Surah 12. Yusuf

---

Verses [Section]: 1-6[1], 7-20 [2], 21-29 [3], 30-35 [4], 36-42 [5], 43-49 [6], 50-57 [7], 58-68 [8], 69-79 [9], 80-93 [10], 94-104 [11], 105-111 [12]

---

Quran Text of Verse 69-79وَ لَمَّاAnd whenدَخَلُوْاthey enteredعَلٰیuponیُوْسُفَYusufاٰوٰۤیhe tookاِلَیْهِto himselfاَخَاهُhis brotherقَالَHe saidاِنِّیْۤIndeed Iاَنَا[I] amاَخُوْكَyour brotherفَلَاso (do) notتَبْتَىِٕسْgrieveبِمَاfor whatكَانُوْاthey used (to)یَعْمَلُوْنَ do 12. Yusuf Page 244فَلَمَّاSo whenجَهَّزَهُمْhe had furnished themبِجَهَازِهِمْwith their suppliesجَعَلَhe putالسِّقَایَةَthe drinking cupفِیْinرَحْلِthe bagاَخِیْهِ(of) his brotherثُمَّThenاَذَّنَcalled outمُؤَذِّنٌan announcerاَیَّتُهَاO youالْعِیْرُ(in) the caravan!اِنَّكُمْIndeed youلَسٰرِقُوْنَ surely (are) thieves قَالُوْاThey saidوَ اَقْبَلُوْاturning towardsعَلَیْهِمْthemمَّا ذَاWhat (is it)تَفْقِدُوْنَ you miss قَالُوْاThey saidنَفْقِدُWe are missingصُوَاعَ(the) cupالْمَلِكِ(of) the kingوَ لِمَنْAnd for (one) whoجَآءَbringsبِهٖitحِمْلُ(is) a loadبَعِیْرٍ(of) a camelوَّ اَنَاand Iبِهٖfor itزَعِیْمٌ (is) responsible قَالُوْاThey saidتَاللّٰهِBy Allahلَقَدْcertainlyعَلِمْتُمْyou knowمَّاnotجِئْنَاwe cameلِنُفْسِدَthat we cause corruptionفِیinالْاَرْضِthe landوَ مَاand notكُنَّاwe areسٰرِقِیْنَ thieves قَالُوْاThey saidفَمَاThen whatجَزَآؤُهٗۤ(will be the) recompense (of) itاِنْifكُنْتُمْyou areكٰذِبِیْنَ liars قَالُوْاThey saidجَزَآؤُهٗIts recompenseمَنْ(is that one) whoوُّجِدَit is foundفِیْinرَحْلِهٖhis bagفَهُوَthen heجَزَآؤُهٗ ؕ(will be) his recompenseكَذٰلِكَThusنَجْزِی(do) we recompenseالظّٰلِمِیْنَ the wrongdoers فَبَدَاَSo he beganبِاَوْعِیَتِهِمْwith their bagsقَبْلَbeforeوِعَآءِ(the) bagاَخِیْهِ(of) his brotherثُمَّthenاسْتَخْرَجَهَاhe brought it outمِنْfromوِّعَآءِ(the) bagاَخِیْهِ ؕ(of) his brotherكَذٰلِكَThusكِدْنَا(did) We planلِیُوْسُفَ ؕfor YusufمَاHe could notكَانَHe could notلِیَاْخُذَtakeاَخَاهُhis brotherفِیْbyدِیْنِthe lawالْمَلِكِ(of) the kingاِلَّاۤexceptاَنْthatیَّشَآءَAllah willedاللّٰهُ ؕAllah willedنَرْفَعُWe raiseدَرَجٰتٍ(in) degreesمَّنْwhomنَّشَآءُ ؕWe willوَ فَوْقَbut overكُلِّeveryذِیْpossessorعِلْمٍ(of) knowledgeعَلِیْمٌ (is) the All-Knower قَالُوْۤاThey saidاِنْIfیَّسْرِقْhe stealsفَقَدْthen verilyسَرَقَstoleاَخٌa brotherلَّهٗof hisمِنْbeforeقَبْلُ ۚbeforeفَاَسَرَّهَاBut Yusuf kept it secretیُوْسُفُBut Yusuf kept it secretفِیْwithinنَفْسِهٖhimselfوَ لَمْand (did) notیُبْدِهَاreveal itلَهُمْ ۚto themقَالَHe saidاَنْتُمْYouشَرٌّ(are the) worseمَّكَانًا ۚ(in) positionوَ اللّٰهُand Allahاَعْلَمُknows bestبِمَاof whatتَصِفُوْنَ you describe قَالُوْاThey saidیٰۤاَیُّهَاOالْعَزِیْزُAziz!اِنَّIndeedلَهٗۤhe hasاَبًاa fatherشَیْخًاoldكَبِیْرًا[great]فَخُذْso takeاَحَدَنَاone of usمَكَانَهٗ ۚ(in) his placeاِنَّاIndeed weنَرٰىكَ[we] see youمِنَofالْمُحْسِنِیْنَ the good-doers 12. Yusuf Page 245قَالَHe saidمَعَاذَAllah forbidاللّٰهِAllah forbidاَنْthatنَّاْخُذَwe takeاِلَّاexceptمَنْ(one) whoوَّجَدْنَاwe foundمَتَاعَنَاour possessionعِنْدَهٗۤ ۙwith himاِنَّاۤIndeed, weاِذًاthenلَّظٰلِمُوْنَ۠surely (would be) wrongdoers

---

Translation of Verse 69-79

(12:69) When they presented themselves before Joseph, he took his brother aside to himself and said: "Verily I am your own brother Joseph; so do not grieve over the manner they have treated you."⁵⁵

(12:70) Then, while Joseph was having their provisions loaded, he put his drinking-cup in his brother's saddlebag.⁵⁶ And then a herald cried: "Travellers, you are thieves."⁵⁷

(12:71) Turning back they asked: "What have you lost?"

(12:72) The officials said: "We have lost the king's cup." (And their chief added): "He who brings it shall have a camel-load of provisions, I guarantee that."

(12:73) They said: "By Allah, you certainly know that we did not come to act corruptly in this land, nor are we those who steal."

(12:74) The officials said: "If you are lying, what will be the penalty for him who has stolen?"

(12:75) They replied: "He in whose saddlebag the cup is found, he himself shall be its recompense." Thus do we punish the wrong-doers.⁵⁸

(12:76) Then Joseph began searching their bags before searching his own brother's bag. Then he brought forth the drinking-cup from his brother's bag. Thus did We contrive to support Joseph.⁵⁹ He had no right, according to the religion of the king (i.e. the law of Egypt), to take his brother, unless Allah so willed.⁶⁰ We exalt whomsoever We will over others by several degrees. And above all those who know is the One Who truly knows.

(12:77) They said: "No wonder that he steals for a brother of his stole before."⁶¹ But Joseph kept his reaction to himself without disclosing the truth to them. He merely said to himself: "You are an evil lot. Allah knows well the truth of the accusation that you are making against me (to my face)."

(12:78) They said: "O powerful chief (al-aziz)!⁶² His father is an age-stricken man, (and in order that he may not suffer) seize one of us in his stead. We indeed consider you an excellent person."

(12:79) Joseph said: "Allah forbid that we should seize any except him with whom we found our good.⁶³ Were we to do so, we would surely be one of the wrong-doers."

---

Commentary

55. This little sentence encapsulates all that transpired between the two real brothers at their-reunion after a lapse of some twenty-one to twenty-two years.

During this meeting, Joseph would have told Benjamin of all the situations he found himself in prior to having reached his present stage of power and renown. Benjamin would have told Joseph of the maltreatment meted out to him by his step-brothers. Joseph would also have comforted Benjamin, saying that from now onwards he would stay with him and that he would not allow him to return with his cruet step-brothers. It is quite likely that at this point the two brothers would have jointly worked out a plan that would enable Benjamin to remain behind in Egypt. The two brothers did not, however, wish to disclose this plan as Joseph (peace be on him) wanted certain things to stay concealed at least for a while.

56. Apparently, Joseph himself devised the scheme whereby his drinking cup be put in Benjamin’s saddle-bag. This was done with Benjamin’s full knowledge and consent as is evident from the preceding verse. For, had Joseph simply issued a public order preventing Benjamin from returning, he would have been forced to reveal his true identity. This was unwise at that stage.

Hence, the two brothers would have discussed how to achieve their desired purpose.

Doubtlessly the scheme which they devised was bound to bring Benjamin’s reputation under a temporary cloud as he would be implicated in a case of theft: However, it would not be difficult to subsequently remove such a misunderstanding.

For, at a date mutually agreed upon by the two brothers, they could reveal the undisclosed part of the whole story and, thus, remove the stigma of moral turpitude from his brother.

57. Neither the present verse nor the ones that follow provide any hint whatsoever to support the belief that Joseph (peace be on him) had taken his servants into his confidence regarding this matter and directed them to level a false charge of theft against the caravan. The incident seems to have been no more than that the drinking cup was surreptitiously put in Benjamin’s saddle-bag. Later on, the government officials would have concluded that someone from the caravan had committed the theft.

58. It must be remembered that since Joseph’s brothers belonged to the Abrahamic family, the relevant law which they referred to was the Abrahamic law. According to that law, a thief had to be handed over to the person whose property he had stolen.

59. It is worth casting a glance at the whole series of events and then considering which specific device was directly inspired by God in support of Joseph. Obviously, Joseph himself suggested putting the drinking-cup in Benjamin’s saddle-bag. In normal circumstances, the servants would have detained all members of the caravan suspecting that any one of them might have stolen Joseph’s cup. What, then, constitutes the step which was part of God’s own plan? 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 to send him to prison.

60. 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 brothers.

What punishment was laid down for a thief? In response, they mentioned the relevant provision of Abrahamic law. This was quite pertinent since Joseph’s brothers were not subjects of the Egyptian state. Instead, they came from another territory which was independent. They were quite prepared, in accordance with the provisions of their law, to hand over a member of their group to the authorities that he may be punished for his crime. Hence, there was no need for Joseph to have recourse to Egyptian penal laws.

In this way God bestowed His favor upon Joseph and demonstrated His infinitely superior knowledge. What could be a greater means of exalting Joseph’s position than 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. That gap was filled by the One Whose knowledge surpasses the knowledge of every knower.

There are some points relating to the incident which deserve some explanation: (1) Usually translators and commentators on the Qur’an consider the verse to mean the following: ‘Joseph could not have apprehended his brother according to the law of the land’. The Qur’anic expression is interpreted to mean that Joseph ‘did not have the authority to apprehend his brother’, rather than that it was ‘inappropriate and unbecoming of Joseph’ to do so. Such an understanding of the verse is wrong both from the point of view of Arabic idiom and Qur’anic usage. For the Arabic usage means ‘it is not proper for him’. There are many instances of this usage in the Qur’an to support this sense: (a) ‘Itis not befitting to the majesty of Allah that He should take a son’ (Maryam 19: 35). (b) ‘It is not proper for us to associate any with Allah in His divinity’ (Yusuf 12: 38). (c) ‘Allah is not going to disclose to you what is hidden in the realm beyond the reach of perception’ (Al ‘Imran 3: 179). (d) ‘And Allah will never leave your faith to waste’ (al-Baqarah 2: 143). (e) ‘It is not Allah who wrongs them’ (al-Tawbah 9: 70). (f) ‘Allah will not let the believers stay in the state they are’ (Al ‘Imran 3: 179). (g) ‘It is not for a believer to slay another believer’ (al-Nisa’ 4: 92).

In view of the above instances of Qur’anic usage, the verse under discussion as usually interpreted by Qur’an-commentators, makes no sense. For, what would prevent Joseph from arresting a thief under the king’s law? In fact, there has never been any state on earth which prevented the arrest of a thief. (2) By using the expression din al-malik to signify ‘royal law’, God has Himself indicated the meaning of the word (din). For it is quite evident that God’s Messengers are raised to implement and enforce din Allah (‘the law of God’) rather than ‘the law of the king’. However, if it was not possible, due to adverse circumstances, to replace the king’s law by God’s law, it was at least unbecoming of a messenger to follow the king’s law in a matter that related to his own self.

Thus, Joseph’s decision not to punish his brother in accordance with the king’s law was not based on the grounds that it was not possible for him to do so under the king’s law. Rather, the only reason was that, being a Messenger of God, it was not appropriate for Joseph to follow the king’s law instead of God’s law in matters relating to himself. (3) By using the term din to denote ‘the law of the land’, God has indicated the wide-ranging jurisdiction of din. This strikes at the very root of the concept of din or religion — which is perceived, according to ordinary parlance, to be concerned merely with adherence to a set of religious belief and rituals, of adhering to certain forms of worshipping the One True God.

Were one to accept such a narrow conception, religion would be able to say nothing worthwhile about man’s ‘societal life, about politics, civilization, economy, justice, legislation and such other facets of man’s worldly life. Or, if religion has anything to say about such matters, it would merely be of a recommendatory nature. According to such a view, if people follow the guidelines provided by religion, all well and good. But if they do not, and instead follow man-made laws, then there is nothing objectionable about this. This patently erroneous concept of religion, which has been popular among Muslims for quite some time, largely accounts for why Muslims have become negligent in their duty of establishing an Islamic order of life. As a result, they have become reconciled to live under a way of life based on Jahiliyah. Not only that but some Muslims, in our time, have even come to believe that it is the sunnah of a Prophet (viz. Joseph) to administer a system of life based on Jahiliyah. Such ideas have made Muslims ready to become cogs in the machinery of an un-Islamic government, willing to bend their efforts to operate it efficiently.

Such an attitude, according to the present verse, is altogether wrong.

Instead we are told that the law on which society is based and which governs the affairs of the state is as much a part of din (religion) as prayer. This is further borne out by such Qur’anic verses as: “The true religion with Allah is Islam’ (Al ‘Imran 3: 18). ‘And whoever seeks a way other than this way of Islam, will find that it will not be accepted from him’ (Al ‘Imran 3: 85). These verses require that believers should totally submit themselves to din. And din, apart from prescribing Prayer and Fasting, also lays down laws relevant for operating the social system and the administration of a country. The Qur’an, as we have noted above, stipulates that if Muslims deviate from Islam whether in matters of worship or of social organization, such an attitude is unacceptable to God. (4) It should also be pointed out, in light of the above verse, that at that time ‘the law of the king’ rather than the ‘law of God’ operated in Egypt.

Now, since Joseph had political control over Egypt, the conclusion is that Joseph enforced the ‘law of the king’ rather than the ‘law of God’. It might even be argued that Joseph’s adherence to Abrahamic law rather than to the royal law of Egypt in a matter relating to himself makes little difference. For it is evident that it is according to man-made laws that cases were judged in Egypt during his period of rule.

Such a view might seem quite weighty at first sight, but those who look at the matter a little more carefully will be able to put things into perspective. It is true that Joseph (peace be on him) was designated to give effect to the laws of God. In fact, this was at the heart of his mission as a Prophet and his basic task as a ruler. All this is quite evident.

It should be remembered, however, that the system operating in any country does not change overnight. Suppose a group of people who sincerely wish to establish the Islamic order of life gain total control over the affairs of a country. It would nevertheless take several years before those people succeeded in changing the social, economic, political, judicial, and legal system of that country. During the transitional period they would be forced to retain existing laws until such time as their proposed changes make some significant headway. It should also be remembered that Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) took some nine to ten years (after the Hijrah) to bring about total change in Arabia. During the transitional period people continued to drink wine, followed the inheritance laws of the Jahiliyah period, and engaged in business transactions which were not at all in conformity with the principles of Islam. Likewise, Islamic civil and criminal laws did not begin to fully operate from the very first day. So, if during the first eight or nine years of Joseph’s rule, the old laws of the Egyptian state remained in operation, it is not at all surprising.

This does not in any way warrant the ideaxthat God’s Messenger was designated to put into effect laws made by men rather than by God.

A further question might also be raised. If it was appropriate for Egyptian toyal law to be in force in the whole country, why was it inappropriate for Joseph (peace be on him) to follow that law in his personal life? This matter can ; perhaps be fully understood if we remember the method of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).

It is well known that during the first few years of Prophet Muhammad’s rule when a great many Islamic laws had not been promulgated, people drank wine but the Prophet certainly did not indulge in it. Likewise, people carried on transactions involving interest but the Prophet (peace be on him) never engaged in any such transaction. Other Muslims continued to indulge in several practices relating to marriage such as mut‘ah (temporary marriage) and the combining of two sisters in wedlock all of which were later prohibited. It is significant, however, that while others indulged in these practices the Prophet (peace be on him) always abstained from them.

This shows that there is a difference between a Prophet’s gradual enforcement of Islamic law owing to compulsions of a practical nature, and to following the ways of Jahiliyah during the period of transition. Ordinary believers are condoned during the transitional phase, but it is certainly unbecoming of a Messenger of God to engage in practices which he had been designated to obliterate.

61. Joseph’s brothers made this remark to overcome their embarrassment. They had said earlier that they were not thieves. But when they came to know that the stolen cup had been recovered from the saddle-bag of their brother, Benjamin, they invented a lie and dissociated themselves from him. They even made a scandalous statement about Benjamin’s brother, Joseph. This only shows the kind of treatment they were capable of meting out to Benjamin had he not enjoyed Joseph’s protection. This also demonstrates why both Benjamin and Joseph preferred that Benjamin not join the ten brothers on their return journey.

62. In the above verse the title ‘aziz (literally the ‘powerful one’) has been used for Joseph. In view of this usage, some Qur’an-commentators are of the opinion that Joseph was appointed to the same office that had been held earlier by Zelicha’s husband. Some have even gone further towards the fantastic with the stories they have weaved. In these stories, it is claimed that since the former ‘aziz had died, Joseph was appointed to his office; that by dint of a miracle Zelicha’s youth was restored, and that the Egyptian king joined Joseph and Zelicha in wedlock. To crown it all, these writers even claimed to know what transpired between Joseph and Zelicha on their wedding night.

It is obvious such stories are nothing more than fiction. We have already noted that the word ‘aziz was not the specific appellation of any particular office. (See n. 16, above — Ed.) It was used in the sense of ‘incumbent of power’. This expression, in Egypt, was synonymous with the honorific words used for incumbents of power in different languages. Whatever word might have been used for incumbents of power in the Egyptian language at that time has been denoted in the Qur’an by the Arabic word ‘aziz.

Now so far as Zelicha’s marriage with Joseph is concerned, the only basis for it is the Biblical and Talmudic account of Joseph’s story. In that account Joseph has been mentioned as having married Asenath, the daughter of Potophra. (Genesis 41: 45 — Ed.) Now the name of Zelicha’s husband was Potiphar. Such diverse fragments of information reached Qur’an-commentators from a variety of Israelite sources. Quite a bit of this material was derived from oral accounts. It is not surprising, therefore, that Potophra was confused with Potiphar. Again, the word ‘daughter’ changed into ‘wife’ and it was easily imagined that the wife could be none other than Zelicha. And Zelicha could have been married to Joseph only if her husband had died. Potiphar was, therefore, assumed to have died. Thus, the whole romantic legend of ‘Joseph and Zelicha’ came into being.

63. Joseph’s circumspection is noteworthy. When the cup was found in Benjamin’s saddle-bag, Joseph did not charge him with stealing. Joseph, according to the Qur’an, used the expression ‘with whom we found our good’ (see verse 79). In Islamic terminology, such an expression is termed as tawriyah. The term denotes ‘covering up’ or ‘concealing’ some fact. One may resort to tawriyah in a situation when there remains no other alternative to save a victim from his oppressor, or to ward off a serious mischief other than resorting to a statement or device which conceals the true facts. Faced with a difficult situation such as the one mentioned above, a pious person would refrain from lying, but he might well resort to an ambiguous statement or to a device aimed at concealing facts so as to ward off wrongs. Such an action is quite permissible from both the religious and moral viewpoints, provided the motive for the action is to ward off some serious evil rather than to reap some benefit.

Now let us consider how in this particular instance Joseph fulfilled all the conditions of a permissible tawriyah. First, he put the drinking cup in Benjamin’s saddle-bag with the latter’s full consent. He did not, however, direct the servants to charge Benjamin with stealing. When the servants charged the brothers with theft, Joseph simply stood up and without uttering a word searched their belongings. Subsequently, when Joseph’s brothers requested him to detain any of them in place of Benjamin, he simply responded by saying that they themselves had suggested that only the person with whom the stolen good was found should be detained. Now since the cup was found in Benjamin’s saddle-bag he could be detained. For, how could anyone else be detained? Instances of such tawriyah are also found in the military campaigns of the Prophet (peace be on him): There’s no valid reason, therefore, to find fault with the practice of tawriyah in the manner described above.