قالَ لَن أُرسِلَهُ مَعَكُم حَتّىٰ تُؤتونِ مَوثِقًا مِنَ اللَّهِ لَتَأتُنَّني بِهِ إِلّا أَن يُحاطَ بِكُم ۖ فَلَمّا آتَوهُ مَوثِقَهُم قالَ اللَّهُ عَلىٰ ما نَقولُ وَكيلٌ

He said: ‘I will not let him go with you until you give me a [solemn] pledge by Allah that you will surely bring him back to me, unless you are made to perish.’ When they had given him their [solemn] pledge, he said: ‘Allah is witness over what we say.’

EXEGESIS

Mawthiq (pledge) is from the verb wathaqa, which means to trust and rely on someone or something.[1] A pledge is called a mawthiq because it can be relied upon.[2] It is an agreement that is solemnised by an oath. As for the mawthiq being min allāh, it means that they swear with ‘God as their witness’, or alternatively that they swear by Allah.[3]

Yuḥāṭa bikum (you are made to perish) is from the same root as iḥāṭah, to encompass, which is derived from ḥāʾiṭ, a wall encircling something.[4] The original meaning of iḥāṭah is to set a wall around something.[5] It is then used to convey being surrounded by danger, like in the verse, waves assail them from every side, and they think that they are besieged (uḥīṭa bihim) (10:22), or by destruction, such as in the verse, And ruin closed in (uḥīṭa) on his produce (18:42).[6] Here it means that they have no choice in the matter[7] because they are subject to unforeseen circumstances, like for example being surrounded by hostiles and unable to flee in any direction, or that they perish.

Wakīl is derived from the root verb wakala which fundamentally conveys meanings related to trust, authorisation, delegation, and reliance. Wakīl is someone whom you authorise to act on your behalf, to look after your interests. It is inherently an act of trust and reliance.[8] Here it means that God is the overseer[9] or witness[10] of their pledge. It is used one other time in the Quran in such a context, in the verse, and Allah is witness over what we say (28:28).

One of God’s names is al-wakīl (the Ultimate Trustee), emphasising His role as the ultimate guardian and disposer of affairs (3:173, 4:81). Tawakkul is reliance on God, as in: put your trust in Allah (tawakkal ʿalā allāh), for Allah suffices as trustee (wakīl) (4:81).

EXPOSITION

I will not let him go with you until you give me a [solemn] pledge by Allah: every pledge and oath should be honoured, but when a person pledges by God, or makes God a witness over his pledge, this reinforces that pledge and makes it all that much more solemn.

Such a pledge is made for example by saying: ‘I swear by God that I will do such-and-such a thing.’ In this way it is not only his own honour and word that is at stake, but the honour of God. If he then dishonours his pledge, he will have dishonoured God and will have to answer for that.[11]

That you will surely bring him back to me, unless you are made to perish: one cannot ask someone to do more than is possible for them, so Prophet Jacob (a) qualified his statement, that they were only to return without Benjamin if circumstances were outside of their control.[12]

When they had given him their [solemn] pledge: obviously, the pledge was not the sole reason he entrusted them with Benjamin – his trust was based on other considerations as we shall discuss – but rather, taking an oath in this manner was to solidify the matter and instil a sense of duty, much like a person chosen for an important task is first fully vetted and then made to swear an oath.[13]

He said: ‘Allah is witness over what we say’: to make God one’s wakīl (here translated as witness) in some matter is an act of tawakkul, reliance on God. A mature outlook regarding tawakkul is to look to all the issues pertaining to a matter that one is able to affect and doing what needs to be done in that regard. All this while knowing and understanding that the only true independent power and cause is God, in whose hands rest all affairs. At this point one then leaves the remainder of the matter to God, relying on Him. Hence, tawakkul does not mean that one thinks one cannot affect outcomes of matters in any way or that he is not somehow a part of the causal chain. Rather it is to understand that nothing is independent of Him. Hence, Prophet Jacob (a) is not in his words or deeds acting in a way that suggests no other causes could have any effect on the outcome of affairs, and indeed he looks to the matters which he can affect, speaks to his sons first, and then leaves the matter to rest with God.[14]

One might wonder why Prophet Jacob (a) would consent to sending Benjamin with his brothers after their betrayal of Prophet Joseph (a). The answer lies in the wisdom of his approach. While he undoubtedly harboured concerns for Benjamin’s safety, his insistence on their solemn pledge and his repeated reminders served a deeper purpose – not merely as expressions of distrust, but as a means to stir their conscience. By holding them accountable, he subtly guided them toward repentance, allowing them to confront their past and rectify their moral compass.

While this verse can be considered a reminder that one should not always gullibly rely on someone who has previously betrayed their trust, it also reminds us that giving such people a second chance is also important, although as this verse tells us, with some precautions.

This verse can also be seen as evidence that even with family members it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to take guarantees for certain agreements and arrangements.[15]

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

1. Then Jacob their father said to them, ‘You have bereaved me of my children! Joseph is no more, Simeon is no more, and you will take Benjamin away. All these things are against me.’ Reuben spoke to his father, saying, ‘Kill my two sons if I fail to bring him to you. Put him in my hands, and I will bring him back to you.’ But Jacob said, ‘My son must not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should happen to him on the journey you are to make, then you will bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.’[16]
2. And Judah said to Israel his father, ‘Send the boy with me, and we will arise and go, so that we may live and not die, both we and you, and also our little ones. I will be a surety for him. You may hold me personally responsible for him. If I fail to bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever. For if we had not delayed, we could have returned twice.’[17]

Note: In the Bible, Simeon was left behind in Egypt as a guarantee that the brothers would return. There is no mention of an oath, rather it is seemingly replaced with Reuben offering his two sons’ lives as guarantee.[18] Another stark difference is Jacob’s (a) attitude, who is portrayed once again as giving into desperation and exclaiming: ‘All these things are against me.’

[1] Raghib, p. 853, w-th-q.
[2] Razi, 18/481.
[3] Tibyan, 6/166.
[4] Tibyan, 7/49; Tabrisi, 6/728.
[5] Tibyan, 6/166.
[6] Razi, 18/481; Mizan, 11/216.
[7] Mizan, 11/216.
[8] Mizan, 11/216.
[9] Tibyan, 6/166.
[10] Tabari, 13/9.
[11] Mizan, 11/295.
[12] Nemuneh, 10/26.
[13] See also Nemuneh, 10/28.
[14] Mizan, 11/297.
[15] See also Qaraati, 4/246.
[16] Genesis 42:36-38.
[17] Genesis 43:8-10.
[18] Benson’s commentary points out that Reuben had no right to offer his sons’ lives like that, but rather should have said ‘if the Lord will’. See https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/42-37.htm.