ارجِعوا إِلىٰ أَبيكُم فَقولوا يا أَبانا إِنَّ ابنَكَ سَرَقَ وَما شَهِدنا إِلّا بِما عَلِمنا وَما كُنّا لِلغَيبِ حافِظينَ

Go back to your father, and say: “Father! Your son has indeed committed theft, and we testified only to what we knew, and we could not have forestalled the unseen.

EXEGESIS

Ghayb (unseen) is that which is hidden or unknown.[1] In the Quran it is often used to refer to metaphysical things, or the hidden things which are known only to God.

Ḥāfiẓīn (forestalled) is the plural of the active participle ḥāfiẓ, from ḥifẓ, meaning to protect and guard something, whether externally or internally, such as in one’s heart by committing it to memory. Mā kunnā lil-ghaybi ḥāfiẓīn can hence be literally translated as: we could not have guarded the unseen, or other understandings which are discussed in more detail forthwith.

EXPOSITION

Go back to your father, and say: the eldest son continued advising his brothers what to say when returning to their father; as we mentioned, the eldest had made the decision to remain behind in Egypt.[2]

Father!: this is literally ‘O our father!’ The loving and intimate address is meant to soften the blow of what will be said next and also sharply contrasts with the next phrase.

Your son: he refers to Benjamin as Your son, instead of ‘our brother’, whilst earlier when they were beseeching Prophet Jacob (a) to send him with them they referred to him as our brother (verse 63).[3] We see that for example when parents discuss the failures of their child, they might unfortunately use this sort of language, saying ‘your son did such-and-such a thing’, whilst he is a son to both the parents. This is an attempt to lay blame of the event at the feet of the other and to distance oneself from the wrongdoing. In this sense what the eldest son said is a milder echo of what they had said earlier, If he has stolen [there is no wonder]; a brother of his had stolen before (verse 77). Such expressions of course proved the jealousy in their heart, as if to say ‘this is the son you favoured and loved so much, look at who he is’.

Has indeed committed theft: as incredulous as they know it seems, they had no choice but to tell him what had happened. They knew what their story must seem like to Prophet Jacob (a); their father could probably assume that they had put the cup in Benjamin’s sack to frame him for theft in order to get rid of him, like they had gotten rid of Prophet Joseph (a). The situation was a stark reminder of what they had done to Prophet Joseph (a) when they told their father a wolf had eaten him. The difference this time was that they were not making up a lie. The whole affair must have been exceedingly frustrating, but it achieved what Prophet Joseph (a) had intended and made them relive the events of the past and resurfaced their deeply buried guilt.

And we testified only to what we knew: they admitted that in reality something else could have happened, but what they were telling their father now was based on what they had seen.[4] Hence this statement should be understood ‘as far as we know, this is what happened’.

And we could not have forestalled the unseen: the exegetes have suggested different interpretations for this:

1. They meant they did not know the hidden reality or the inner truth of the theft.[5]
2. They could not have foreseen this event when they asked Prophet Jacob (a) to send Benjamin with them.[6]
3. They had no way of knowing what Benjamin did when he was hidden from their view.[7]
4. They did not know that Benjamin was a thief.[8]

Of these the first is the most likely, although the rest are also possible. However, the word kunnā may also indicate continuity from past till present and can be translated as ‘we have never been’. Hence, the verse could be translated as: we have never been those with knowledge of the unseen. This may be taken as reference to the fact that their father was a prophet and had access to the unseen through revelation, but his sons were not like that and could not have known what would happen in the future.

The expression also calls to mind the promise of the brothers to look after Benjamin, when they promised their father and we will indeed take [good] care[9] of him (verse 63) (wa innā lahu la ḥāfiẓūn). More importantly, it also calls to mind the same promise they made to Prophet Jacob (a) when taking Prophet Joseph (a) for their outing all those years ago, and we will indeed take [good] care of him (verse 12) (wa innā lahu la ḥāfiẓūn) as we discussed in verse 63. The usage of these similar expressions by the Quran is subtle indication that the brothers were indeed being reminded of what they had done to Prophet Joseph (a), just as Prophet Joseph (a) had planned.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

Ṭabrisī says that when the brothers told their father and we testified only to what we knew, this refers to when they answered that the punishment of the thief should be that he is taken as a slave (verse 75), and that as far as they knew this was the divinely decreed punishment in matters of theft. They did not know whether Benjamin actually stole or not, and that he would be convicted by that ruling.[10]

It is attributed to ʿIkramah that and we could not have forestalled the unseen means that it is possible that someone else planted the cup in Benjamin’s sack.[11] While this seems reasonable, it is not very consistent with their statement, Your son has indeed committed theft.

And we testified only to what we knew has been understood to mean: we never have borne witness to anything except what we knew to be true,[12] in other words: we have never given false testimony. While this understanding may be linguistically possible, it certainly is not true about Prophet Joseph’s (a) brothers.

Some scholars have argued that these verses are proof that circumstantial evidence can be used to give judgement on criminal cases. In other words, the fact that the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack could be used to pronounce him a thief. However, Makārim Shīrāzī argues that such conclusions are subject to critique. Makārim Shīrāzī does not relate any criticisms and says that such discussions are more relevant to books of jurisprudence.[13]

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

1. [Joseph (a) said] Hurry and go up to my father and say to him, ‘This is what your son Joseph says, “God has made me lord of all Egypt. Come down to me; do not delay. And you will dwell in the land of Goshen, and you will be near me, you and your children and your children’s children, along with your flocks, your herds, and all that you have.”’[14]

Note: As we noted before, in the Biblical narrative Joseph (a) had already revealed himself to his brothers and it is he who sends them back to fetch their father.

[1] Lisan, 1/654, gh-y-b.
[2] Tibyan, 6/179.
[3] Qaraati, 4/262.
[4] Tibyan, 6/179-180: Nemuneh, 10/48.
[5] Tibyan, 6/180; Tabari, 13/25.
[6] Zamakhshari, 2/495; Tantawi, 7/404. Related in Tabrisi, 5/393; Thalabi, 5/246.
[7] Related in Tabrisi, 5/393.
[8] Mizan, 11/229.
[9] Literally ‘guard’.
[10] Tabrisi, 5/393. See also what is related in Tabari, 13/24-25.
[11] Related in Thalabi, 5/246.
[12] Baghawi, 2/508.
[13] Nemuneh, 10/50.
[14] Genesis 45:9-10.