فَلَمّا جَهَّزَهُم بِجَهازِهِم جَعَلَ السِّقايَةَ في رَحلِ أَخيهِ ثُمَّ أَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ أَيَّتُهَا العيرُ إِنَّكُم لَسارِقونَ

When he had furnished them with their provision, he put the drinking-cup into his brother’s saddlebag. Then a herald shouted: ‘O [men of the] caravan! You are indeed thieves!’

EXEGESIS

Jahhaza/jihāz (furnished/provision) was discussed in verse 59.

Siqāyah (drinking-cup) derives from the root saqī or suqyā, meaning to give someone something to drink.[1] A siqāyah means a utensil used for drinking, usually in the context of ceremonial events.[2] Here it refers to the drinking-cup of the king,[3] as is obvious from We miss the king’s goblet (verse 72). See the discussion on that verse as well.

Raḥl (saddlebag) was discussed in verse 62.

Adhdhana/muʾadhdhin (shouted/herald) are derived from the root adhina, from which many different words are derived, such as udhun, meaning ear; idhn, meaning permission; adhān, meaning a call to something; and īdhān, meaning an announcement that is heard with the ear (udhun).[4]

The phrasing adhdhana muaʾadhdhinun literally would translate as ‘a caller called’, similar to qāla qāʾilun, ‘a speaker spoke’ in verse 10. It implies that the caller or the speaker was a certain individual within a group.[5] Importantly, one should not read anything into the translated word herald, which is simply a stylistic choice of the translator.

ʿĪr (caravan) refers to a caravan travelling with beasts of burden. It can be used to refer to either the people, the animals, or both.[6] The word appears three times in this surah and nowhere else in the Quran.

EXPOSITION

When he had furnished them with their provision, he put the drinking-cup into his brother’s saddlebag: although the verb here is singular (referring to Prophet Joseph (a)), the actions described were most likely carried out by his underlings.[7] This linguistic usage is consistent with the convention of attributing an action to a person in authority even when it is executed by their subordinates.

Given that the same pronoun is used for both actions – furnishing supplies and placing the cup – it is reasonable to conclude that both were performed by his servants. This interpretation is supported by the earlier incident in which Prophet Joseph (a) instructed his servants, Put their trade goods in their saddlebags (verse 62), implying that such tasks were routinely delegated.

Nevertheless, one cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that Prophet Joseph (a) personally placed the cup in Benjamin’s saddlebag, given the sensitive and secretive nature of the scheme. However, the more natural reading – considering both linguistic convention and narrative context – favours the view that his servants carried out these actions on his orders.

If we do assume that the act of hiding the cup was done by underlings, it is best to assume only one (or a few) of his most trusted ones did that and knew about it. In such matters, it is best that secret information is given to as few as possible.

As the other servants were not aware of what had happened, when they discovered the cup was missing they became alarmed and suspected the Canaanite brothers.

Then a herald shouted: one of the servants, perhaps the one responsible for the cup, raised the alarm, shouting: O [men of the] caravan! You are indeed thieves! It is said the brothers had already left before the missing cup was noticed and had reached the outskirts of the city by the time Prophet Joseph’s (a) men caught up to them.[8] This is probably based on the Biblical narrative, but since the brothers are referred to as a caravan in this verse, it is also congruent with the Quranic narrative and a distinct possibility. Otherwise, we may assume they were still somewhere nearby Prophet Joseph (a).

It must be noted that no actual falsehood occurred in these proceedings, as those who levelled the accusation of theft were themselves unaware of Prophet Joseph’s (a) stratagem. The core ethical question persists, however: how could Prophet Joseph (a) legitimately expose his brothers to what was, in effect, a false charge of theft? The exegetes have engaged extensively with this moral quandary, offering multiple resolutions that are explored in depth in the Review of Tafsīr Literature section. For our current discussion, two fundamental considerations suffice: first, extraordinary circumstances necessitated such measures;[9] second, and more crucially, the complete absence of tangible harm renders the action morally neutral. 

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

1. From Imam al-Ṣādiq (a), that when he was asked regarding this verse, he said: ‘They had stolen Joseph from his father. Do you not see that he said to them when They said, as they turned towards them: ‘What are you missing?’ They said: ‘We miss the king’s goblet.’ They did not say: “You stole the king’s goblet.” Rather, the meaning was that “You stole Joseph from his father.”’[10]

Note: We shall discuss this view more in the next section. The point the hadith is trying to make is that the accusation of stealing in the verse does not specify what was stolen.

2. From Abū Baṣīr, that Imam al-Bāqir (a) was told: ‘Sālim ibn Ḥafṣah reports regarding you that when you speak, you speak with seventy possible interpretations, each offering you an evasive exit.’[11] The Imam replied: ‘What does Sālim expect from me? Does he expect me to bring forth angels? By God, even the prophets did not bring them. Indeed, Abraham said, Indeed I am sick! [37:89], yet by God, he was not sick and he did not lie. And indeed, Abraham said, Rather it was this biggest of them who did it! [21:63], and the biggest of them had not done it, and he did not lie. And indeed, Joseph said, O [men of the] caravan! You are indeed thieves! and by God, they had stolen nothing, and he uttered no lie.’[12]

Note: The questioner is complaining how the Imam would give different answers to the same question at different times. ‘Each offering you an evasive exit’ intends that when the Imam would be confronted about it, he would always have an explanation ready to justify him giving different answers. It is true that the Imams would give people different answers. This might depend on several factors such as the level of the understanding of the person, or their loyalty and the need for dissimulation, or sometimes simply that the same question can have different perspectives and dimensions that may be offered. Obviously, some criticised the Imams because of this, seeking to accuse them of dishonesty or at least inconsistency, which was a baseless accusation. As for the statement ‘Does he expect me to bring forth angels? By God, even the prophets did not bring them,’ it intends that some of those who doubt his Imamate cannot be convinced unless angels come to testify to it (and maybe not even then), something that did not happen even with prophets. As for the examples of Prophet Abraham (a) and Prophet Joseph (a) given in the hadith, they are trying to illustrate that sometimes even a prophet might say something that people understand in different ways, whilst he may have truly intended something else. This does not necessitate that it was a lie or a sin.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

There are various other suggestions that the exegetes have proposed as to why it was permissible for the brothers to be falsely accused of stealing:

1. It was not Prophet Joseph (a) who accused his brothers, but his underlings who did so without his specific command. Prophet Joseph (a) simply placed the cup in Benjamin’s bag and when the servants saw that it was missing, they blamed the brothers.[13]
2. That thieves is used in a figurative sense to intend that ‘you have stolen your brother from his father’.[14] The attempt here is to claim that Prophet Joseph (a) did not utter an actual lie, but rather circumvented it in this manner. This point is not a great one though, since it is soon clarified in the verse after the next. Furthermore, this meaning is so far removed from the apparent meaning and context that it should be discarded. It is also not very convincing that circumventing the truth in such a manner should have any meaningful difference to a lie. Ibn al-ʿArabī relates a slightly different approach to this opinion, which suggests that because they had stolen Prophet Joseph (a) away from his father, they deserved to be called thieves[15] (even though they had not stolen the missing item in question).
3. That it was posed as a question, ‘you are thieves?’[16]
4. While they were not actually thieves, their situation was that of thieves as something that did not belong to them was in their possession.[17] However, this is simply not an acceptable usage of the term ‘thief’ and accusing a person of being a thief in this manner would definitely be considered a false accusation.
5. It was done under divine instruction.[18]
6. Prophet Joseph (a) told Benjamin that the only way he could keep him here was by carrying out this plan and accusing him of stealing. Benjamin consented and thus there was no harm in such an accusation.[19] However, keep in mind that here Benjamin is not the only one being currently accused of theft, but all the brothers. It has been said that this is not a problem, since their names were soon cleared.[20]

None of these proposed solutions are satisfactory and are mostly based on a false interpretation of the situation.

Exegetes have also asked why it was permissible for Prophet Joseph (a) to separate Benjamin from his father, Prophet Jacob (a), in this manner, and to increase Prophet Jacob (a) in sorrow and grief? Ibn al-ʿArabī suggests three different answers:

1. When grief increases, deliverance from it will draw nearer.
2. God permitted Prophet Joseph (a) to do that.
3. Prophet Jacob (a) had already lost Prophet Joseph (a) and losing Benjamin would not increase his sorrow in any meaningful way.[21]

Shaʿrāwī chooses the third interpretation and points out that when Prophet Jacob (a) learns of Benjamin being kept behind in Egypt, his reaction is telling, as he says Alas for Joseph! (verse 84).[22]

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

1. Then he [Joseph] commanded the steward of his house, saying, ‘Fill the men’s sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put every man’s money in the mouth of his sack. Put my cup, the silver cup, in the mouth of the sack of the youngest, along with his grain money.’ And he did according to what Joseph had spoken. As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their donkeys. When they were gone out of the city, but not yet far off, Joseph said to his steward, ‘Get up, follow after the men. When you overtake them, say to them, “Why have you rewarded evil for good? Is this not the one from which my lord drinks and uses as he practices divination? You have done evil in doing this.”’ So he overtook them, and he spoke to them these same words.[23]

[1] Raghib, p. 415, s-q-y.
[2] Ayn, 5/189, s-q-y.
[3] Tibyan, 6/169.
[4] Tibyan, 6/169.

[6] Raghib, p. 596, ʿ-y-r.
[7] This is the conclusion reached in Tabrisi, 5/385.
[8] Tabari, 13/12. This is the Biblical account.
[9] Ahkam, 3/1095.
[10] Ayyashi, 2/185.
[11] There are many reports that have the Imam himself saying this about himself. See Basair, pp. 349-350; Maani, p. 2. The number seventy should not be taken literally and only indicates plenty.
[12] Ayyahshi, 2/184; Kafi, 8/100.
[13] Munyah, 14/198. Related in Tibyan, 6/170; Baghawi, 2/504.
[14] Sharawi, p. 7023. Related in Tibyan, 6/170; Baghawi, 2/504.
[15] Related in Ahkam, 3/1095.
[16] Related in Tabrisi, 5/385; Razi, 18/486-487.
[17] Related in Ahkam, 3/1095.
[18] Alusi, 7/24; Tantawi, 7/396.
[19] Related in Razi, 18/486; Munyah, 14/198.
[20] Qaraati, 4/252.
[21] Ahkam, 3/1095.
[22] Sharawi, pp. 7023-7024.
[23] Genesis 44:1-6.