Document Type : Original
Authors
1
Associate Professor, Department of Quranic Sciences and Interpretation, University of Quranic Sciences and Knowledge, Mashhad, Iran, Faculty of Quranic Sciences, Mashhad
2
Graduated from the Master's Degree in Quranic Interpretation and Sciences, Mashhad, Iran, Faculty of Quranic Sciences, Mashhad.
Abstract
Detailed Abstract
Research objective:
The possibility of the accusation of theft against the sons of Jacob (peace be upon him) by Joseph (peace be upon him) is one of the exegetical ambiguities in Surah Yusuf, which has led to some erroneous interpretations. This study aims to examine how such an accusation can be justified, taking into account the infallibility of Joseph (PBUH) and the impropriety of accusing individuals who have committed no theft. Another objective of this research is to investigate and critique the use of incorrect methods to achieve seemingly valid conclusions, based on a misreading of this narrative.
Research method:
The present study employs a descriptive-analytical method, examining and critically evaluating exegetical opinions and narrations on this topic in order to achieve a more accurate understanding of the verse.
Findings:
The main exegetical interpretations of verse 70 of Surah Yusuf, such as the “interrogative sentence,” “double entendre (tawriyah),” “white lie,” “accusation from Joseph,” and “accusation by the court announcer under Joseph’s instruction,” appear weak and unlikely, as they are inconsistent with the apparent meaning and context of the verses as well as with ethical standards; therefore, they are not supported.
Among these, Jebai’s view, despite its brevity and shortcomings, has been refined and developed through the exegetical innovations of Sayyid Morteza, including: “informing Benjamin of the plot to gain his consent,” “Joseph placing the cup in his brother’s saddlebag,” “Joseph’s stratagem does not necessarily imply a theft accusation, as other possibilities are conceivable,” “assuming theft without evidence results from haste and error,” and “the announcer’s declaration of theft reflects his own hasty judgment.” These refinements provide a more nuanced and coherent understanding of the verse.
Conclusion:
By incorporating additional exegetical innovations derived from the context of the verses, Sayyid Morteza’s interpretation can be presented more comprehensively: Joseph’s (PBUH) primary objective was to retain Benjamin, with whom he had coordinated the plan; therefore, he acted in accordance with divine command to achieve this purpose. Although Joseph placed the cup in Benjamin’s saddlebag, he never intended to accuse his brothers of theft. Furthermore, Joseph’s action itself does not imply the possibility of theft, as other interpretations are conceivable.
However, the court announcer did not find the cup and, considering that only the Canaanite brothers had entered the palace at that time, presumed that they had committed theft. Thus, the error lies with the palace announcer, whose arbitrary judgment led him to accuse the Canaanite brothers without evidence or Joseph’s consent. Joseph (PBUH) neither committed a fault nor acted improperly; rather, he carried out the divine command to keep Benjamin close, facilitate the continuation of trials for his father and brothers, and create the conditions for reuniting with his father. Placing the cup in the brother’s saddlebag was done with Benjamin’s consent and, more importantly, in accordance with divine command. Moreover, there is no phrase in the verses indicating “informing the palace announcer of the plan” or “Joseph instructing the announcer to accuse of theft.” There is no evidence that Joseph (PBUH) ambiguously communicated with the announcer.The brevity of the Qur’anic style in mentioning proper names, as well as the contrast between the mention of “Joseph” and the “announcer” in the verse, indicates that the announcer is not Joseph (PBUH) himself but one of the palace heralds. Upon discovering the cup missing and observing the presence of the Canaanite brothers in the palace, the announcer made a hasty and wrongful judgment. However, the hesitation and conditional expressions in the conversation of other palace officials with the brothers, as well as their reference to the missing cup, indicate that they refrained from the theft accusation and addressed the Canaanite brothers more courteously.
Keywords
Subjects
