111. That is: Yusuf called his full brother Bin Yamin to him and informed him in secret that he was his brother, and advised him not to grieve over the treatment that they were meting out to them.

112. This was a royal cup and must have been very valuable, and probably Yusuf must have taken this step, having been inspired by the revelation from God, that he quietly put it in the saddlebag of his brother, Bin Yamin. Probably he might have informed Bin Yamin about this.

113. The crier was a government official, and he was not in the know of the fact that Yusuf himself had put this cup in the belongings of Bin Yamin. Accordingly, when on the departure of the caravan, the cup was found missing, the government official must have thought that those who had stayed at that place might have stolen it. Therefore, he went in pursuit of that caravan and when he found them, on account of his suspicion he shouted at them and called them thieves.

114. That is: The caravan people asked the government employees (Police) who had accompanied the officer as to what was the thing that they had lost.

115. When the government employees (Police) informed that the royal measure was missing, the officer announced that whoever would restore it would be rewarded with a camel-load of corns, and the officer himself would be responsible for getting him the reward. It shows that the measure in question was very valuable.

116. That is: Yusuf’s brethren said.

117. That is: The government employees said.

118. That is: In whosever’s belonging the stolen thing is found, he should be arrested and his freedom should be terminated.

119. That is: In our country this is the law for punishing thieves. It is probably that this law might be of the Shariah of Prophet Ibrahim.

120. The government officer brought them to Yusuf, and when according to Yusuf’s directions their belongings were searched, the cup was found in the bag of Bin Yamin. It is also possible that this search might have been personally conducted by Yusuf.

121. Actually Yusuf wanted to keep his full brother with himself. The reason might have been that he wanted his brother’s help in the task with which he was entrusted, so that the cause of (bringing the Egyptian society nearer to Islam might be helped. Bin Yamin was not corrupt like his step brothers. He was of virtuous character, and he had received his training in the house of Prophet Yaqub. Therefore, his stay in Egypt could prove amply useful for the objective he had before him. On account of all this Yusuf wanted that his brother should stay with him. Yusuf did not want to disclose his identity to his brothers at that juncture for valid reasons, therefore, he allowed them to go away from Egypt, and Allah arranged the circumstances in such a way that Bin Yamin went to Yusuf, who could not keep him with himself without disclosing his secret.

122. In the text the words used are. Fi deenil malik”, that is in the religion of the king. Deen (religion) means obedience, but here it is used to mean in the law of the king; accordingly, Ibn Jarir Tabari has taken it to mean:

‘King’s command, his decision and his obedience.’ (Jami’ul Bayan, Vol, 13, page 17).’When Bin Yamin came to be arrested king’s law was operative in the country, and according to that law the penalty for theft was neither detention nor slavery, but something else. It is possible that the penalty might have been physical injury or fine. If this penalty were to be enforced, the purpose of accusing Bin Yamin of theft would not have been gained, and moreover he would have been harmed physically or financially. It is obvious that it would be quite unjust. However, the punishment of detention or slavery was a punishment merely in appearance and not in reality, and Bin Yamin himself understood that it was an intelligent way of keeping him with Yusuf. That is why he did not protest against his arrest, nor did he speak a word to clear himself of the charge. In short, according to the law which was operative in Egypt Yusuf could punish Bin Yamin, but he could not keep him with himself. However, Allah’s will could provide such an arrangement under which he could detain him with himself. Accordingly, Allah provided the situation and it could become possible for Yusuf to keep his brother with himself. Since Bin Yamin belonged to Canaan, it is likely that according to international protocol or practice it was necessary to deal with his case under the law of his own country, Canaan. In this way Bin Yamin was subjected to the law under the Shariah of Ibrahim, which was appropriate from all points of view.

Concerning this ayat, certain questions arise in the mind; Without going into the details for fear of lengthy discourse, we would rest content with only necessary clarification as under.

(1) The exact words in the ayat “Ma kana li”. (He could not have... No.76) have been used in the Quran to mean ‘it was not his business’ or ‘it did not behove him’, and they have been used also to mean ‘not to have power to do’ or ‘not to be able to do’ The illustration for the first meaning can be found in the ayat No.35 of Surah Maryam:

“It does not behove Allah to have a son”, and the example of the second meaning can be found in the ayat No 145, Surah Aal-e-Imran

“No soul can ever die except by Allah’s command.” In the verse under reference the word ‘illa’ is used to mean ‘except’ and the second set of meaning appears to be more appropriate, i.e. having no power or being unable to do, that is, according to the law of the king, Yusuf had no power to keep his brother with himself, or in other words he had no authority to detain him.

(2) The Shariah which was given to Prophet Ibrahim was in outlines and not detailed. The detailed commands were revealed to Prophet Moosa in the form of the Torah. Therefore, after Prophet Yusuf’s taking over the administration of Egypt, only occasionally he would have been made to face the problem of following the Shariah law in difficult situations. It is obvious at that time the area of the lawful was very wide, and where the Shariah law was not specific, there was the opportunity for Yusuf to issue laws and commands according to the known concepts of law and justice, and to the extent the laws of the land were based on justice there would have been no difficulty in enforcing the Shariah laws. In a country whose society was not acquainted with Islam, but where Prophet Yusuf was made the head of the government, any change in its social life could be brought only gradually.

Allama Ibn Taimiyah writes:

“From this thing (i.e. accepting political office being incumbent upon a particular person) is Yusuf’s becoming administrator of the treasuries of Egypt, when the king and his nation were disbelievers, as is clear from ayat No.34:

“Before this Yusuf had come to you with clear arguments, but you remained in doubts about the guidance brought by him” (Surah Momin - 34), as also in ayat No.39

“Are numerous lords better or Allah, the One, Almighty” (Surah Yusuf). And it is also obvious that there must have been, along with the disbelief, their particular methods of collecting revenue and spending it on the king, his nobles, his family, army and the subjects, and these methods must not have been in keeping with the methods and requirements of the teachings of prophets. But it was, not possible for Yusuf to do whatever he liked, i.e. whatever was lawful according to the divine law in his view could not be always enforced by him, because the nation had not accepted his message. Even then to whatever extent it was possible, Yusuf enforced the rule of law and justice, and after attaining power he bestowed that honour on the Muslim members of his family which was not otherwise possible. And all this is in accordance with the divine commandment:

“Fear Allah as much as it is in your power. “ (Surah Taghabun- 16). Therefore, when a person is required to enforce two commands which are incumbent, and at the same time it may not be possible to enforce both of them at one and the same time, then the one which is stressed more should be enforced. In such a case the second incumbent command would not remain as such, nor the person not enforcing it would be considered defaulter.”

-(Majmu’ Fatawa Ibn Taimiyah Vol. 20, p. 56).

(3) Yusuf was the ruler of Egypt. If he wanted, he could have established contact with his father, but since he was also a prophet he could act according to the revelation from God, and the divine plan was that his identity was to be kept secret for the time being, and it was to be disclosed when his step brethren were to be put to shame after their getting into trouble, so that they might be reformed.

And it is a fact that those who are unwilling to listen to good advice are reformed when they receive hard blows of adversity, and those who sleep the slumber of negligence, only shocks of circumstances can awaken them. If Yusuf’s brethren had been intelligent and wise, they could have become good citizens after receiving training under their prophet father. But when inspite of the best guidance from their father they adopted the wrong line of action, it was necessary that they should be meted out shocks and knocks so that they might be made aware of their wrong conduct. It was this planning of God which gave a turn to their affairs, and Yusuf adopted a particular type of policy in dealing with them that it changed their angles of view, and as would be seen further their entire world was changed.

(4) The policy or the method which Yusuf adopted concerning his brothers relates to reforming the circumstances or environments. Whatever he did had no contamination of falsehood nor of excess of wrong-doing, but with the purity of intention the methods which were adopted could for the time being create wrong impressions but according to the results that were obtained they were right. Therefore, to term this policy of Prophet Yusuf as ‘Shariah-excuse’ and to try to make unlawful acts appear lawful under the garb of ‘Shariah excuses’ is nothing but misguiding. The path of the Shariah is the right and straight path in which there is room for adopting some compromising policy when need arises, but there is absolutely no room for making lawful what is unlawful under some excuses.

123. Refers to the fact that when Yusuf adopted good method and right policy, based on the knowledge granted to him by Allah, and made law and justice his basic policy in matter of his administration and statesmanship, Allah exalted his rank.

124. This is a timely warning for a man of learning that he should not be proud of his knowledge, but that he should understand that over him there is a Higher Being whose knowledge has no limits. However exceedingly learned a man be, his knowledge and learning is absolutely nothing before Allah’s knowledge.

125. When the cup was found in the belongings of Bin Yamin, and Yusuf’s brothers could not immediately give a reply, they accused his full brother, Yusuf, of having committed theft earlier, and if that time Bin Yamin was found to have stolen the cup, there was nothing strange in that, as he was his brother. They did not know that the big lie which they were telling before the person was himself Yusuf the full brother of Bin Yamin, It gives an idea what kind of wrong feelings they had in their hearts.

126. Whoever accuses an innocent person of a crime which he has not committed, he demeans himself and provides a proof of his being an evil person.

127. They addressed Yusuf as Aziz. Aziz means an executive of power and authority. This title was reserved for the ruler of Egypt. It shows that when this event took place at that time Yusuf was ruling over Egypt, however at that time he had not become the king.

128. That is: Prophet Yaqub had become old and he would be grieved if Bin Yamin was detained.

129. Yusuf was very cautious in using his words. He did not say: “Who committed theft”, but he said: “... with whom we found our property, that is, he did not accuse him of stealing in clear terms because he knew that in reality Bin Yamin had not stolen the cup.