferred you over us, and we have indeed been erring (). If they had meant by their statement, ‘Our father is indeed in manifest error’, that Jacob was religiously misguided, that would imply disbelief on their part. Yet, in spite of everything else, they genuinely loved their father, respected him, and revered him. They acted against Joseph that they might win their father’s undivided affection, as they said, ‘Kill Joseph or cast him away into some land, so that your father’s love may be exclusively yours …’ (). Their actions suggest they desired their father’s exclusive love. Had it been otherwise, they would naturally have first acted against their father instead of targeting Joseph, perhaps killing or isolating Jacob to ensure their dominion, as dealing with Joseph would have been comparatively easier with their father out of the picture.

Certainly, they confronted their father with such statements when he said to them, As the caravan set off, their father said, ‘I sense the scent of Joseph, if you will not consider me a dotard.’ They said, ‘By God, you persist in your inveterate error’ (). But it is evident that the error mentioned here does not pertain to religious deviation, but rather to Jacob’s overwhelming affection for Joseph, which they thought was excessive.

The context of this verse and related verses indicate that Jacob lived among the nomads. He had twelve sons; they were strong and capable, ten of whom were older in age. These ten formed a powerful group and managed the affairs of their father’s wealth and livestock. Two of them were younger and were from the same mother, being in their father’s care, namely Joseph and his brother. Jacob had a deep affection for these two, not out of mere emotional attachment, but because he perceived in them signs of righteousness and virtue in them.

Jacob was a devoted servant of God, praised as indicated by the verse, “Indeed We purified them with the exclusiveness of the remembrance of the abode (). This characteristic has been alluded to earlier.

This apparent favoritism towards Joseph and Benjamin aroused the envy of the elder brothers towards the two younger ones. Jacob was aware of this envy, and his love, especially for Joseph, was evident. He was protective of Joseph, always wary of leaving him alone with his brothers, fearing they might harm him. This, in turn, only intensified their jealousy and resentment towards Joseph. Jacob started noticing malicious intent in their actions and plans, especially after Joseph shared his dream with him, which increased Jacob’s concern and affection for him. He advised Joseph not to share his dream with his brothers, hoping to protect him from their potential plots. Yet, destiny took its course.

The elder sons of Jacob gathered and discussed among themselves their father’s behavior and his preferential treatment of Joseph and his brother Benjamin. They noticed that despite them being young and relatively incapable, their father’s attention was mostly on them, neglecting the elder sons who were actually the main pillars of his life, the main force in warding off adversities, procuring his livelihood, and handling his wealth and livestock. They believed that it wasn’t wise or fair of him to prioritize the two younger ones over the older, stronger group. Thus, they criticized their father’s approach and concluded that he was clearly misguided in this regard.

They did not intend, when accusing their father of being misguided, to imply religious misguidance, which would be tantamount to disbelief. Rather, they referred to his social demeanor, as evidenced by the related verses mentioned earlier.

This highlights the various errors in different scholars’ explanations of the verse’s meaning:

Some of them have argued that their deeming their father to have gone astray from the path of justice and equality was due to their own blatant ignorance and a grave mistake on their part. This might be attributed to what they perceived to be their father’s excessive affection towards the mother of Joseph and Benjamin’s mother, who was different from their own. This implies that the primary point of contention arose from the plurality of mothers due to polygamous marriage, especially with servant wives. This is what led them to mistake the extra affection that parents naturally bestow on their youngest and weakest offspring, and Joseph and his brother were the youngest of Jacob’s children.

According to this view, the moral of this story is that parents ought to treat their children with fairness and foster love and equity amongst them. They should prevent envy and animosity from arising between siblings. Favoritism, which those who are not favorites might view as a source of humiliation for them and undue preference for their sibling, is discouraged. Prophet Muhammad , strictly warned against this. Instead, the path of wisdom should be followed by recognizing and nurturing God-given innate talents such as noble character, piety, knowledge, and intelligence.

Of course, Jacob was well aware of this. He advised Joseph against revealing his dream to his siblings precisely because he knew the implications. Yet, how can a person resist the innate feelings of their heart and spirit? Can one truly prevent their deep emotions from influencing their actions? Certainly not.

Furthermore, the statement implying that Jacob’s love for Joseph was merely instinctual affection due to their young age, as observed among fathers towards their youngest offspring, only holds true when they are young. Once they grow up, this affection naturally shifts to those who are younger.

Regarding the assertion that the root of their jealousy and animosity stemmed from the differences in their mothers, especially the servant wives, it is acknowledged that differences in maternal lineage can affect the relationship among siblings. This cannot be denied, and it is something plausible in many scenarios. However, the reason mentioned in the Qur’an is different. Had this been the sole reason, they would have treated Joseph’s brother the same way they treated Joseph, and not been content otherwise, but they did not do this.

Now let us turn to the claim that the extra love and affection that parents typically reserve for the youngest of their children, and which prevents them from challenging or opposing them, became a point of contention for Joseph’s older siblings. In other words, they see the increased attention parents give to their younger and weaker siblings and object that this is neither fair nor equal, the parents’ response typically is that the younger ones are fragile and require extra care, compassion, and assistance until they are capable of standing on their own two feet. The older siblings, in most cases, accept this explanation and cease their objections, finding it convincing.

Therefore, had Jacob’s love for Joseph and his brother been merely a manifestation of this tenderness and compassion due to their young age—a sentiment all can recognise and remember receiving from their own parents in their youth—the older brothers wouldn’t have found fault or criticized their father for it. Their statement, though we are a hardy group, would then have reflected their misconception about their father’s supposed bias, not necessarily proving their father’s excessive love for the younger ones.

They even said to their father in relation to Joseph, ‘Father! Why is it that you do not trust us with Joseph? We are indeed his well-wishers.’ It is known that Jacob’s honoring of Joseph, keeping him close, and his protective attitude over him went beyond just love, tenderness, and compassion arising out of his youth and vulnerability.

Now let us turn to the claim that Jacob was well aware of their jealousy and resentment of Joseph, it implies that Jacob’s affection for his son distracted him from his duty of raising all his children justly. He knew that such favoritism would go against justice and fairness, and that it might lead to trouble between his children. However, he is excused because it’s nearly impossible for humans to go against the deep emotions of their hearts and the bonds of their souls.

This view utterly undermines established rational and scriptural foundations from which the virtues and spiritual stations of prophets, scholars, the truthful, the martyrs, the righteous, and the basis for noble character are derived. By nature, humans have an inherent capacity for moral development and the eradication of base qualities. The essence of these base qualities is the pursuit of personal desires, and the way to remove them from one’s character is by prioritizing God’s pleasure over all else. This is what we expect from every individual who engages in moral and spiritual self-development among the pious and devout. How, then, can we expect less from the prophets, especially someone like Jacob?

One wonders: If humans are incapable of opposing their innermost desires in matters like these, then what is the meaning of the myriad commandments and prohibitions in the faith related to these issues? Would they not be rendered pointless were this the case?

The view propounded above depreciates the spiritual station of God’s prophets and His saints, and brings them down to the level of the average people who follow their base desires and are ignorant of the position of their Lord. However, it is well-known that God has described His prophets in a manner completely contrary to this. For example, see His saying: We chose them and guided them to a straight path (). He mentioned Jacob, his fathers Abraham and Isaac , saying: and each of them We made righteous. We made them leaders, guiding by Our command, and We revealed to them the performance of good deeds, the maintenance of prayers, and the giving of zakat, and they used to worship Us (). He has also said, Indeed We purified them with the exclusiveness of the remembrance of the abode ().

God informs us that He has guided these prophets to His straight path unconditionally, and that He chose them, assembled them, and made them exclusively for Himself. They are sincerely devoted to God, sharing this devotion with no other. They only seek what He deems right, prioritizing His pleasure over all others, whether it’s their own desires or someone else’s. God frequently mentions in His scripture Satan’s intent to mislead all of Adam’s progeny, except the sincere ones: By Your might, I will surely pervert them, except Your exclusive servants among them ().

The truth is that Jacob loved Joseph and his brother for the sake of God due to the piety and spiritual perfection that he perceived in them. Especially in Joseph, his dream indicated that God would choose him, teach him the interpretation of visions, and complete His favor upon him and upon the family of Jacob. This love was not based on mere desires at all.

Some argue, based on the brothers’ statement, Our father is indeed in manifest error (), that by this they meant that their father had gone astray in matters of religion. However, the context of the verses in question refutes this.

In stark contrast to this perspective is the view of others, suggesting that Joseph’s brothers were themselves prophets. They accuse their father of deviating in his behavior and of being unfair. When confronted with their own wrongdoing and injustice towards their brother and father, proponents of this view justify it by saying it was a minor sin committed before the onset of prophethood or it is acceptable given the possibility of minor sins from prophets before their prophethood. Others may argue they were merely young teenagers at the time, suggesting such behaviors are to be expected from adolescents. However, these are mere speculations. And God’s statement, We have indeed revealed to you as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes … (), does not contain the slightest suggestion that any of Joseph’s brothers were prophets in their own right.

The truth is that Joseph’s brothers were not prophets, but rather children of prophets. They were envious of Joseph and committed a sin by wronging him. However, they later repented to their Lord and mended their ways. Furthermore, both Jacob and Joseph , sought forgiveness for them from God. This is alluded to in God’s mentioning their father’s statement: ‘I shall plead with my Lord to forgive you’ () following their plea, ‘Father! Plead for forgiveness of our sins! We have indeed been erring’, and also in Joseph’s statement: ‘Allah will forgive you, and He is the most merciful of the merciful’ () after they admitted, ‘… and we have indeed been erring’ (!)

Some argue that Joseph’s brothers only became envious of him after he shared his dream with them. However, Jacob had warned Joseph not to share his dream with his brothers because of their pre-existing envy and resentment towards him. The truth is, the dream only intensified their envy, which had existed even before he shared the dream, as has been previously explained.

اقْتُلُوا يُوسُفَ أَوِ اطْرَحُوهُ أَرْضًا يَخْلُ لَكُمْ وَجْهُ أَبِيكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ قَوْمًا صَالِحِينَ ٩

(12:9) ‘Kill Joseph or cast him away into some land, so that your father’s love may be exclusively yours, and that you may become a righteous lot after that.’

This is a continuation of Joseph’s brothers’ conversation. This verse marks the second phase of their plot against him during their secret meeting. Their plan aimed to ease their hearts of their resentment towards him, as God mentioned, … and you were not with them when they conspired together and schemed ().

God recounts the essence of their plot in these verses: When they said, ‘Surely Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than us, though we are a hardy group. Our father is indeed in manifest error.’ ‘Kill Joseph or cast him away into some land, so that your father’s love may be exclusively yours, and that you may become a righteous lot after that’ ().

First of all, they mention their grievances against Joseph and his brother, namely that the two brothers had diverted their father’s attention and affection away from the others, drawing him exclusively towards themselves. This made Jacob more devoted to the two of them, while neglecting the rest. This situation presented them with a dilemma, indicating a looming threat to their future position and a waste of their present efforts, potentially leading to a loss of status and strength. They perceived this as Jacob’s ‘error’ in his behavior and approach.

Then, in their quest to eliminate the problem, they discussed various potential solutions. Each one proposed what they thought was the best course of action. Some suggested that Joseph should be killed, while others proposed abandoning him in a distant land where he wouldn’t be able to return to his father and family, thus erasing his memory and removing his presence. This, they believed, would free their father’s attention for them alone, and his love and affection would be exclusively theirs.

Subsequently, they came to an agreement that closely resembled the second suggestion, which was to cast him into the depths of a well. Their hope was that a passing caravan would find and take him to a distant, remote land. In doing this, they believed, all word of him would be lost and all trace of him obliterated.

The statement, ‘Kill Joseph …’ reflects one of the options proposed to deal with him. When they initially discussed their conspiracy, they mentioned both Joseph and his brother: ‘Surely Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than us …’ Therefore, this proposition highlights that Joseph in particular was the recipient of Jacob’s affection and the focal point of his care and attention. Although his brother was also cherished and loved among them. And how could it be otherwise? After all, it was Joseph who had the prophetic dream, heralding special divine blessings and spiritual distinctions for him. Moreover, he was the elder of the two, and the perceived danger posed by him towards the elder brothers was more imminent than that from his younger brother. Perhaps the mention of both brothers also hints at Jacob’s love for their mother, which naturally extended to them and further exacerbated the envy, anger, and malice of the other brothers toward them.

The statement, ‘… or cast him away into some land’ depicts their second option proposed for dealing with Joseph. The idea was to either send him away or exile him to a place from whence he would be unable to return to his father’s home. In this way, he would effectively be as good as dead; his presence and influence would disappear, and they would be relieved of the threat he posed, akin to dropping him into a well or sending him to a remote place. The implication of casting someone to ‘some land’ (notice that this is left indefinite) and the choice of the word ‘cast’ (ṭarḥ) suggests discarding a person or an object deemed unnecessary or worthless.

The fact that both opinions are presented as options suggests that the majority of the brothers were inclined to accept either one of them, until one among them said, ‘Do not kill Joseph …’

The phrase, so that your father’s love may be exclusively yours (lit. ‘so that your father’s countenance might be yours alone’) means to carry out one of the two aforementioned actions so that their father’s undivided affection would be theirs. This is a metaphorical way of expressing the exclusive devotion of their father’s love once the obstacle, Joseph, who monopolized their father’s attention and affection, was removed. The brothers felt that when both they and Joseph were with their father, Joseph stood as a barrier between them and their father, drawing away his attention. Once Joseph was removed, their father’s affection would be exclusively for them, and his attention would be confined solely to them.

… and that you may become a righteous lot after that—This means that after they had dealt with Joseph—whether by murder or exile (both interpretations are plausible)—they intended to become righteous by repenting for this sin. This indicates that they viewed their act as sinful, and although they respected religious matters and held them sacred, their envy and resentment overcame them. They were tempted by their desires to do this wrong deed, falsely believing that they could evade divine punishment by committing the sin and then repenting afterward. This reflects ignorance because such a premeditated act of sin followed by repentance is not genuinely accepted. If someone intentionally commits a sin with the prior intention of repenting afterward, they are not truly seeking to return to God. Instead, they are merely trying to avoid the promised punishment while still disobeying His command. This type of repentance, which follows a premeditated act of sin, is really an extension of the original sinful intent. It is not a genuine penance to God with remorse for the wrongful act. The meaning and nature of repentance has been previously discussed in our explanation of God’s saying, repentance by Allah is only for those who commit evil out of ignorance … ().

Some say that the righteousness referred to in the verse actually refers to the proper ordering of worldly affairs, meaning they would prosper in their relationship with their father after Joseph’s departure.

قَالَ قَائِلٌ مِنْهُمْ لَا تَقْتُلُوا يُوسُفَ وَأَلْقُوهُ فِي غَيَابَتِ الْجُبِّ يَلْتَقِطْهُ بَعْضُ السَّيَّارَةِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ فَاعِلِينَ ١٠

(12:10) One of them said, ‘Do not kill Joseph, but throw him into the recess (ghayāb) of the well (al-jubb) so that some caravan may pick him up, if you are to do anything.’

The term jubb here denotes a well that is not lined with stones; if it were lined, it would be called a biʾr. The ghayāb (‘recess’) refers to the part of the well that is unseen and hidden because of its darkness.

The one who proposed this idea advocated for the second opinion mentioned in the previous verse, which is indicated by ‘or cast him away into some land.’ However, he specified it in a way that would not result in Joseph’s death, such as leaving him in a well to possibly die of hunger or similar fate. His proposal was to remove Joseph from their land without directly causing his death or any harm similar to death. Therefore, this shows some degree of compassion. The idea was to throw him into one of the wells on the route of passing travellers. When they drew water, they would find him, rescue him, and take him to a distant land, thus severing his ties with his family. The narrative suggests that they accepted this opinion as no objection was mentioned, and their subsequent actions, as described in the following verses, align with this decision.

Commentators have disagreed regarding the name of the individual who spoke after it was definitively stated that he was one of Joseph’s brothers. The Qur’an states, One of them said … Some argue that it was Reuben, Joseph’s maternal cousin; others say it was Judah, who was among the oldest and wisest; and yet others believe it was Levi. However, we need not delve into this debate since the Qur’an does not specify his name, and identifying the speaker here does not yield a significant benefit to our comprehension of the story.

Some scholars note that the specific mention of ‘the well’ with the definite article (al-) indicates that it was a well that was known to all of them. This reading is valid unless the definite article is understood here to signify a category or type. Moreover, there is a difference of opinion about the exact location of this well. However, as with the name of the speaker, there is also no substantial benefit in exploring these differing views.

قَالُوا يَا أَبَانَا مَا لَكَ لَا تَأْمَنَّا عَلَىٰ يُوسُفَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَنَاصِحُونَ ١١

(12:11) They said, ‘Father! Why is it that you do not trust us with Joseph? We are indeed his well-wishers.’

This verse indicates that all of Joseph’s brothers decided unanimously not to kill him but rather to throw him into the depths of the well. They all agreed to deceive their father to take Joseph away and carry out their plan. Knowing their father’s inherent distrust in leaving Joseph with them, it was necessary for them to reassure their father and remove any doubt from his heart about their intentions towards their younger brother. It was imperative for them to take Joseph away. Hence, they approached their father saying, ‘Father!’ evoking his compassion and emphasizing their affection for him. They continued, ‘Why is it that you do not trust us with Joseph? We are indeed his well-wishers’, meaning they only wished good for Joseph and sought his happiness.

They then voiced their request, which was for their father to send Joseph with them to their grazing grounds, where they tended to their flocks. There, Joseph could enjoy himself, and they assured they would watch over him, saying, ‘Let him go with us tomorrow so that he may eat lots of fruits and play, and we will indeed take care of him.’

أَرْسِلْهُ مَعَنَا غَدًا يَرْتَعْ وَيَلْعَبْ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ ١٢

(12:12) ‘Let him go with us tomorrow so that he may eat lots of fruits and play, and we will indeed take care of him.’

This describes leisurely activities: Animals grazing, humans relaxing and enjoying fruits and such.

Their proposal, ‘Let him go with us tomorrow so that he may eat lots of fruits and play …’ reiterates their initial suggestion. Their declaration, ‘…and we will indeed take care of him (innā la-hu la-ḥāfiẓūn)’ emphasizes their commitment to look after their younger brother. Note that they use several means of affirmation in Arabic to stress their sincerity: The particle innā, the lām of emphasis, and a nominal sentence. This phrase is analogous in form to their previous statement, ‘We are indeed his well-wishers.’ It is as if they said to their father: ‘Why don’t you trust us with Joseph? If you fear we might harm him, know that we sincerely care for him. And if you fear harm from others or any external threat, we assure you, we are his best protectors from harm.

The dialogue is arranged in a natural sequence: they first assured that he would always be safe with them, then they requested to take him with them the next day, and subsequently, they emphasized that they would be watchful over him. Their statement, ‘We are indeed his well-wishers’ provides a continual assurance from their side, while their guarantee, ‘we will indeed take care of him’ affirms their protection of him against external threats.

قَالَ إِنِّي لَيَحْزُنُنِي أَنْ تَذْهَبُوا بِهِ وَأَخَافُ أَنْ يَأْكُلَهُ الذِّئْبُ وَأَنْتُمْ عَنْهُ غَافِلُونَ ١٣

(12:13) He said, ‘It really upsets me that you should take him away, and I fear the wolf may eat him while you are oblivious of him.’

This is their father’s response to their request. He did not explicitly voice his distrust of them but mentioned his personal distress if they took Joseph away. He emphasized, ‘It really upsets me that you should take him away …’, gently alluding to the emotional state he would be in if they left with Joseph. This was a subtle way to respond to them, to avoid igniting any defiance or argumentativeness, showcasing the nuances of the narrative.

He further justified his reluctance to accede to their request by saying, ‘and I fear the wolf may eat him while you are oblivious of him.’ This excuse is reasonable since pastures where livestock graze are naturally inhabited by wolves and other predators. These predators might target and prey upon the unsuspecting. It’s plausible that the brothers might be preoccupied with something and neglect Joseph, allowing a wolf to attack him and carry him off.

قَالُوا لَئِنْ أَكَلَهُ الذِّئْبُ وَنَحْنُ عُصْبَةٌ إِنَّا إِذًا لَخَاسِرُونَ ١٤

(12:14) They said, ‘Should the wolf eat him while we are a hardy group, then we will indeed be losers!’

The brothers reacted as if they had only understood their father’s worry to be about the wolf eating Joseph while they are distracted and not about their intentions towards Joseph. They responded with disbelief, emphasizing their collective strength and resilience. They swore by God that if a wolf were to eat Joseph while they, a formidable group, were present, it would certainly mean they had failed, and the implication is that they would never fail. Their oath—as indicated by the emphasis in their statement—was intended to reassure their father and dispel his worries so that he would let them go with Joseph. Such expressions often imply a tacit promise, in this case, that they would remain vigilant. However, it did not take long before they contradicted what they had sworn to and broke the promise they implicitly made when they said: ‘Father! We had gone racing and left Joseph with our things, whereat the wolf ate him. But you will not believe us even if we spoke truly’ ().

فَلَمَّا ذَهَبُوا بِهِ وَأَجْمَعُوا أَنْ يَجْعَلُوهُ فِي غَيَابَتِ الْجُبِّ ۚ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْهِ لَتُنَبِّئَنَّهُمْ بِأَمْرِهِمْ هَٰذَا وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ ١٥

(12:15) So when they took him away and conspired (ajmaʿū) to put him into the recess of a well… and We revealed to him, ‘you will surely inform them about this affair of theirs while they are not aware.’

Al-Rāghib says: ‘The verb ajmaʿa (translated here as ‘conspire’) in most contexts implies a collective decision arrived at through thought, as seen in the verse, So conspire together (fa-ajmaʿū amra-kum), along with your partners (). It is also said, “The Muslims have agreed on such-and-such,” (ajmaʿa al-muslimūn ʿalā kadhā), meaning their views have converged on it.’

In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘Ajmaʿū means they unanimously resolved to place him at the bottom of the well, their motives aligning in this decision. If only one person calls for something, one cannot say that there is a consensus about it. The term seems to be derived from the convergence of motives.’

Therefore, the verse implies that they convinced their father with their words, reassuring him enough to allow them to take Joseph out to the wilderness with them. They then took him with them to execute their scheme of throwing him into the well’s depths.

Note that the consequent phrase for ‘When …’ is left implicit to emphasize the enormity and horror of the act. This is a common rhetorical device: a speaker describing a horrific event like a shocking murder, which deeply moves the heart and is difficult to hear. They detail its causes and circumstances, describing it until the very moment of the event, before falling into profound silence. They might then describe the aftermath of the murder, implying that the act itself was too horrific to relate directly and too heart-wrenching for listeners to bear.

It is as if the one describing the story, God Almighty, when stating, when they took him away and conspired to put him into the recess of a well…, pauses deeply, refraining from detailing their treatment of the child out of sorrow and compassion. The listener’s heart cannot bear the thought of what they did to this innocent, wronged prophet, the son of prophets, who committed no crime to warrant their treatment of him. These were his brothers, well aware of the profound love their dear father Jacob held for him. How terrible is envy! It led siblings to cast into perdition someone as righteous as Joseph with their own hands. It caused a noble father like Jacob grief at the hands of his own sons, and made a heinous act seem palatable in the eyes of men raised in the prophetic tradition, who had been nurtured in the household of prophets.

After achieving the desired effect through this omission, God continues the narrative saying, … and We revealed to him …

… and We revealed to him, ‘you will surely inform them about this affair of theirs while they are not aware’—The pronoun ‘him’ refers to Joseph. The apparent meaning of revelation suggests prophetic inspiration. The reference to ‘this affair of theirs’ is their act of throwing him into the well. It also seems that the phrase ‘while they are not aware’ refers to the revelation indicated by the statement: and We revealed to him. The clause, ‘they are not aware’, relates either to the true nature of their deed or to the revelation received by Joseph, meaning they are unaware of what was revealed to him.

Therefore, the meaning appears to be: ‘We revealed to Joseph, “I swear you will surely inform them of the reality of this matter and the interpretation of what they did to you. For they see it as a negation of your personhood, the oblivion of your name, the extinguishing of your light, a humiliation, and a devaluation of your worth. But in truth, it brings you closer to the seat of honor and the throne of sovereignty, immortalizes your memory, completes your light, and elevates your stature. Yet, they are unaware of this reality. You will one day inform them of this.” This is reflected in his words to them when he reclined on his seat of honor and they stood before him pleading, saying: ‘O mighty one! Distress has befallen our family, and us, and we have brought a meagre sum. Yet grant us the full measure, and be charitable to us! Indeed Allah rewards the charitable.’ He said, ‘Have you realized what you did to Joseph and his brother, when you were senseless?’ … ‘I am Joseph, and this is my brother. Certainly Allah has shown us favor’ ().

Consider Joseph’s statement to his brothers, ‘Have you realized …?’, for it implies that what they were witnessing that day was really the outcome of their actions towards Joseph. And his words, ‘when you were senseless’, parallel the verse under discussion in which God says: … while they are not aware.

Other explanations of the verse have been offered:

One is: ‘You will inform your brothers of what they did to you at a time when they do not recognise you.’ This is what he spoke to them in Egypt when they did not recognise him and then he revealed his identity to them.

Another is: Informing them means meting out punishment to them for the evil they did, akin to when one threatens someone who wronged them by saying, ‘I will teach you a lesson’ or ‘I will make you pay.’

Some, citing Ibn ʿAbbās, argue that the verse refers to the events that unfolded with his brothers in Egypt, where he recognized them, but they did not recognise him. He then took a cup and made a prophetic gesture with it, hinting at their previous actions and saying something to the effect of, ‘This cup informs me that you had a brother, whom you cast into a well and sold for a paltry sum.’

Some of these explanations can be seen as far-fetched, with the most likely being the one initially presented. The idea of informing people about their own actions frequently appears in the Qur’an, indicating a revelation of the true nature of deeds. For instance, in Sūrah al-Māʾida (), God says, To Allah will be the return of you all, whereat He will inform you concerning what you used to do. In the same chapter (), God says: and soon Allah will inform them concerning what they had been doing. And in Sūrah al-Mujādila (), God says: The day when Allah will raise them all together, He will inform them about what they have done, among many other verses.

Another explanation some have given is that the meaning of And We revealed to him … is that you will inform them of what they did to you, and they are unaware of this revelation. This reading is plausible, but there’s a nuance in narrowing the meaning of the statement with this restriction, and there seems to be no obvious need for it.

Others argue that the meaning of the verse is to inform them about the elevation of your life, your status, and your dominion due to their actions. For God will make you prevail over them, humble them before you, and make your vision come true while they remain unaware of what God has granted you.

The main difference between this explanation and the one previously mentioned is that this shifts the informing from verbal communication to a manifestation in external circumstances and actual status. There’s no basis for this reading after considering the statement, Have you realized what you did to Joseph and his brother, when you were senseless?

وَجَاءُوا أَبَاهُمْ عِشَاءً يَبْكُونَ ١٦

(12:16) In the evening (ʿishāʾ), they came weeping to their father

ʿIshāʾ refers to the end of the day, and some say it lasts from the time of the Maghrib prayer until dusk. They were weeping to make their story appear genuine so that their father would believe them and not doubt their words.

قَالُوا يَا أَبَانَا إِنَّا ذَهَبْنَا نَسْتَبِقُ وَتَرَكْنَا يُوسُفَ عِنْدَ مَتَاعِنَا فَأَكَلَهُ الذِّئْبُ ۖ وَمَا أَنْتَ بِمُؤْمِنٍ لَنَا وَلَوْ كُنَّا صَادِقِينَ ١٧

(12:17) They said, ‘Father! We had gone racing (nastabiq) and left Joseph with our things, whereat the wolf ate him. But you will not believe us even if we spoke truly.’

In his Mufradāt, al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī states that the root of sabq (from which the verb nastabiq is derived) means to go on ahead, as in: by those who take the lead, racing (fa al-sābiqāt sabqan); We had gone racing (nastabiq); They raced to the door (wa istabaqā al-bāb).

In Tafsīr al-Kashshāf, al-Zamakhsharī comments: ‘The verb nastabiq means that they went racing one another, as the verb forms VIII and VI share the same meaning in some verbs, like the verbs intiḍāl and tanāḍul (‘to contend’) or irtimāʾ and tarāmī (‘to throw at one another’). The meaning here is either racing on foot or competing with one another in throwing.’

In Tafsīr al-Manār, Rashīd Riḍā writes: ‘“We had gone racing” means “We left our gathering place for the race, with each of us striving to surpass the other.” Racing involves effort, which is the essence of competition. Sometimes the race is for the sake of racing itself, or sometimes there’s another purpose. For instance, so take the lead in all good works (fa-istabiqū al-khayrāt) () means racing for its own sake, not to win. By contrast, the subsequent phrase in this chapter, They raced to the door () does indicate an intent to win: Joseph’s intent to escape, while the wife of Protiphar intended to give chase and hold him back. The mutual form does not convey this meaning, and al-Zamakhsharī, an expert in language, and those who followed him, overlooked this subtle distinction.’

Comment: Contrary to Rashīd Riḍā’s assertion, the verse, so take the lead in all good works, does suggest competition with the intent to win. This is because it is religiously recommended that an individual should not prioritize others over himself in performing good deeds, receiving rewards, or seeking closeness to God. The individual should strive to surpass others in acquiring blessings. Thus, ‘taking the lead’ here does correspond to ‘racing against one another’. Similarly, in the verse They raced to the door (), the clear implication is that each of them was trying to outrun the other to the door: one to open it and the other to prevent its opening. This captures the essence of ‘racing’. Hence, the meanings of ‘competing’ (istibāq) and ‘racing’ (tasābuq) genuinely converge based on the context. According to Ṣiḥāḥ, to ‘compete’ in running means to ‘race’. In Lisān al-ʿArab, the terms are used interchangeably.

The reason for the semantic convergence of ‘compete’ (istabaq) and ‘race’ (tasābuq) might be that the essence of ‘competing’ inherently involves an added effort. The structure of the verb istabaq (which is bāb al-iftiʿāl or a Form VIII verb) intensifies the meaning of the action and emphasizes the agent’s immersion in the act, making it a part of himself. This is evident in examples like ‘earning’ (kasb) and ‘striving to earn’ (iktisāb), ‘carrying’ (ḥaml) and ‘taking on a burden’ (iḥtimāl), ‘persevering’ (ṣabr) and ‘deeply persevering’ (iṣṭibār), and ‘approaching’ (qurb) and coming closer’ (iqtirāb), ‘hiding’ (khafī) and ‘concealing’ (ikhtifāʾ), or ‘struggling’ (juhd) and ‘striving intensely’ (ijtihād). When this pattern is superimposed on the root of sabq (‘competing’), creating the verb istibāq, it signifies the agent’s determination to attain success for himself, which can only be achieved in the context of racing.

But you will not believe us (bi muʾmin la-nā)—muʾmin means ‘someone who believes or confirms our words’. Muʾmin is the active participle of the verb īmān, which can be made transitive with the preposition la, as in the verse Thereupon Lot believed in him (fa āmana la-hu Lūṭ) ().

The meaning is that when they approached their father in the evening, weeping, they said, ‘O father, we group of brothers went to the wilderness to race’—probably a foot race, as that would make it harder for them to reach their belongings—‘we left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him. And it only adds to our distress and disgrace that you will never believe what we say, even if we are truthful.’

Their statement, … But you will not believe us even if we spoke truly, is a sentiment that one in a defensive position might express when they are out of options and their attempts at deceit are evident. It implies that they recognise their words may not be convincing, but they have no choice but to communicate what they believe to be true, even if it’s not perceived as such. This is meant to demonstrate their sincerity. However, God says, And they produced sham blood (dam kadhib) on his shirt, revealing their deception. Note that the word kadhib here is a verbal noun being used to convey the meaning of an active participle, which conveys a hyperbolic meaning (‘lying blood’), as though the blood itself is lying.

Therefore, the verse subtly communicates that the shirt, with the blood stain—note that the term for blood is left indefinite, hinting at the weakness of its evidentiary value—contradicted their claims. If a wild animal had truly attacked and consumed Joseph, it would not have left an intact shirt behind, untouched and undamaged. This is the nature of deception; a false narrative or fabrication often contains inconsistencies or contradictions, or there are external signs and situations that surround it, bespeaking its untruthfulness, exposing the façade, and revealing the ugliness of its interior, no matter how presentable it may seem on the surface.

Discourse

The discussion “On the Inevitable Failure of Lies” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

Commentary continues:

وَجَاءُوا عَلَىٰ قَمِيصِهِ بِدَمٍ كَذِبٍ ۚ قَالَ بَلْ سَوَّلَتْ لَكُمْ أَنْفُسُكُمْ أَمْرًا ۖ فَصَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ ۖ وَاللَّهُ الْمُسْتَعَانُ عَلَىٰ مَا تَصِفُونَ ١٨

(12:18) He said, ‘Rather your souls have made a matter seem decorous to you. Yet patience is graceful, and Allah is the resort against what you allege.’

This is Jacob’s response when his sons suddenly told him about the loss of his beloved son Joseph. His elder sons came to him without Joseph, crying, telling him that a wolf had devoured their younger brother, presenting a blood-stained shirt as evidence. Jacob, aware of their envy towards Joseph and how they had previously insisted on taking him away, recognized their deceit. The blood on the shirt was false evidence, calling out their lie.

Jacob refuted their claim, ‘We had gone racing …’ with, ‘Rather your souls have made a matter seem decorous to you (sawwalat la-kum anfusu-kum amran)…’ The word sawwalat indicates whispering or prompting, meaning the matter is not as they claim, but rather their souls have deceived them into thinking it so. Jacob ambiguously refers to ‘a matter’, without specifying what it is. He then communicates that he is patient in this ordeal and will not seek to punish them. His patience stems from his knowledge that the absence of Joseph is not because of a wolf attack but due to a vile plot hatched by them.

When he says, Yet patience is graceful, this is an appreciation of patience itself. This phrasing puts forth patience as the cause for the aftermath, suggesting the meaning, ‘I will be patient in facing this ordeal, for patience is beautiful.’ The fact that patience is left indefinite and its adjective is kept implicit emphasizes its either its importance and magnificence or the bitterness and difficulty in practicing it.

The statement, Yet patience is graceful, follows logically from the preceding verses, indicating that the circumstances surrounding Jacob dictated nothing but patience. Jacob faced the traumatic loss of his dearest son Joseph. The disturbing tale that his elder sons brought him was that Joseph had fallen prey to a wolf, and they supported this by producing a blood-stained shirt—but Jacob did not trust their account. He sensed their involvement and scheming in Joseph’s disappearance. Yet, he had no means of ascertaining the truth of what befell his son, where he was, or what condition he was in. His only allies and sources of support in such trials should have been his sons. Yet, they were powerful and formidable, and if they were the cause of this calamity, how could he confront them or protect himself from them? His only option in such a situation was to adopt patience.

However, patience does not merely mean to endure hardships passively or allow oneself to succumb meekly to those who wish to do you harm, like a dead land trampled underfoot and used at will. On the contrary, God has instilled in humans the instinct to repel adversity and equipped them with the means to confront such challenges as best as they can. There is no virtue in ignoring this divine instinct. Rather, true patience involves maintaining one’s inner equanimity and preserving one’s psychological wellbeing, as it is these that ensure the stability of human existence. It involves regulating one’s emotions to prevent oneself from going to pieces and becoming afflicted by inattention, confusion, and poor judgement. There are those who demonstrate patience stand firm amidst adversities, who are not swayed by the onslaught of misfortunes, while others falter at the first sign of challenge, often losing their way as a result.

With this in mind, we can see that patience is indeed the right approach to counter adversity and break its stranglehold. Yet, patience is also not the only factor needed to restore one’s own wellbeing and security. Patience is like a fortress behind which one seeks protection from an attacking enemy. However, if one wishes to truly regain the blessings of security, peace, and freedom in life, one might need another factor, a driving force towards victory. In the monotheistic belief, this force is God, in all His majestic authority. When a believer faces trials or adversities, they should first arm themselves with patience to maintain their internal spiritual order and prevent the disintegration of their faculties and emotions. Subsequently, they should place their trust in God, who transcends all causes, hoping that He will repel harm and guide their affairs to the best outcome. God, in His glory, is always in control. This topic has been previously touched upon in our commentary on the verse: And take recourse in patience and prayer ().

In light of all this, when Jacob declared, ‘Yet patience is graceful’, he followed it up by saying, ‘and Allah is the resort against what you allege.’ In doing so, he complemented the practice of patience with the principle of relying upon God, echoing a sentiment found in the subsequent verses: ‘Rather your souls have made a matter seem decorous to you. Yet patience is graceful. Maybe Allah will bring them all to me. Indeed He is the All-knowing, the All-wise’ ().

‘… and Allah is the resort against what you allege’—this is indeed a profound statement—illustrates Jacob’s placing his trust in his Lord. It is as though he is saying: ‘I know you have had a hand in this matter, and I know that Joseph was not eaten by a wolf. Yet, I do not solely depend on apparent means to expose your lies or to recover Joseph, means which are ineffective without God’s permission. I will not allow myself to become entangled in those means; instead, I will maintain my composure through patience and place my trust in my Lord to reveal the truth about what you allege, that Joseph has met his end and became a meal for a wolf.’

Therefore, when Jacob says, ‘and Allah is the resort against what you allege’, this is a prayer uttered in a moment of utter trust and reliance upon God. The meaning is: ‘O God, I place my trust in You regarding this matter, so assist me against what these sons of mine allege!’ The phrasing is structured to emphasize the singular act of seeking help, suggesting that God alone is the one from whom he seeks help, and that there is no other upon whom he depends. Indeed, Jacob asserts that the only true judgement is God’s judgement, as he will say later, ‘Judgement belongs only to Allah. In Him I have put my trust’ (), in order to expound this ideal of monotheistic reliance. Notice that he does not mention himself in the present verse: He does not say ‘I will be patient’, or ‘I will seek God’s help against what you allege.’ On the contrary, he leaves out himself and mentions only the name of his Lord, showing that he believes the matter is solely in God’s hands. This represents the perfection of his monotheism. He’s engulfed in his sorrow and grief for Joseph, but he does not love Joseph, nor feel loss for him, except for the sake of God and through God.

وَجَاءَتْ سَيَّارَةٌ فَأَرْسَلُوا وَارِدَهُمْ فَأَدْلَىٰ دَلْوَهُ ۖ قَالَ يَا بُشْرَىٰ هَٰذَا غُلَامٌ ۚ وَأَسَرُّوهُ بِضَاعَةً ۚ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ ١٩

(12:19) And there came a caravan, and they sent their water drawer (wārida-hum), who let down his bucket (adlā dalwa-hu). ‘Good news!’ he said. ‘This is a young boy!’ So they hid him (asirrū-hu) as merchandise, and Allah knew best what they were doing.

Al-Rāghib says: ‘Wurūd (from whence the word wārid is derived) originally referred to fetching water, but it came to be used in other contexts.’ He adds: ‘To lower the bucket is expressed by the verb dalā, and to retrieve it is expressed by the verb adlā. Another opinion is the reverse of these two meanings.’ He also states: ‘Isrār (from whence asirrū is derived) means to hide secretly as opposed to declaring openly.’

‘Good news!’ he said. ‘This is a young boy!’—This is mentioned separately from the previous statement (who let down his bucket), even though it occurred as a direct consequence of it, to show that this event was unexpected. What they anticipated from withdrawing their bucket from the well was to retrieve water, not to discover a boy. It was a surprise, hence he exclaimed: ‘Good news!’

The phrase, and Allah knew best what they were doing, might imply disapproval of their actions, highlighting that it was a sin they are accountable for, and for which they will be held to account. Alternatively, it could mean that this event happened with the knowledge of God, intending by this that Joseph would reach the destiny He had ordained for him. Had he not been extracted from the well and sold as merchandise, he wouldn’t have entered the house of Potiphar in Egypt and wouldn’t have achieved the status and position bestowed upon him later on.

Therefore, the meaning of the verse is that a passing group arrived at the location and sent someone to fetch water for them. He lowered his bucket into the well, and upon drawing it out, he was surprised to exclaim, ‘Good news! Here’s a boy!’—as Joseph had clung to the rope and emerged. They then hid him among their merchandise, intending to sell or trade him, even as God Almighty was fully aware of their actions, either to hold them accountable or because this had been divinely ordained. Joseph’s journey led him to a future of honor, sovereignty, and prophethood.

وَشَرَوْهُ بِثَمَنٍ بَخْسٍ دَرَاهِمَ مَعْدُودَةٍ وَكَانُوا فِيهِ مِنَ الزَّاهِدِينَ ٢٠

(12:20) And they sold him (sharaw-hu) for a cheap price (thaman bakhs), a few dirhams (darāhima maʿdūda), for they set small store by him (kānū fī-hi min al-zāhidīn).

A thaman bakhs (‘cheap price’) refers to selling an item for an amount that is less than its true value. Darāhima maʿdūda (‘a few dirhams’) implies a small amount. It has been said that when they had many coins, they would weigh them and would only count the smaller amounts. The term darāhim refers to the circulating silver currency of their time. The verb sharaw means selling. Zuhd (from whence zāhidīn is derived) means to not desire something greatly, or to be cautious about it.

The context suggests that the pronouns in And they sold him and they set refer to the caravan. This means that the caravan traders, who had extracted Joseph from the well and initially hid him as merchandise, sold him for a meagre price, which was a number of coins small enough to be countered rather than weighed, being wary that the truth might be revealed—that he was not, in fact, a slave—and Joseph might be taken from them as a result.

However, the majority of commentators believe that the pronouns refer to Joseph’s brothers, suggesting that they sold Joseph to the caravan. They claimed that Joseph was their servant who had fallen into the well, and they had merely come to retrieve him. So, they sold him to the caravan, being cautious about the truth being revealed that he was actually their brother.

Another reading is that the first pronoun refers to Joseph’s brothers and the second to the caravan. This implies that the brothers sold him for a paltry sum, while the caravan merchants were reluctant or feigned indifference to secure a lower price. They might have been genuinely hesitant to purchase him, suspecting deceit, given that Joseph did not have the appearance of a typical slave.

However, the context and tone of the verses does not favor either of these readings, as the pronouns in the preceding verse clearly relate to the caravan, and the brothers have not been explicitly mentioned afterward such that the pronouns in the phrases, And they sold him and they set, to refer back to them. The apparent meaning of the subsequent verse, The man from Egypt who had bought him …, confirms that this purchase was made in good faith.

Regarding the narrations that state: ‘Joseph’s brothers arrived there, took Joseph from the caravan claiming he was their servant who had fallen into the well, and then sold him to them for a low price,’ such accounts do cohere with the apparent context of the verses, nor the other narrations on this topic.

One might argue that the verb sharaw used in this verse actually refers to purchase rather than sale, which is a common usage of the verb in the Arabic language. However, this is refuted by the context of the verses.

وَقَالَ الَّذِي اشْتَرَاهُ مِنْ مِصْرَ لِامْرَأَتِهِ أَكْرِمِي مَثْوَاهُ عَسَىٰ أَنْ يَنْفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُ وَلَدًا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ مَكَّنَّا لِيُوسُفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلِنُعَلِّمَهُ مِنْ تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَىٰ أَمْرِهِ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ٢١

(12:21) The man from Egypt who had bought him said to his wife, ‘Give him an honorable place. Maybe he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son.’ Thus We established Joseph in the land and that We might teach him the interpretation of dreams. Allah has command of His affairs, but most people do not know.

The context implies that the caravan brought Joseph to Egypt and offered him for sale. One of the Egyptians then bought him and took him into his home.

The verses are intriguing when they speak of ‘the man from Egypt’ who made the purchase. Firstly, the phrase, The man from Egypt who had bought him, informs us that he was an Egyptian. Secondly, the mention, and they ran into her husband (sayyid-ha) at the door () indicates that he was a prominent figure. Thirdly, the statement, Some of the townswomen said, ‘The chieftain’s wife has solicited her slave boy! He has captivated her love.’ (), clarifies that he was a notable figure in Egypt, entrusted with authority and protection. This is further supported by the mention of his having a prison, signifying his role as a ruler and a leader among the people. From this, it’s understood that Joseph was initially bought by a prominent figure in Egypt and entered a noble house.

Overall, every time the man from Egypt is described in God’s words, it’s only to the extent that the narration of the story requires. The initial introduction did not need more than to describe him as an Egyptian with a residence. Hence, it sufficed to say, “The man from Egypt.”

To elaborate, the verse, in its brevity, informs us that the caravan took Joseph with them to Egypt, offered him to some locals, and he was then purchased by one of them. He was subsequently taken to that person’s home, where his wife was instructed, ‘Give him an honorable place. Maybe he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son’ ().

The prevailing custom in Egypt appears to have been that the elite would not care for their slaves unless they discerned signs of nobility and wisdom in the slave’s demeanor, noticing traits of competence and good fortune. Especially for kings, sultans, and leaders, who regularly had dozens, even hundreds, of the finest young men and women enter their courts. They would not be enamoured with each one nor show favor to everyone they encountered. The chief’s desire to honor Joseph and his hope to benefit from him or adopt him holds profound significance, especially considering he entrusted this to his wife, the lady of the house. It is uncommon for queens and noblewomen to deal with minor details or trivial matters, nor is it customary for such distinguished ladies to directly handle the affairs of slaves and young servants.

Certainly, Joseph possessed a captivating beauty that dazzled people’s minds and enchanted their hearts. Alongside his physical allure, he was endowed with virtues of impeccable character: patience, dignity, gracefulness in his movements, eloquence in his speech, wisdom in his discourse, nobility in his spirit, and honor in his lineage. These attributes do not just appear suddenly in a person; they have roots embedded from the days of youth, with their traces visibly present from the very beginning.

It was these very qualities in Joseph that drew the Egyptian official known as al-ʿAzīz in the Qur’an (and Potiphar in the Bible) to Joseph, even though he was but a young boy. Potiphar wished that Joseph should grow up in the environs of his household, hoping he would become a close confidant to assist in important matters or undertake great endeavours. He even hoped that Joseph might become, through adoption, a son to him and his wife, and thus an heir to his noble household.

From this, one can infer that Potiphar was childless, unable to have children with his wife, which further solidified his hope to adopt Joseph as their own.

When God says, “The man from Egypt who had bought him said to his wife, ‘Give him an honorable place. Maybe he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son’, it implies that Potiphar was advising his wife, the esteemed lady, to personally ensure Joseph’s well-being and to grant him a dignified status in their home. This was done in the hope that Joseph would aid them in their noble objectives or even be adopted by them.

Thus We established (makkanā) Joseph in the land and that We might teach him the interpretation of dreams. Allah has command of His affairs, but most people do not know—al-Rāghib says:

‘Makān (‘place’, from whence the verb makkanā is derived) is a place that contains or holds something. The term has been used in various forms in the Qur’an to signify the idea of grounding or settling: Certainly We have established you on the earth (makkannā-kum fī al-arḍ) (); Certainly We had granted them power (makkannā-hum) in respects that We have not granted you (makkannā-kum) (); Did We not establish (a wa lam numakkin la-hum) a secure sanctuary for them …? (); … and to establish them in the land (wa numakkin la-hum fī al-arḍ) ().

The lexicographer al-Khalīl says: “Makān is a noun of place derived from kawn (‘to be’, hence ‘a place of being’), but it was used so extensively in everyday speech that it came to be treated as an independent word on the pattern of faʿāl instead.”

Therefore, one might use the verbs tamakkan and tamaskan in the same vein as tamanzil (where tamaskan is a verb made from maskan, meaning “place of dwelling”, and tamanzil is a verb made from manzil, meaning “a resting station”).’ Therefore, makān could signify a physical place on earth or, at times, metaphorically imply a status or rank in knowledge or among people. The term can sometimes signify capability or empowerment. In the context of Joseph’s story, his “establishment in the land” possibly refers to him being given stability, enjoying the pleasures of life, and the ability to thrive, especially after the trials he faced when his brothers denied him the right to live freely. They had cast him into the depths of a well and later sold him for a paltry sum, leading him to be transported from one land to another, far from his homeland and the abode of his father.

God mentions the fact that He established Joseph in the land twice within his story. The first instance follows the narrative of Joseph’s escape from the well, his journey to Egypt in a caravan, and his sale to Potiphar. This part of the narrative is summed up in the verse, Thus We established Joseph in the land … (). The second instance comes after the account of his release from Potiphar’s prison and his appointment over Egypt’s treasuries, as stated, That is how We established Joseph in the land that he may settle in it wherever he wished (). Both instances demonstrate God’s special concern for Joseph.

Therefore, when God says, Thus We established Joseph in the land …, this refers to his escape from the well, his sale into slavery, and his subsequently being lodged in Potiphar’s house. If Thus We established … in the land relates only to the degree of security he gained upon entering and dwelling in Potiphar’s house—where his comfort was ensured by Potiphar’s command—then the analogy invoked by ‘Thus’ (kadhālik) is similar to likening something to itself to emphasize the abundance of described qualities. This is not a derogatory comparison, as seen in the lines of poetry:

‘As if we and the water around us /

Were people sitting surrounded by water.’

Rather, the meaning is that the establishment that God granted Joseph in the land is akin to what He has already described in the previous verses. Such analogy serves to gently draw the listener’s attention to the richness of the attributes, emphasize their significance, and make them appear attractive, as analogies often do.

Similar rhetorical constructions can be seen in other verses of the Qur’an, for example: There is nothing like unto Him (), and: Let all the workers work for the like of this (). The former emphasizes that nothing resembles or equates to God’s attributes, while the latter suggests that all qualities embodied by paradise are worth striving for the sake of.

If ‘establishment’ here is meant to signify a complete establishment in the land, the comparison is akin to likening the whole to some of its parts. This is to indicate that the state of the remaining parts of Joseph’s story is like that of the part that has just been described. In essence, then, God’s establishment of Joseph in the land follows the pattern mentioned in his story: His exit from the well, his journey to Egypt, and his comfortable settlement in Potiphar’s house. His brothers, out of jealousy, denied him comfort by his father’s side, threw him into the well, deprived him of the pleasures of his homeland, and sold him into a foreign land. Yet, God turned their plots into a means for Joseph to prosper and settle comfortably in Potiphar’s house in Egypt. Then, Potiphar’s wife and the women of Egypt conspired to seduce him into indiscretions, but God diverted their schemes and, in doing so, demonstrated Joseph’s sincerity and faith. Eventually, they sought to imprison him and strip him of social freedoms. However, God turned that very situation into a means for Joseph’s ultimate establishment in the land, granting him authority to settle wherever he wished, free from hindrance or deterrence.

In this light then, the present verse is akin to the words of God: That is how Allah leads astray the faithless () and His statement: That is how Allah draws comparisons (). In other words, God’s act of misleading the disbelievers always follows such-and-such a pattern, and His presentation of parables is always in this manner of the example given, serving as a standard by which others should be measured.

… and that We might teach him (wa li-nuʿallima-hu) the interpretation of dreams—This clarifies the purpose of God establishing Joseph in the land. The particle li (‘in order that’) here denotes purpose. This is in relation to an implicit statement, the meaning of which is: ‘We established him on the earth so that we might do such-and-such with him, and teach him the interpretation of dreams.’ However, the implicit part of this statement is omitted to indicate that there are other purposes which are not explicitly mentioned here, similar to God’s statement Thus did We show Abraham the dominions of the heavens and the earth, that he might be of those who possess certitude () and the like thereof.

Allah has command of His affair, but most people do not know—It appears that affair here refers to the matter at hand or what God enacts in the creation, which constitutes the orderly management of affairs. God states, He directs the command (). This affair is attributed to God because He is the master of all affairs, as God states, Look! All creation and command belong to Him. Blessed is Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. ().

The implication is that every matter related to creation and origination is under God’s command, and He is supremely dominant over it. It is subdued before Him, obedient to His will, complying with His desires. It does not have the capacity to defy or rebel, nor can it operate outside of His authority. Nor can any matter pre-empt God or elude Him, as God states, Indeed Allah carries through His command ().

In summary, God is dominant over these immediate causes; by His decree, they carry out His intentions. They have no choice but to listen and obey. However, most people are unaware, mistakenly believing that apparent causes operate independently of Him in their effects, presuming that if events head in a certain direction, nothing can divert them from their course. In this, they are utterly mistaken.

Examining Narrations

1. In Maʿānī al-akhbār, Shaykh al-Ṣadūq narrates via his chain from Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī: ‘I prayed the fajr prayer in Medina with ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn on a Friday. After he completed his prayers and praises, he proceeded to his house, and I accompanied him. He called for his servant named Sakīna and instructed her, “Do not turn away any beggar from my door today without feeding him, for today is Friday.” I remarked, “But not everyone who begs truly deserves help.” He replied, “O Thābit, I fear that among those who ask us might be someone with a rightful claim. If we do not feed them and turn them away, a misfortune might befall our household similar to what befell Jacob and his family. So, feed them.

Surely Jacob used to slaughter a ram daily, distributing part of it in charity and consuming the remainder with his family. A sincere, fasting believer who begs has a special status with God. Once, a destitute stranger arrived at Jacob’s doorstep on a Friday evening at the time of breaking his fast. He repeatedly cried out, “Please feed the hungry, passing stranger from the bounty of your food!” His pleas went unanswered, and they neither recognized his right nor believed his words.

When it became evident to the stranger that he would not be fed and night had fallen upon him, he moved on, pouring out his hunger and complaints to God. He spent the night bent in humility, and woke up continuing his fast, remaining patient and praising God. Meanwhile, Jacob and his family went to bed satiated, waking up with surplus food.

God, the Almighty, revealed to Jacob the following morning, “Oh Jacob, you humiliated my servant in a manner that has invoked my wrath and necessitates my reprimand. It has warranted my punishment and trials upon you and your progeny. My most beloved and honored prophets are those who show compassion to the needy of my servants, who draw them close, feed them, and provide them shelter and refuge. Oh Jacob, you showed no mercy last evening to my striving servant—one content with the bare minimum of this world’s offerings. He approached your door at the time of breaking his fast, pleading, ‘Feed the passing, contented stranger,’ yet you fed him nothing. He left disheartened, complaining of his plight to me. He spent the night hungry, humbled, praising me, and woke up fasting for my sake. Meanwhile, you, Jacob, and your children went to bed full and woke up with more than enough food.’

“Do you not know, O Jacob, that punishments and tribulations come swifter to my allies than to my enemies? Such swift action is a mark of my favor toward my allies and a gradual entrapment for my enemies. By my honor, I will indeed send trials upon you and make you and your offspring the target of afflictions. I will discipline you with my chastisement. Prepare for my trials, accept my decree, and remain patient during adversities.”’

I asked ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn : “When did Joseph see the vision?” He replied, “On that very night when Jacob and his household went to bed satiated, and the humble servant spent it hungry and bent. When Joseph recounted his dream to his father Jacob the next morning, Jacob became deeply troubled by what he heard from Joseph and remained in this state. God then revealed to him to prepare for impending trials. Jacob advised Joseph, ‘Do not narrate your dream to your brothers, for I fear they might conspire against you.’ Nevertheless, Joseph did not keep his dream a secret and shared it with his brothers.”

ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn continued, “The first trial that befell Jacob and his family was their envy towards Joseph after hearing about his dream. Jacob’s affection for Joseph intensified. He feared that the forewarned trials might particularly afflict Joseph. Thus, his attachment to Joseph, out of all his children, grew even more profound.

When Joseph’s brothers observed the preferential treatment and the favor that Jacob accorded Joseph over them, their resentment grew. This was the beginning of their trials. Amongst themselves, they said, ‘Surely Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than us, though we are a hardy group. Our father is indeed in manifest error Kill Joseph or cast him away into some land, so that your father’s love may be exclusively yours, and that you may become a righteous lot after that.’ implying they would then repent.

At this point, they said to their father, ‘Father! Why is it that you do not trust us with Joseph? We are indeed his well-wishers.’ Jacob responded, ‘It really upsets me that you should take him away, and I fear the wolf may eat him while you are oblivious of him’ He reluctantly let them take Joseph, cautious and wary, fearing that the trials forewarned by God might specifically relate to Joseph due to his special place in his heart and his profound love for him.

God’s omnipotence and decree prevailed—manifesting in the events concerning Jacob, Joseph, and his brothers. Jacob was unable to prevent the misfortune that befell himself, Joseph, and their family. He entrusted Joseph to his brothers, albeit reluctantly, fearing the impending adversity from God concerning Joseph.

When they departed from their home, Jacob followed them swiftly. He took Joseph from them, embracing him tightly, shedding tears, and then returned him to them. They hurried away with Joseph, fearing Jacob might reclaim him. As they moved further away, they conspired about killing Joseph and hiding his body beneath a tree so that a wolf might devour him by night. But the eldest of them intervened, saying, ‘Do not kill Joseph’, suggesting instead, “ throw him into the recess of some well so that some caravan may pick him up.”

They took Joseph to the well and cast him into it, assuming he would drown. Yet, from the well’s depths, Joseph cried out to them, ‘O sons of Rūmīn, convey my greetings to Jacob!’ Upon hearing this, some of them told each other to stay until they were sure of his death. They finally gave up and returned to their father by evening, feigning tears and saying, ‘Father! We had gone racing and left Joseph with our things, whereat the wolf ate him!’

Upon hearing their fabricated tale, Jacob was deeply pained. He was reminded of God’s earlier revelation about impending trials. Nevertheless, Jacob displayed patience in the face of this adversity, rebuking them, ‘Rather your souls have made a matter seem decorous to you.’ He added, confidently, that no wolf would harm Joseph before the true interpretation of his earlier dream was revealed.’

Abū Ḥamza said: ‘ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn’s speech was interrupted at this point.

‘The next day, I approached Ali b. al-Ḥusayn and said, “May I be your ransom! Yesterday, you shared the story of Jacob and his sons but left it incomplete, particularly concerning Joseph’s brothers and subsequent events involving Joseph.”

He replied, “The following morning, his brothers said, ‘Let’s go and see Joseph’s fate — whether he’s dead or alive.’

As they approached the well, they found a caravan had already stopped by. A water drawer from the caravan lowered his bucket into the well, only to pull up a boy—Joseph. He excitedly exclaimed to his companions, ‘Good news! This is a young boy!’ Joseph’s brothers approached them, claiming, ‘This is our servant who fell into this well yesterday. We came today to retrieve him.’ They forcibly took Joseph from the caravan, pulling him aside and coercing him, ‘Either acknowledge that you are our servant so we can sell you to the caravan or we will kill you.’ To this, Joseph responded, ‘Do not kill me; do as you please.’

They approached the caravan and said, ‘Who among you will buy this slave from us?’ A man from them purchased him for twenty dirhams. His brothers did not value him much. The one who bought him from the nomads took him until he entered Egypt. The nomadic man then sold him to the ruler of Egypt. This refers to the words of God Almighty, The man from Egypt who had bought him said to his wife, ‘Give him an honorable place. Maybe he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son.’”

Abū Ḥamza said: ‘I asked ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn : “How old was Joseph when they threw him into the well?” He replied, “He was nine years old.” I then asked, “How far was Jacob’s residence from Egypt at that time?” He said, “It was a twelve-day journey.”’

Author’s comment: There is more to this narration which we will present later in this chapter. Some points might not directly align with the apparent meaning of the verses above, but they make sense upon deeper reflection.

2. In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī cite Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and Bukhārī, who report from Ibn ʿUmar, that the Messenger of God said: ‘The noble son of the noble, son of the noble, son of the noble: Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.’
3. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Zurāra, from Imām al-Bāqir : ‘Prophets fall into five categories. Some hear a voice, like the sound of chains and understand its meaning. Some receive revelations in their dreams, like Joseph and Abraham . Others see visions, and yet others feel a weight in their hearts and hear a ringing in their ears.’
4. In the same source, from Abū Khadīja, it was reported from a man from Imām al-Ṣādiq : ‘The reason Jacob was tested with the ordeal of Joseph was because Jacob slaughtered a fat ram while one of his companions named Bayūm (or Baqūm) was in need and had nothing to break his fast with. Jacob overlooked him and did not feed him, so he was tested with the ordeal of Joseph. After that, every morning a caller would announce, “Whoever is not fasting, let him attend Jacob’s lunch.” And in the evening, “Whoever was fasting, let him attend Jacob’s dinner.”’
5. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, it is narrated from Abū al-Jārūd, from Imām al-Bāqir , regarding the verse, ‘you will surely inform them about this affair of theirs while they are not aware’ (): ‘This means: “They will not realize that you are Joseph.” Gabriel came to him and informed him of this.’
6. In the same source, it is narrated from Abū al-Jārūd, regarding the verse, And they produced sham blood on his shirt (): ‘They slaughtered a young goat on his shirt.’
7. In the Amālī of Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, with a chain of narrators, concerning the Almighty’s words, ‘Yet patience is graceful’, it is said: ‘Without complaints.’

Author’s comment: This narration is from Imām al-Ṣādiq and was originally narrated following another tradition from him. This meaning was also narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr from Ḥayyān b. Jabala, from the Prophet . And there are other narrations in addition to these on the aforementioned themes.

---

1. This alludes to the account in the Torah where Jacob had twelve sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were from Leah, his cousin; Joseph and Benjamin were from Rachel, his other cousin; Dan and Naphtali were from Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; and Gad and Asher were from Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid. ↩︎