106. It is said that Yusuf allowed them to dislodge and leave. When they were at a distance, he sent an employee behind them to raise the issue of the goblet (Ibn Jarir).

Asad refers to Imam Razi’s comments but draws a conclusion which Imam Razi perhaps did not. He writes: “Commenting on this verse, Razi says: ‘Nowhere in the Qur’an is it stated that they made this accusation on Joseph’s orders; the circumstantial evidence shows rather (al-aqrab ila zahir al-hal) that they did this on their own accord; for, when they had missed the drinking-cup, [these servants of Joseph remembered that] nobody had been near it [except the sons of Jacob], and so it occurred to them that it was they who had taken it.’”

Asad then draws the conclusion that Joseph never contrived the incident. He writes, “Joseph had wanted to keep Benjamin with himself, but under the law of Egypt he could not do this without the consent of his half-brothers, who were the legal guardians of their half-brother; and they - bound as they were by the solemn promise given to their father - would certainly not have agreed to Benjamine’s remaining behind. The only other alternative open to Joseph was to disclose his identity to them; but since he was not yet prepared to go so far, he was obliged to allow Benjamin to depart with his brothers. The accidental discovery of his gift, entirely unexpected by Joseph changed everything: for now Benjamin appeared to be guilty of theft, and under the law of the land Joseph was entitled to claim him as his slave, and thus to keep him in his house. The words, ‘in this way did We contrive for Joseph [the attainment of his heart’s desire]’, referring to the incident of the cup, indicate that its final outcome was neither planned nor even foreseen by Joseph.”

Although apparently the above idea sounds plausible, it has several loopholes: (1) If it is assumed that Joseph gave it to him as a gift, then why Bin Yamin did not protest and say it was gifted to him? (2) If Joseph had given him the cup, why did he not own up when the servants found it missing, saying, it was he who had gifted it to Bin Yamin? (3) Why did the servants act on their own? Why did they not, when they found the cup missing, inquire with the owner of the cup, Yusuf himself? Rather, the explanation as given by other commentators sounds more plausible which says that Yusuf was acting by the commandment of Allah in all that he did. This also explains why he did not try to get his suffering father to Egypt rather than the lad, who would have been, after all, happy anywhere. As Imam Razi has suggested, (as also Shafi`) that perhaps Allah wished to try Ya`qub further (and raise his ranks), and so got the second son (the dearest of his sons to him after Yusuf: Au.), also removed from him. We may recall Ibrahim’s slaughter of his son.

We might also point out that the only part in which Razi is with Asad is that it was the crier and not Yusuf who accused his brothers of theft.

107. Most early commentators have said that the “suwa`” of this and the “siqayah” of the earlier verse are different names for the same thing. It used to be a large goblet, or mug, two-eared, that was used for drinking wine. `Abbas b. `Abdul Muttalib had one in use in pre-Islamic times (Ibn Jarir).

108. The punishment for theft in their land (Canaan) was that the thief was given away in slavery to the owner of the goods stolen (Ibn Jarir). Sayyid adds: The period of slavery depended on the amount stolen.

109. “He”, i.e., one of Yusuf’s deputies, while perhaps Yusuf stood around, supervising (Au.).

110. Yusuf Ali notes the switch from “rahl” of verses 70 and 75, to “wi`ayah” of this verse and explains: “The Arabic word here used is ‘wi`aun,’ pl. ‘au`iya,’ which includes bags, lockers, boxes, or any receptacle in which things are stored. Notice the appropriateness of the words used. The cup was concealed in a saddle-bag (‘rahl’), verse 70 above. When it comes to searching, they must search all the baggage of every description if the search was to be convincing and effective.”

111. Such contriving, called tawriyah, is allowed in the Islamic Shari`ah so long as it does not contradict a law of Islam or wrong anyone. But, if it is to avoid an obligation then it is disallowed, such as, e.g., playing with the accounts to avoid paying Zakah, or taking up a journey to avoid fasting, etc. (Au.).

112. That is, the law of the land did not allow that a thief be taken slave for theft, rather, a fine was levied on him in accordance with the worth of property stolen. But, in case of Bin Yamin, his brothers committed themselves to avoid the law and thus Allah made it possible for Yusuf to retain his brother with him (Ibn Jarir).

Mawdudi wrote: “Obviously, Joseph himself suggested putting the drinking-cup in Benjamin’s saddle-bag... A careful study of the relevant verses brings out one fact very clearly - that the servants asked the suspected culprits to state the punishment for theft. In response, they mentioned the punishment laid down by Abrahamic law. This served two purposes. Firstly, it enabled Joseph to act according to Abrahamic law. Secondly, it enabled Joseph to detain Benjamin rather than send him to prison.”

He further writes: “It was unbecoming of Joseph, as a Prophet, to follow Egyptian law in a matter that related to him personally. The scheme which had been devised to retain his brother presented one problem. Joseph could have detained his brother but in order to do so it would have been necessary to have recourse to Egyptian penal Law. This was unbecoming of a Prophet who had taken authority into his own hands in order to replace man-made laws with those of God.

“Had God so willed, He could have let Joseph - a Prophet - commit this mistake. However, God did not do so. Thus, thanks to God’s inspiration, a way out of the difficulty was found. An inquiry was addressed to Joseph’s brother. What punishment was laid down for a thief?”

Further down he writes, “In this way God bestowed His favour upon Joseph and demonstrated His infinitely superior knowledge. What could be a greater means of exalting Joseph’s position that this? When out of human weakness, Joseph was on the verge of committing an error God planned from on high and found a way to prevent this from happening. Such an exalted status is conferred only on those who prove their mettle after successfully going through a series of tests. Now, although Joseph (peace be on him) was quite knowledgeable and acted wisely, there was nevertheless a gap in the plan he had devised.”

The quote from the commentator ends here.

By way of comment on the above statement, the following may be said: Apart from the casual manner of treating a Prophet, the arguments above suffer a few inconsistencies. A few things are first supposed and then solutions offered; e.g., Yusuf is put on the verge of committing an error, and then rescued with a contrived solution. One might also ask, was Yusuf (asws) aware of the Egyptian Law or not? Did his plan take into the consideration that Yusuf’s brothers might have replied, “He has broken Egyptian Law and so let him be judged by Egyptian Law? If we let our imagination run wild, to judge Prophets, it runs into wilderness (Au.).

Sayyid Qutb comments: “The usage of the word ‘din’ here is a very accurate way of expressing what the word stands for in all its implications. The usage here defines it as the law by which a land is governed. The law of the land did not allow Yusuf to take his brother unto himself. That was only possible by the law of Ya`qub (asws) which his brothers agreed to apply. Thus, law, of either side, was termed as the ‘din.’

“This is the implication of the word that the people of the contemporary pagandom miss to note: be they Muslims or non-Muslims.

“They restrict its application to doctrinal matters or rituals, or modes of worship. They assume that whoever believes in Allah, His Messenger, angels, revelations, the Last Day and the Divine Decree, good and bad of it, and who performs the rituals of worship, is within the folds of Allah’s religion, whoever else he might be submitted to other than Allah in matters of law refusing Allah’s judgment in all affairs of life.

“The true implication of “dinuAllah” is either missing or remains obscure in the minds of the masses, and, if it exists, its true implication is consigned to some remote corner of the mind, clouded with vagueness.”

113. That is, every knowledgeable person has another over him, more knowledgeable, the series ending with Allah (Au.).

114. That is, if he has stolen, then no wonder, since his brother, also from the same mother, had earlier stolen, meaning, “we, the rest of us being from a different mother, are unlike him and his brother” (Razi).

Qurtubi comments: What they meant is, “sharing of pedigree gives rise to similarity in characteristics.”

In explanation of the statement of Yusuf’s brothers, two stories were in circulation among the commentators: none confirmed by a hadith. One, Yusuf had stolen an idol from an aunt’s house (or from a temple: Kashshaf), and thrown it away. The reference is to that theft. Another story goes that Yusuf was brought up by her aunt, a daughter of Is-haq. When the time came for Yusuf to be taken away, she pleaded for more time. In course of time she hid her belt (that she had inherited from Is-haq - a kind of a dear article, inherited generations after generations) in Yusuf’s garments and then made noise that it had been stolen. Upon search it was discovered on him and, by this guile she was able to keep him with herself longer, until she died (Tabari, Kashshaf, Ibn Kathir).

“In fact,” Qurtubi writes, “Yusuf could have learnt the trick of concealing the goblet in his brother’s baggage from that childhood incident.” (That is, if it is true – Au.).

115. What is it that Yusuf concealed from them? The answer is, the words that follow: “Rather, you are worst-placed” (Ibn Jarir).

116. Their addressing Yusuf by the title suggests that either the older ‘Aziz (Qitfir) had been removed or was dead (Qurtubi).

117. Note that they did not say about their father that apart from being old, he was a Prophet too; a statement they were very likely to make if they knew Yusuf as a Prophet. And, had he been holding the position of authority as a Prophet, surely, he would be ‘known’ as that and not as ‘Aziz, or a king, etc., especially to his brothers (Au.).

118. Qurtubi comments: They could not have been serious about letting another be enslaved in place of Bin Yamin. Rather, they would have meant to make a point of the seriousness of the situation if Bin Yamin was retained. It was in the same manner as someone would say, “Kill me, rather than do this,” by which of course it does not mean that killing the man is really an option. Yusuf could have also understood that what they really wished was the release of Bin Yamin, which he denied, turning back their own words on them.