Overview (Verses 74 - 76)

Joseph Arrests His Brother
 
At this point, a challenge was put to them by the guards or staff: “But what shall be the punishment for this deed, if you are proved to be lying?” (Verse 74)
 
Here a part of the design which God has inspired Joseph to employ is revealed. It was customary in Jacob’s faith that a thief be taken as a hostage or captive or that he be enslaved in compensation for what he had stolen. Since Joseph’s brothers were certain of their innocence, they accepted that their law should be enforced against the one who might be proved to have stolen the goblet. Their reply defined the punishment in their own legal system: “He in whose camel pack it is found shall be enslaved in punishment for it. Thus do we punish the wrongdoers.” (Verse 75) A thief is a wrongdoer and wrongdoers must be treated according to the law.
 
This conversation took place in front of Joseph who then ordered that their camel- packs be searched. Wise as he was, he started by searching the camel-packs of his half brothers before that of his younger brother’s, so that he did not raise any doubt about the matter: “Thereupon, [Joseph] began to search their bags before the bag of his brother,  and  then  took  out  the  drinking-cup  from  his  brother’s  bag.”  (Verse  76)  The narrative leaves us to imagine the great shock Jacob’s sons experienced when they were absolutely certain of their innocence, swearing to it in one voice. It mentions nothing of all this, leaving us instead to contemplate it.
 
Meanwhile it comments on certain objectives behind the story while Jacob’s sons and the onlookers come to themselves: “Thus did We contrive for Joseph.” (Verse 76) This means that it was God who devised this careful plan for Joseph. “He had no right under the King’s law to detain his brother.” (Verse 76) Had he applied the King’s law, he would not have been able to detain his brother; he would have only been able to punish the thief for his theft. He only could detain his brother by the fact that his brothers declared their willingness to implement their own faith. This is the scheme God made for Joseph, inspiring him with its working, or it is what God ‘contrived’ for him. ‘Contrivance’, or the Arabic word used for it, kidnā, refers to a subtle design intended for certain ends, good or bad as may be the case, but it is more often used with bad ends in mind. On the surface, this whole design seemed wicked, as it involved a misfortune happening to his young brother,  and an embarrassing situation for his other brothers which they would have to face when they returned to their father. Moreover, it would be a sad event for his father, albeit temporarily. Hence, the sūrah calls it a contrivance or a plot, using the whole range of meanings for the word, and referring to its appearance in the first place. This is an aspect of the subtlety of Qur’ānic expression.
 
“He had no right under the King’s law to detain his brother, had God not so willed.” (Verse 76) His will takes the course we have seen. The verse refers here to the high position achieved by Joseph: “We do exalt [in knowledge] whom We will,” (Verse 76) and to the great knowledge he has been given, while reminding us that God’s knowledge is perfect and complete: “But above everyone who is endowed with knowledge there is One who knows all.” (Verse 76) This last comment is a fine way of putting things in proper perspective.
 
We need to pause a little here to reflect on this fine Qur’ānic expression: “Thus did We contrive for Joseph. He had no right under the King’s law to detain his brother.” (Verse 76) We note first that in the original Arabic text the Qur’ān uses the word dīn to refer to the King’s law and system. This is the Arabic word for ‘religion’. Its usage here defines the exact meaning of dīn in this context, which is, as we have just said, ‘the King’s law and system of government,’ which did not punish a thief with slavery. That was the law of Jacob based on his faith. Joseph’s brothers accepted the implementation of this law, and Joseph applied it to them when he found the King’s drinking cup in his younger brother’s camel-pack.
 
Thus the Qur’ān describes a system of government and law as dīn. It is a meaning all people have forgotten in these days of ignorance, including those who call themselves Muslims and those who follow un-Islamic systems, or jāhiliyyah. All of them limit the significance of dīn to beliefs and worship rituals. They consider anyone who believes in God’s oneness and acknowledges the truth conveyed by His Messenger and believes in God’s angels, revealed books, messengers, and in the Day of Judgement and the working of God’s will, as a follower of the divine faith. They do this even though such a person may submit to, and acknowledge, the sovereignty of different lords besides God. The Qur’ān defines the King’s dīn as his system of government and legal code. The same applies to God’s dīn, which means His law.
 
The significance of the term ‘God’s dīn’ has weakened and shrunken in people’s perception to the extent that most people today limit it to beliefs and worship rituals. But this was not the case when this dīn was conveyed by Adam and Noah through to the days of Muĥammad (peace be upon them all). It has always meant submission to God alone, being committed to His law and rejecting any other legislation. It also signifies that He alone is God in heaven and God on earth, and that He alone is the Lord of all mankind. Thus it combines God’s sovereignty, law and authority. The difference between believers and unbelievers is that the first submit to God’s law alone, while those who accept the ‘King’s dīn’ submit to the King’s system and law. Or they may take a mixture of the two, submitting to God in matters of belief and worship and to some other authority in matters of systems and laws. This is a basic concept of the Islamic faith and it is essentially known to all.
 
Some people try to find excuses for people on the grounds of their lack of understanding of the significance of the term ‘God’s dīn’, which prevents them from insisting on, or thinking about, the implementation of God’s law. They say that their ignorance means that they cannot be classified as polytheists associating partners with God. For myself, I cannot see how people’s ignorance of the truth of this faith puts them within its boundaries. To believe in a certain truth comes only after knowing it. How can people be said to believe in a faith when they do not know its true significance or what it means?
 
Their ignorance may exempt people from accountability on the Day of Judgement, or it may reduce their punishment, or it may put the blame for their failure on those who did not teach them the true meaning of this faith of Islam when they were fully aware of it. But this is a matter that God will decide as He pleases. Argument about reward and punishment in the hereafter is generally futile. It is of no concern to the advocates of Islam in this life. What concerns us is to say that people’s beliefs today are not exactly the same as God’s faith which signifies, according to clear Qur’ānic statements, the law and system He has revealed. Whoever submits to these belongs to God’s faith, or dīn, and whoever submits to the King’s system and legal code belongs to the King’s dīn. There can be no argument over this.  Those who are unaware of the true significance of this faith cannot be believers in it, because their ignorance includes its basic meaning. Logically, a person who does not know the basic meaning of a faith cannot be a believer in it.
 
It is indeed much better that instead of trying to find excuses for such people, we should try to make clear to them what faith, or dīn signifies. They will then be in a position to either accept or reject it, fully aware of the implications of their response.
 
This is indeed better for us and for the people themselves. It is better for us because it relieves us of the responsibility for the erroneous ways which people follow as a result of their ignorance of the true nature and significance of dīn, which results from lack of belief in it. Making the significance of their attitude clear to people, showing them that they are indeed following the King’s dīn rather than God’s faith, is also better for them as it may shake them to the extent that they decide to abandon their erroneous ways and follow Islam. That was indeed what God’s messengers did, and it is what the advocates of the divine faith should do in all communities and at all times when they confront a state of jāhiliyyah.

Overview (Verses 74 - 76)

Joseph Arrests His Brother
 
At this point, a challenge was put to them by the guards or staff: “But what shall be the punishment for this deed, if you are proved to be lying?” (Verse 74)
 
Here a part of the design which God has inspired Joseph to employ is revealed. It was customary in Jacob’s faith that a thief be taken as a hostage or captive or that he be enslaved in compensation for what he had stolen. Since Joseph’s brothers were certain of their innocence, they accepted that their law should be enforced against the one who might be proved to have stolen the goblet. Their reply defined the punishment in their own legal system: “He in whose camel pack it is found shall be enslaved in punishment for it. Thus do we punish the wrongdoers.” (Verse 75) A thief is a wrongdoer and wrongdoers must be treated according to the law.
 
This conversation took place in front of Joseph who then ordered that their camel- packs be searched. Wise as he was, he started by searching the camel-packs of his half brothers before that of his younger brother’s, so that he did not raise any doubt about the matter: “Thereupon, [Joseph] began to search their bags before the bag of his brother,  and  then  took  out  the  drinking-cup  from  his  brother’s  bag.”  (Verse  76)  The narrative leaves us to imagine the great shock Jacob’s sons experienced when they were absolutely certain of their innocence, swearing to it in one voice. It mentions nothing of all this, leaving us instead to contemplate it.
 
Meanwhile it comments on certain objectives behind the story while Jacob’s sons and the onlookers come to themselves: “Thus did We contrive for Joseph.” (Verse 76) This means that it was God who devised this careful plan for Joseph. “He had no right under the King’s law to detain his brother.” (Verse 76) Had he applied the King’s law, he would not have been able to detain his brother; he would have only been able to punish the thief for his theft. He only could detain his brother by the fact that his brothers declared their willingness to implement their own faith. This is the scheme God made for Joseph, inspiring him with its working, or it is what God ‘contrived’ for him. ‘Contrivance’, or the Arabic word used for it, kidnā, refers to a subtle design intended for certain ends, good or bad as may be the case, but it is more often used with bad ends in mind. On the surface, this whole design seemed wicked, as it involved a misfortune happening to his young brother,  and an embarrassing situation for his other brothers which they would have to face when they returned to their father. Moreover, it would be a sad event for his father, albeit temporarily. Hence, the sūrah calls it a contrivance or a plot, using the whole range of meanings for the word, and referring to its appearance in the first place. This is an aspect of the subtlety of Qur’ānic expression.
 
“He had no right under the King’s law to detain his brother, had God not so willed.” (Verse 76) His will takes the course we have seen. The verse refers here to the high position achieved by Joseph: “We do exalt [in knowledge] whom We will,” (Verse 76) and to the great knowledge he has been given, while reminding us that God’s knowledge is perfect and complete: “But above everyone who is endowed with knowledge there is One who knows all.” (Verse 76) This last comment is a fine way of putting things in proper perspective.
 
We need to pause a little here to reflect on this fine Qur’ānic expression: “Thus did We contrive for Joseph. He had no right under the King’s law to detain his brother.” (Verse 76) We note first that in the original Arabic text the Qur’ān uses the word dīn to refer to the King’s law and system. This is the Arabic word for ‘religion’. Its usage here defines the exact meaning of dīn in this context, which is, as we have just said, ‘the King’s law and system of government,’ which did not punish a thief with slavery. That was the law of Jacob based on his faith. Joseph’s brothers accepted the implementation of this law, and Joseph applied it to them when he found the King’s drinking cup in his younger brother’s camel-pack.
 
Thus the Qur’ān describes a system of government and law as dīn. It is a meaning all people have forgotten in these days of ignorance, including those who call themselves Muslims and those who follow un-Islamic systems, or jāhiliyyah. All of them limit the significance of dīn to beliefs and worship rituals. They consider anyone who believes in God’s oneness and acknowledges the truth conveyed by His Messenger and believes in God’s angels, revealed books, messengers, and in the Day of Judgement and the working of God’s will, as a follower of the divine faith. They do this even though such a person may submit to, and acknowledge, the sovereignty of different lords besides God. The Qur’ān defines the King’s dīn as his system of government and legal code. The same applies to God’s dīn, which means His law.
 
The significance of the term ‘God’s dīn’ has weakened and shrunken in people’s perception to the extent that most people today limit it to beliefs and worship rituals. But this was not the case when this dīn was conveyed by Adam and Noah through to the days of Muĥammad (peace be upon them all). It has always meant submission to God alone, being committed to His law and rejecting any other legislation. It also signifies that He alone is God in heaven and God on earth, and that He alone is the Lord of all mankind. Thus it combines God’s sovereignty, law and authority. The difference between believers and unbelievers is that the first submit to God’s law alone, while those who accept the ‘King’s dīn’ submit to the King’s system and law. Or they may take a mixture of the two, submitting to God in matters of belief and worship and to some other authority in matters of systems and laws. This is a basic concept of the Islamic faith and it is essentially known to all.
 
Some people try to find excuses for people on the grounds of their lack of understanding of the significance of the term ‘God’s dīn’, which prevents them from insisting on, or thinking about, the implementation of God’s law. They say that their ignorance means that they cannot be classified as polytheists associating partners with God. For myself, I cannot see how people’s ignorance of the truth of this faith puts them within its boundaries. To believe in a certain truth comes only after knowing it. How can people be said to believe in a faith when they do not know its true significance or what it means?
 
Their ignorance may exempt people from accountability on the Day of Judgement, or it may reduce their punishment, or it may put the blame for their failure on those who did not teach them the true meaning of this faith of Islam when they were fully aware of it. But this is a matter that God will decide as He pleases. Argument about reward and punishment in the hereafter is generally futile. It is of no concern to the advocates of Islam in this life. What concerns us is to say that people’s beliefs today are not exactly the same as God’s faith which signifies, according to clear Qur’ānic statements, the law and system He has revealed. Whoever submits to these belongs to God’s faith, or dīn, and whoever submits to the King’s system and legal code belongs to the King’s dīn. There can be no argument over this.  Those who are unaware of the true significance of this faith cannot be believers in it, because their ignorance includes its basic meaning. Logically, a person who does not know the basic meaning of a faith cannot be a believer in it.
 
It is indeed much better that instead of trying to find excuses for such people, we should try to make clear to them what faith, or dīn signifies. They will then be in a position to either accept or reject it, fully aware of the implications of their response.
 
This is indeed better for us and for the people themselves. It is better for us because it relieves us of the responsibility for the erroneous ways which people follow as a result of their ignorance of the true nature and significance of dīn, which results from lack of belief in it. Making the significance of their attitude clear to people, showing them that they are indeed following the King’s dīn rather than God’s faith, is also better for them as it may shake them to the extent that they decide to abandon their erroneous ways and follow Islam. That was indeed what God’s messengers did, and it is what the advocates of the divine faith should do in all communities and at all times when they confront a state of jāhiliyyah.