1. The word 'Qur'an' is a derivative of the Arabic verb qara' a meaning 'to read'. When a verb is used as a noun, it signifies something that embodies that meaning par excellence. For example, if we were to call someone 'bravery' rather than 'brave', it would mean that we wish to stress that he and bravery are identical. Hence, the appellation 'Qur'an' with reference to a book suggests that it is something that is meant to be read or recited over and over again by all - elite and commoners alike.

2. This does not mean that the Qur'an is specifically addressed to Arabs. The real purpose of the statement is to emphasize to those among whom the Prophet (peace be on him) preached, that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, their own language. That being the case, the Arabs could not therefore shield themselves behind the excuse that they could not fully appreciate its message. The Qur'an is also characterized by its inimitable features which testify to its Divine provenance. These features could also not escape the attention of those who were native speakers of Arabic.

Some people are inclined to deny the universal character of the Qur'ānic message. In order to prove their point, they are wont to pick upon statements such as the present one. They contend on that basis that the Qur'an is

Verse 3 note: *The expression 'aḥsan al-qaşaş' in the verse has generally been considered to mean 'best stories' - Ed.

exclusively addressed to Arabs and is meant for none other. This is a very superficial statement, however, which shows very little understanding. For, any universal message will have to be expressed in some language of the world. Also, he who has to propagate that message no doubt prefers to start with his own people such that it can firstly be fully understood and secondly, spread onwards; a purpose that can be best achieved by presenting it in that people's language. This is the only natural way for any message or movement to spread and be universalized.

3. As indicated in the introductory remarks, in their bid to expose the falsity of the Prophet (peace be on him) some of the Makkan unbelievers tried to put him to a test. Presumably at the instigation of a few Jews they aimed to surprise the Prophet (peace be on him) by abruptly asking him why the Israelites had migrated to Egypt (see p. 1 ff.). It is because of this background that the Qur'ānic narration of this chapter of Israeli history was prefaced by the statement: '(O Muḥammad!) By revealing the Qur'an to you we narrate to you in the best manner the stories of the past although before this narration you were utterly unaware of them' (verse 3).

Although this sentence is apparently addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him), it is in fact meant for his opponents who were not convinced that he had acquired his knowledge through revelation.

4. This is a reference to Joseph's ten brothers who were born of his stepmothers. Jacob (peace be on him) was well aware that the stepbrothers were jealous of Joseph. He was also aware that the brothers, lacking the scruples of righteous people, would not hesitate to use any means, howsoever vile, to achieve their selfish aims. Jacob (peace be on him), therefore, thought it necessary to warn Joseph (peace be on him) about them. As for Joseph's dream, its meaning was clear. Jacob was the sun; his wife, the stepmother of Joseph, was the moon; and his eleven sons were the eleven stars.

5. The word 'choosing' here signifies the choice of someone for the bestowal of prophethood.

6. The Qur'anic expression ta'wil al-aḥadīth does not simply signify explanation of the true meaning of dreams, as people are wont to believe. What it really signifies is that God would bless Joseph with the capacity to grasp complicated matters, to understand the nature of things.

7. Biblical and Talmudic accounts vary from the Qur'anic statement made here. According to the Bible, when Joseph related his dream to Jacob he rebuked him, saying: 'What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?' (Genesis 37: 10- Ed.) However, if one reflects a little, one can easily appreciate that the Qur'anic account is in greater harmony with Jacob's character as a Prophet than the Biblical one. Joseph had simply recounted his dream. He had not expressed any wish or desire of his own. If the dream was true and Jacob interpreted it on the assumption that the dream was true - it could be taken to indicate that God had decreed that Joseph would rise to great heights. In that event, how can any good-natured person, let alone a Prophet, feel offended at such a dream and rebuke one who had had such a dream? Is it conceivable that any good-natured father, instead of feeling happy at the thought of his son's rise to eminence, would be incensed at it?

8. This refers to Benjamin, Joseph's true brother, who was younger than him by a few years. His mother had passed away at the time of his birth. This explains why Jacob cared more for these two sons. Moreover, out of all his sons it was in Joseph alone that Jacob saw clear indications of righteousness and piety. Moreover, the statement made by Jacob upon hearing of Joseph's dream also indicates that he was well aware of Joseph's extraordinary potential.

On the other hand, the character of the ten stepbrothers was sharply at variance with that of Joseph as is evident from subsequent events. How, then, can it be conceived that a righteous person such as Jacob would be happy with such corrupt sons? Curiously enough, one of the reasons for Joseph's brothers' jealousy as mentioned in the Bible reflects very poorly on Joseph's character. According to the Bible, Joseph 'brought an ill report' of his brothers to his father (Genesis 37: 2-Ed.), which would make one presume that it was one of the reasons for their hatred for him.

9. For a better understanding of this statement, one should bear in mind the material conditions of nomadic, tribal societies. Such a society is usually devoid of an organized state, and generally consists of a number of independent tribes that live side by side. In such a society, a man's strength depends entirely on the number of his supporters, and these consist of his sons, grandsons, brothers, and nephews. These members of the family are extremely important since a person depends only upon them in the event of an attack upon his person, property or honour. Under such circumstances, a person is naturally inclined to hold his youthful sons dearer than the women or children of his household for it is the former who bear the brunt of any fighting with the enemy. When the ten stepbrothers noticed that Jacob gave Joseph - who was still small and they were grown up and strong - greater affection, they thought that their father had become senile.

10. This statement reflects the psychological make-up of those who, even when they vigorously pursue their desires, still make an effort to maintain some relationship with faith and righteousness. Such people seem to have a peculiar way of conciliating between their responses to the demands of righteousness on the one hand, and of self-indulgence on the other. When they are under strong pressure from their lusts, they go ahead and commit an evil act, keeping the demands of faith temporarily in abeyance. However, as soon as they feel pangs of guilt, they try to assuage their conscience, assuring it that what they had committed was merely an ephemeral act of sinning; that this sin was inevitable as only thus could an important purpose be achieved. They further assure their conscience that it will not be long before they repent and revert to their original righteousness.

11. The Qur'anic narrative on this point is different both from that of the Bible and the Talmud. The Biblical version mentions that Joseph's brothers had gone towards Shechem to graze their cattle. In their absence, it was Jacob himself who sent Joseph to look for them. (Genesis 37: 12-16 Ed.) This, however, seems highly improbable. For Jacob knew well that his other sons were highly jealous of Joseph. So why would Jacob have sent Joseph on such a perilous mission? Given the circumstances of the case, the Qur'anic account appears more plausible.

12. We have translated the Qur'anic words 'they know nothing about the consequence of what they are doing'. The Qur'ānic expression here may be interpreted in three ways, and each of the three interpretations seems to fit the situation. One interpretation suggests that God comforted Joseph by means of revelation and that his brothers were unaware that he had received such a revelation. The second meaning could be that Joseph would one day make his brothers realize their mistakes in circumstances which for the moment were out of the range of their imaginations. The third meaning could be that Joseph's brothers were doing something out of sheer ignorance, without realizing its possible consequences.

The Bible and Taimud do not mention that God comforted Joseph by His words. Instead, the Talmud says that when Joseph was thrown into the pit he cried profusely and made impatient pleas to his brothers. On the contrary, if one goes through the Qur'anic account there emerges an altogether different image. This account portrays the life-history of a young man who had the potential to become - as indeed he later did become - one of the major figures of human history. This is also in sharp contrast with the Talmudic version. That version mentions that in a desert a few bedouin threw a young boy into a pit. This is followed by a portrayal of Joseph's actions in which there is nothing that would distinguish him from any other boy in that situation.

13. The text has the words. Literally that may be translated as 'gracious patience'. This signifies a patience which is devoid of complaint, of piteous entreaties, of frothing and fuming; a patience which consists of enduring suffering with calm and dignity.

14. The image of Jacob that emerges from accounts of the story in both the Bible and the Talmud is also run of the mill. According to the Bible, on hearing the news of the grievous incident, Jacob rent his garments, put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days (Genesis 37: 34). Likewise, the Talmud mentions that Jacob abandoned himself to grief and lay with his face to the ground refusing to be comforted and cried: 'Yes, this was the shirt of my son' and he mourned for many years.

This description makes Jacob look like any ordinary person. However, in the Qur'anic version Jacob stands out head and shoulders above ordinary humans. He appears as an embodiment of forbearance and patience. Nor does he lose his poise on hearing the shocking news about his son. Moreover, thanks to his unusual intelligence, when Joseph's stepbrothers come forth with a made-up story, Jacob saw through the whole matter. He instantly grasped that his jealous sons had fabricated the account. Despite the grievous nature of the incident, Jacob maintains his grace and dignity, patiently endures what has befallen him, and places his full faith in God (see verses 7-18 - Ed.).

15. What seems to have happened was that Joseph's brothers cast him into a pit and then left him. Thereafter, a caravan passing by rescued Joseph, taking him to Egypt where they sold him. The Bible, however, mentions that Joseph's brothers later came across a caravan of Ishmaelites. They sought to take Joseph out of th.. pit and sell him to the caravan only to discover that Midianite traders had already taken Joseph from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Later, the compilers of the Bible conveniently forgot the fact that, according to their own account, Joseph had already been sold to the Ishmaelites. It is strange, therefore, to note that later on it is mentioned that Joseph was sold in Egypt by the same Midianite traders. (For a full account see Genesis 37: 25-8 and 36.)

In sharp contrast to this is the Talmudic account which says that the Midianite traders took Joseph out of the pit and enslaved him. Subsequently, on discovering this, Joseph's brothers remonstrated with them. After they had paid twenty shekels of silver to his brothers, they stopped quarrelling. Then they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites also for twenty shekels of silver and they later sold him in Egypt. This has given rise to the popular tradition among Muslims that Joseph's brothers sold Jos^ph. It must be clarified, however, that the Qur'an does not bear this out.

16. The Bible refers to this person as Potiphar. At a later point in the Qur'an he is mentioned as 'aziz (see verses 30 and 51). It is significant that the same title 'azīz has elsewhere been used in the Qur'an for Joseph (see verse 78).

This shows that the person mentioned here was the holder of a highly important title or the incumbent of some highly important office. For 'aziz literally means one possessed of irresistible power. Biblical and Talmudic accounts describe this person as an officer of the royal bodyguard. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbās, describes him as one in charge of the royal treasury. (See al-Tabarī's comments on verse 21 in his Commentary Ed.)

17. The Talmud names her as Zelicha. This is the basis for the popularity of this name in Muslim folklore. However, the belief that Joseph later married the same woman - a belief which has become a part of popular Muslim tradition - has no basis in authoritative Islamic sources. In fact, no statement to that effect is found either in the Qur'an or in Israelite historical traditions. Above all, it is altogether unbecoming of a Prophet to marry a woman whose moral corruption was directly known to him. The Qur'an, as we know, lays down the following principle concerning matrimonial relationships: 'Impure women are for impure men, and impure men are for impure women, pure women are for pure men and pure men are for pure women' (al-Nur 24: 26).

18. The Talmud states that at that time Joseph was eighteen years old. When Potiphar saw Joseph he was greatly impressed by his features. He felt sure that Joseph was not a born slave but came from a noble lineage, who had somehow fallen on bad days. Hence, when Potiphar was buying Joseph, he told the traders that he did not look like a slave. He even expressed the suspicion that the traders might have stolen him from somewhere.

This explains why Potiphar did not treat Joseph as a slave. Instead, he put him in charge of his house and all his properties. The Bible says: 'So he left all he had in Joseph's charge; and having him he had no concern for anything but the food which he ate' (Genesis 39: 6).

19. Joseph had been brought up as a shepherd in a semi-nomadic milieu. There was no organized state at that time in Canaan and northern Arabia. Nor had culture and civilization made any significant headway in that region. A number of independent tribes lived there and they migrated from one part to the other. Apart from those migratory tribes, a few other tribes had also settled down in certain areas where they had established small states.

As to their lifestyle, it would seem to have resembled that of the Pathan tribes in the free tribal area adjacent to the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Thanks to Joseph's upbringing in such a milieu, he possessed the virtues characteristic of a bedouin tribal life. Moreover, he had also inherited the spirit of godliness and religious piety.

God wanted to entrust Joseph with the mission of Prophet in Egypt, at that time the most advanced country. However, the qualities, experience, vision and insight needed to carry out such a task could hardly have been developed in his nomadic surroundings. God, therefore, placed Joseph in the house of an Egyptian high official.

Observing Joseph's exceptional qualities and talents, the official concerned put him in charge of his house and all his properties. Thus, Joseph had the opportunity to develop his potentialities to the full. In addition, the experience of handling the properties of this official gave Joseph the necessary expertise that would later help him in administering a vast kingdom. The above verse alludes to that.

20. The Qur'an often uses such an expression to signify the conferment of prophethood. As to the expression, 'judgement', it refers both to the capacity and the authority to judge. Hence, the statement that God granted someone 'judgement' suggests that God equipped him with the capacity to make sound judgements relating to human affairs and also conferred upon him the requisite authority to do so. As for 'knowledge', this refers to that special knowledge of the truth which is directly intimated to Prophets by means of revelation.

21. The translators as well as the commentators of the Qur'an interpret the expression 'my lord' as referring to the person in whose employment Joseph worked at that time. In other words, Joseph said that he could not betray his 'lord' i.e. the chief who had treated him so well. What this meant is that in view of the official's kindness to Joseph, his indulgence in illegitimate sex with the wife of the chief was absolutely out of the question.

Personally speaking, I do not agree with the interpretation that the word rabbi ('my lord') refers to the official. It is true that from the viewpoint of Arabic usage, such an interpretation is admissible. For the expression rabbi is also used to signify human masters. However, it seems altogether unbecoming of a Prophet that he would abstain from a sin out of consideration for some human being rather than out of consideration for God.

If we turn to the Qur'an, there is not a single instance in which a Prophet would have called anyone other than God his rabbi ('lord'). Moreover, in verses 41, 42 and 50 of this very surah, Joseph underscores the basic difference between his own faith and the faith of the Egyptians. The difference consists of the following. Whereas the One True God alone is the Lord of Joseph, the Egyptians had taken human beings to be their lords. (See verses 39-40-Ed.) Thus, there is strong reason to consider the expression used by Joseph as meaning God. Now, since there is a good basis for such an interpretation, there is no reason to prefer an interpretation that is inconsistent with the station of a Prophet.

22. The word burhän denotes an argument or proof. 'Burhan' from the Lord signifies the argument inspired by God to arouse Joseph's conscience and convince him that it is not at all appropriate for him to accept the woman's invitation to illegitimate enjoyment. Now, what was the 'argument' to which reference has been made in the present verse? That argument has already been mentioned in the previous verse: 'My Lord has provided an honourable abode for me (so how can I do something so evil?). Such wrongdoers never prosper' (Yusuf 12: 23). This was the argument which dissuaded Joseph in such a tempting circumstance and in the very prime of his youth from committing the sin to which he was invited.

Moreover, the Qur'an also states that Joseph too would have advanced towards her had he not perceived the burhan from his Lord (see verse 24). This throws full light on the infallibility of Prophets. The doctrine of the infallibility of Prophets does not mean that they are devoid of predisposition towards sin. What infallibility of the Prophets means is that even though Prophets have the potential to commit sin, even though they possess all human characteristics - feelings, passions and desires - their nature is so righteous and they are so God-fearing that they never consciously intend to do so. This is so because they are endowed with such powerful arguments from their Lord that they are not carried away by their lusts. And even if a Prophet succumbs to any weakness- and then only inadvertently God immediately sends a revelation which enables him to mend his behaviour. This is a special arrangement that has been made by God with regard to Prophets. The reason being that if a Prophet deviates even slightly from the right way, this encourages others to become engrossed in a variety of sins.

23. The Qur'ānic statement: "Thus it happened so that We might avert from him all evil and indecency' (verse 24), may be interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation is that Joseph perceived an argument from his Lord and refrained from committing the sin under God's direction and because of His succour. This was because God wanted to keep Joseph, to whom He had entrusted prophethood, free from every evil and indecency.

There is also another interpretation of the verse, one that seems more profound. According to this view, the situation in which Joseph was placed was in fact an important part of his moral training. In order to enable Joseph to attain the highest degree of spiritual purity and excellence, it was an essential part of God's plan to test him and so expose him to such temptation. In this test, Joseph was required to marshal his will-power and piety to the optimum so as to subdue his sensual desires once and for all.

In order to appreciate this particular mode of training, one should remember the moral conditions pertaining to Egyptian society at that time. In this surah (see verse 23 ff.), we have a glimpse of these conditions. We know from the Qur'an (see verse 30 ff.) that sexual licentiousness was almost as rampant in the Egyptian society of those days, and particularly among the upper class, as it is among contemporary Westerners or those non-Westerners who mimic their ways.

Thus we note that Joseph was required to carry out his mission - the mission of a Prophet among a people who were immersed in moral corruption. In addition, Joseph had to carry out his prophetic mission not in the capacity of an ordinary person, but in the capacity of a ruler. We also know the extent to which the upper-class ladies of Egypt were infatuated with Joseph even though they believed him to be a slave. It is not difficult to imagine, therefore, the extent to which those ladies would have gone in order to seduce such an attractive young man after he had become ruler of Egypt. God enabled Joseph to successfully pass through this test and to further develop his firmness of character. It also became clear to the ladies of Egypt - dissolute though they were that their amorous gestures to Joseph were of no avail.

24. The situation that comes to mind seems to be the following. The chief official ('aziz) seems to have been accompanied by someone who was a relative of his wife. This relative would have thus come to know of the incident and heard the two parties exchanging charges of guilt. Now, it so happened that besides Joseph and the official's wife there was no other first-hand witness of the incident. Thus, it was not possible to ask anyone else to testify.

The only course left, therefore, was to decide the case on grounds of circumstantial evidence. In some traditions it has been claimed that the statement mentioned in the verse was made by an infant baby who lay in his cradle. God had especially granted him the faculty of speech in order that he might make his deposition. (See al-Qurtubî's comments on verse 26 in his Commentary Ed.)

It must, however, be noted that this tradition is not supported by any reliable chain of transmission. Moreover, the infant's ability would seem to suggest something miraculous. Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence to which the person in question has referred also seems quite reasonable. Were we to consider his suggestion, it would become quite evident that he was intelligent, mature and experienced, and was able quickly to get to the heart of the matter. It would not be surprising if he was a judge or magistrate. It is interesting to note that this story about the evidence of an infant mentioned by Qur'an- commentators is derived from Jewish traditions. (See Paul Isaac Hershon, Talmudic Miscellany, London, 1880, p. 256.)

25. The whole point of this statement is that if the shirt was rent from the front, it indicated that Joseph had taken the initiative in advancing towards the lady and that the latter had resisted his amorous advances. However, if Joseph's shirt was rent from the back, that showed the opposite, viz. that it was the lady who had made the advances while Joseph had tried to run away from her. This statement also contains a subtle suggestion which needs to be pointed out. The fact that only Joseph's shirt was mentioned implies that there were no traces of any violence on the body or dress of the lady. Had Joseph been guilty of making any advances, traces of his violent advances would clearly have been visible.

25(a). The Biblical account of the incident is quite clumsy. It reads as follows:

...she caught him by his garment, saying, 'Lie with me'. But he left his garment in her hand, and fled and got out of the house. And when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had fled out of the house, she called to the men of her household and said to them: 'See, he has brought among us a Hebrew to insult us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice; and when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment with me, and fled and got out of the house.' Then she laid up his garment by her until his master came home, and she told him the same story, saying, "The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to insult me; but as soon as I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment with me and fled out of the house.'

When his master heard the words which his wife spoke to him, "This is the way your servant treated me', his anger kindled. And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined... (Genesis 39: 12-20).

In sum, this highly improbable report suggests that Joseph was dressed in such a garment that would fall away as soon as Zelicha laid her hands on it. As for Joseph, leaving his garment behind, he ran away, probably stark naked.

Thus Joseph's garment remained in possession of the lady, providing undeniable proof of his guilt. In such circumstances, no sensible person would believe that Joseph was not guilty.

So much for the Biblical account. Now let us turn to the Talmudic version. According to the Talmud, on hearing the complaint from his wife, Potiphar had Joseph severely whipped. Then he lodged a case against him in the court. However, when the judges looked at Joseph's garment, they concluded that the woman was at fault for it was rent from the back and not from the front. Even a little reflection makes it evident that the Qur'anic version is much more plausible than the Talmudic one. For who on earth could believe that such an influential dignitary would take to court a case which would bring him into disrepute by highlighting that his wife was molested by his own slave.

This is one of the most obvious differences between the Qur'anic and Israelite accounts of Joseph's story. This difference proves beyond any shadow of doubt the absurdity of the Orientalists' allegation that the Prophet (peace be on him) had taken over the stories of the Prophets from the Israelites. On the contrary, the fact is that it is the Qur'an which purged the Israelite stories of their demeaning errors. The world is indeed indebted to the Qur'an for having provided the true version of those stories and thus restored the correct image of the Prophets.

26. This refers to the banquet where the guests were lying on couches. Egyptian archaeological monuments also bear out that in such parties couches were used.

The Bible makes no mention of this banquet. However, the Talmud mentions it though its account differs significantly from that in the Qur'an. The Talmudic narrative is totally bereft of the vividness, the underlying spirit, the naturalness and the moral tenor of the Qur'ānic narrative.

27. This gives some idea of the moral degeneration of the upper classes of Egyptian society. Obviously, the guests invited to the banquet of the official's wife would have been upper-class ladies. Now, the official's wife presented before them the attractive young man with whom she was passionately in love. By so doing she tried to make the ladies realize why she could not help falling madly in love with such a handsome youth. It is significant that those ladies fully agreed that the young man was overwhelmingly attractive, and that it was quite understandable why any woman would have had such a crush on him. It is significant that the hostess felt no reluctance in brazenly declaring that if Joseph did not respond to her amorous advances, she would have him cast into prison and suffer humiliation.

All this goes to show that there is nothing so new about the promiscuity which characterizes the social life of Europe and America today. Centuries ago more or less the same situation obtained in Egypt as it obtains in our 'enlightened' times.

28. These verses recapture the situation in which Joseph found himself. He appears as a handsome young man about nineteen or twenty years old. Having come to Egypt after spending the early part of his life in a bedouin milieu, Joseph was physically attractive and appeared to be full of youth and vigour. After having passed through the adversities of poverty, banishment and forced slavery, by a quirk of fate Joseph came to the house of a highly influential person, a representative of the most civilized empire of the world in those days. In this new environment, Joseph first encounters the amorous advances of the lady of the house. As the news of his comeliness spread through the capital, upper-class ladies of the town also fell for him.

All alone, Joseph vigilantly resists temptation at almost every step. Every possible effort is made to arouse his passions and to destroy the foundations of his righteous character. Wherever he goes he encounters temptation and seduction in their most alluring forms. At the slightest show of inclination on Joseph's part, those ladies were willing to do all that lay in their power to pander to his lust. Joseph faced this difficult situation all day and all night. Were he to suffer a momentary lapse, he would have entered any of the innumerable portals of sin that stood ajar, waiting to receive him. Placed in such a situation this God-fearing youth overcomes all Satanic temptations with astounding success.

What is all the more amazing is that despite such exceptional restraint, such remarkable resistance to temptation, there is no trace of pride in Joseph. He never boasts that by dint of his righteousness he was able to overcome the temptations which faced him. He never displays any feeling of self-adulation. He never brags at remaining firm in the face of the temptation. On the contrary, Joseph is highly conscious of his human susceptibility. He admits the possibility that unless God graciously assists him, he might at some point fall prey to any temptation. He humbly implores God, therefore, to help him and to rescue him from those temptations.

This was in fact the most sensitive stage in Joseph's training. The qualities of honesty, trustworthiness, chastity, truthfulness, fairness, self-discipline, moderation, and mental poise and balance which lay dormant in his personality were all fully mobilized. Joseph himself was unaware of those qualities. However, when he was put to the test, they all came to the fore. Joseph, thus, became aware of the qualities he possessed and began to know to what use he could put them.

29. Averting 'the guile of these women' refers to God's investing Joseph with a firm character which enabled him to frustrate their guile. This also means that it is because of Divine Providence that Joseph suffered imprisonment. This, as we shall see, proved to be a blessing in disguise.

30. The imprisonment of Joseph under such circumstances amounted, on the one hand, to his moral victory. On the other hand, it amounted to the defeat of the Egyptian élite. Joseph was now no longer an unknown person. Everyone in the capital had now become familiar with his name. Most of the ladies of the Egyptian upper-class had fallen for him. The ruling classes grasped the gravity of the problem posed by Joseph's overwhelming attractiveness, a problem which menaced their family lives. They thought it prudent that such a person be put behind bars.

Obviously, a person who was so extraordinarily attractive could not have remained unknown to others. It was natural that he would have become the talk of the day in every household. People would also have come to know that Joseph was not just a physically attractive youth. He was also possessed of nobility, firmness of character and elegance of behaviour. People would also have become aware that Joseph had not been imprisoned because he was a criminal. They fully knew that it was easier for the ruling classes to consign Joseph, despite his innocence, to suffer imprisonment than to keep their women within the bounds of decent behaviour. It is for this reason that they afterwards decided to consign him to prison.

This also shows that sending innocent persons to prison in disregard of the due process of justice and without caring to establish their guilt or innocence is one of the accepted practices of rulers from olden days. In this regard, the evil forces of today are no better than those of four thousand years ago.

The only difference perhaps is that the rulers in those days did not pay lip-service to 'democracy' while the rulers of today never tire of that. Even today they indulge in acts of lawlessness to achieve their ends. Whenever they are in need of a legal cover for their excesses, they know how to hammer out a piece of legislation geared to that end. The evil forces of the past committed wrongs against others in a clumsy manner. The evil forces of today also resort to excesses against others. However, when they do so they try to convince others that the persons concerned posed a threat to the whole nation rather than just to them. The evil ones of the past were simply oppressors. The evil ones of today, in addition to being so, are also liars and devoid of all sense of shame.

31. At the time of his imprisonment Joseph was barely twenty or twenty-one years old. According to the Talmud, when Joseph assumed the reins of Egypt, after being released from prison, he was thirty years old. The Qur'an says that Joseph remained in prison for a few years. The actual word used in the Qur'an is bid', which denotes a maximum period of ten years.

32. According to the Bible, one of the two slaves who entered the prison along with Joseph, was the chief butler of the Egyptian king and the other was his chief baker. (Genesis 40: 1-3-Ed.) According to the Talmud, the Egyptian king had sent them to prison for he had found some grit in the bread and a fly in the wine which were served at a banquet.

33. This gives some idea of how highly Joseph was regarded in the prison. The incidents related earlier also show why the two prisoners approached Joseph for an interpretation of their dreams. This also explains why they told him: 'We consider you to be one of those who do good' (verse 36). Everyone both inside and outside the prison knew well that Joseph was not a criminal. On the contrary, he was known as a virtuous person. He was exposed to the most seductive temptations to which any person can be exposed, but he had stood firm. No wonder he began to be looked upon as the most virtuous person in the whole land. He stood head and shoulders above all, including the religious leaders. As a result, not only the prisoners but also the prison authorities held Joseph in high esteem. The Bible, therefore, makes this observation:

And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's care all the prisoners who were in the prison; and whatever was done there he was the doer of it; the keeper of the prison paid no heed to anything that was in Joseph's care (Genesis 39: 22-3).

34. This discourse by Joseph, which is at the very heart of the story, stands out as one of the best expositions of monotheism in the Qur'an. Strangely enough, this finds no place in the Bible and the Talmud which represent Joseph as no more than a pious and wise person. The Qur'an, however, also highlights those features of his conduct which are passed over in silence in both those sources. It underscores his prophetic mission and indicates he had embarked upon it while still in prison.

Joseph's discourse is far too important to be passed over superficially. It provides a wealth of significant points which should be given serious consideration.

(1) This is the first occasion where we find Joseph (peace be on him) preaching the true faith. In the biographical information about Joseph provided by the Qur'an prior to this incident, we have some idea about the moral excellence which characterized Joseph's life from the very beginning. However, prior to this discourse, we do not come across any instance of religious preaching of the kind found here.

This indicates that the early stages of his life were of a preparatory nature, and were designed to develop in him the capacities that would enable him to undertake his mission as a Prophet.

In short, we learn that prophethood was conferred upon Joseph during the period of his imprisonment. The present discourse is the first sustained statement that he makes in that capacity.

(2) It is again for the first time that Joseph (peace be on him) publicly discloses his true identity. So far he had calmly and patiently endured the adversities which befell him. His life even before this oration was quite an eventful one. He was made a captive, was brought to Egypt, was sold to the Egyptian chief, and was then imprisoned. On none of these occasions did Joseph disclose his true identity. At no point did he identify that he was the grandson of Abraham and Isaac and the son of Jacob. His parents and grandparents were no ordinary mortals. The members of the caravan, both Midianite and Ishmaelite, knew this family very well. The Egyptians too were not unfamiliar with his forefathers, at least not with Abraham. The reference to Abraham, Jacob and Isaac in Joseph's present discourse implies that all of them were very well known in Egypt.

It is also significant that Joseph had never invoked the name of his parents and grandparents to extricate himself from the dire straits in which he found himself during the preceding four or five years. Presumably he realized that he had to endure hardships so that he might develop the qualities required to play the role which God had decided to entrust him with.

When Joseph started his religious preaching, it became necessary for him to emphasize that he was not presenting a new religious faith. On the contrary, he claimed to be a part of that universal movement of monotheism whose earlier exponents were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (peace be on them). This point had to be made. For anyone who stands for the truth never lays claim to novelty. He rather declares, at the very outset, that he is concerned with inviting people to the eternal truth which has been presented throughout the ages by its exponents. (3) The manner in which Joseph (peace be on him) availed himself of the opportunity offered by his imprisonment and his interaction with his fellow prisoners provides an important lesson. It tells how exponents of the true faith should act with wisdom and prudence in preaching the truth. The occasion for preaching the faith in Joseph's case was provided by fellow prisoners who narrated their dreams to him. They also expressed their esteem for Joseph (peace be on him) and asked him to interpret their dreams and Joseph promised to do so. However, he said that he would only do so after informing them of the sources of his knowledge on which. he would depend for the interpretation of the dreams. Thus, he found a good reason to present his message before them.

From this we learn that if someone is really keen to preach the truth and also has wisdom, he can make use of a hundred different opportunities and direct the subject of the conversation to his basic message. Conversely, if someone is devoid of the burning desire to serve his cause and preach his message, he will never to able to make use of the opportunities that present themselves. A truly committed person is always on the lookout for every possible opportunity, and he avails himself of it whenever any such opportunity arises.

There is a world of difference, however, between a prudent person who wisely uses the opportunities to preach his message and the stupid preacher who does so clumsily in disregard of time and place, and tries to force his ideas upon people. Such preachers are often also quarrelsome and obnoxious with the result that they create revulsion against the teachings they seek to preach.

(4) From this we also learn the right way of presenting the message of faith. Joseph (peace be on him) did not start by presenting detailed rules and regulations. He first introduced the fundamental point which distingui- shes the way of truth from that of falsehood. Joseph, therefore, clearly explained the basic difference between monotheism and polytheism. Moreover, he explained this difference in such simple and reasonable terms that no one with common sense could have helped but appreciate it. The analogy which Joseph (peace be on him) used to elucidate his message had a special appeal for the people around him because they had experienced slavery themselves. They, therefore, knew well what is better for people: to serve one master or several masters. This analogy would have enabled them to recognize that which is better: serving the Lord of the universe or serving His creatures.

It is also significant that Joseph (peace be on him) did not clumsily ask people to abandon their faith and embrace his. Rather, he told them in moving terms that God, by ordaining that His servants should serve none but Him, had done them a great favour. It is astonishing that people are still not thankful to Him for this favour. They continue to invent their gods and to worship them.

Joseph also criticizes the religious doctrines of his audience. But his criticism is couched in reasonable terms and contains nothing that would hurt their susceptibilities. He simply tells them that those whom they had taken as their deities and whom they considered to have control over power, wealth, health, and other blessings from God, were merely empty names. They have no power to provide anything. The only true Lord and Master was God Whom they also recognized as the Creator and Lord of the universe. They were, however, oblivious of the fact that the Lord and Creator of the universe had not sanctioned godhead for any of the deities they worshipped. God has exclusive power to rule over His creation, and He has commanded that men may not worship any other than Him.

(5) The discourse also indicates how Joseph spent his eight-year term in prison. Some people assume that since the Qur'an mentions only one of Joseph's speeches that he invited people to the true faith on only one occasion. Such an assumption seems altogether improper. For, to think so would amount to charging a Prophet with dereliction of duty. Apart from that, Joseph's keenness to call people to the true faith is evident from the incident just mentioned. Two of his fellow prisoners had asked him to interpret their dreams. Joseph made use of this opportunity to preach the faith. In view of the above, how can it even be conceived that such a person would have spent his eight long years in prison without making any effort to preach his message.

35. This Qur'ānic statement has been interpreted by some Qur'an-commentators to mean that Satan caused Joseph to become negligent in remembering God, his Lord, and asked a creature of God to secure his release by bringing his case to the attention of his master (that is, the Egyptian king). It was for this reason that God punished Joseph and why he languished in prison for several years. (See al-Qurtubî's comments on the present verse - Ed.)

However, such an interpretation is absolutely wrong. The correct interpre- tation, in our view, is the one offered by Mujahid and Muḥammad ibn Ishaq among the scholars of the early period, and by Ibn Kathir among the scholars of a relatively later period. According to their interpretation, the pronoun refers to the person who, in Joseph's view, was about to be set free. Hence, what the verse means is that Satan caused this person to forget mentioning the case of Joseph to his lord. A tradition is also related in this connection which says that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Had Joseph (peace be on him) not made the statement that he did, he would not have languished in the prison for several years'.

One may, however, ask: What is the degree of authenticity of this tradition? According to Ibn Kathir, every chain of transmission in the tradition is 'weak'. In some of its versions, the report has been attributed to the Prophet (peace be on him). In others, Sufyan ibn Wakī and Ibrāhīm ibn Yazid are the transmitters of these traditions and both of them are unreliable. In other versions, the tradition is mursal*, and in such matters mursal traditions* are not taken into account. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on this verse - Ed.)

The tradition is also implausible on grounds of common sense. For it does not stand to reason that the efforts of a person who was subjected to injustice and oppression would be considered an act of forgetting God and be regarded as inconsistent with having trust in Him.

*Mursal traditions are those in which a Successor narrates a report about or from the Prophet (peace be on him) without referring to any Companion - Ed.

36. Omitting a few years of Joseph's life in prison, the thread of the narrative is picked up again. It is connected with the stage which marks the worldly rise of Joseph.

37. According to the Bible and the Talmud, the king was greatly disturbed by his dreams. By a public declaration he invited all the wise men and magicians of his realm and placed the matter before them. (For the Biblical account see Genesis 41: 1 ff.)

38. The Qur'ānic account here is quite brief. The Bible and the Talmud, however, mention some details - details which conform to common sense. According to the information made available by the Bible and Talmud, the chief butler provided relevant information about Joseph to the king. The butler also mentioned that Joseph had rightly interpreted his own dream as well as the dreams of his fellow prisoners during the period of their imprisonment. (See Genesis 41: 9 ff.) He also sought the king's permission to go and see Joseph and ask him the true meaning of the king's dreams.

39. In Arabic usage the word şiddiq, which occurs in this verse, denotes the highest degree of truthfulness and veracity. The use of the word shows how deeply that person had been influenced by Joseph's character. The impression seems to have been a very profound one since it endured for a very long time. (For further elucidated meaning of the term see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, al-Nisā' 4, n. 99, p. 57.)

40. One of the two prisoners asked Joseph to interpret the dream in order that his true worth might be recognized and so that it might also be realized that a big mistake had been committed by having a person of his standing imprisoned. This, he thought, would also enable him to fulfil the promise he had made to Joseph in prison (see verse 42).

41. The actual word (ya'ṣirün) used in the Qur'an literally means 'they press out or squeeze out' something (e.g. grapes, olives, etc.). The mention of pressing suggests the verdure and prosperity which would follow the famine as a result of rainfall and the rise in the water-level of the Nile. When the land would receive enough rainfall, there would be a luxuriant growth of oil seeds and fruits, both juicy and dry. Also the cattle would yield more milk as a result of the good quality fodder available to them.

Joseph did not confine himself to interpreting the king's dream. He also suggested to him to take precautionary measures against famine during the years of prosperity, the steps that ought to be taken to store the grain. Moreover, Joseph foretold that the days of famine would be followed by those of prosperity. He prophesied this even though there was no hint of it in the king's dream.

42. The narration from this point on till the king's meeting with Joseph constitutes an important part of the Qur'anic account of the story. However, these events go altogether unmentioned in the Bible and the Talmud. According to the Biblical version:

Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon; and when he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came in before Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'I have had a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it; and I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.' (Genesis 41: 14-15 - Ed.)

The Talmudic account is even more degrading. According to it, the king ordered that Joseph be brought before him. He commanded his officers to be careful not to frighten the young man lest he may misinterpret the dream. So the king's servants brought forth Joseph from his dungeon and shaved him, clothed him in a new dress and presented him before the king. The king was seated upon his throne, and the glitter of gold and precious stones which adorned the throne dazzled Joseph's eyes. Now, there was a seven-step stair to the throne. The custom in Egypt was that a prince or noble who held audience with the king, ascended to the sixth step and addressed the king from there. But when an ordinary private citizen was called into the king's presence, the king descended to the third step and addressed him from there. In accordance with this custom Joseph stood and saluted the king by bowing. The king descended to the third step and talked to Joseph. (H. Polano, The Talmudic Selections, pp. 87-8.)

This is the Israelite image of a Prophet as great as Joseph. As we shall note, the image is quite unedifying. In sharp contrast to that is the image of Joseph that emerges from the Qur'anic account of the story. One is struck by the grace and dignity characterizing Joseph's personality, especially the dignified portrayal of his attitude to the suggestion of his release from prison, and the manner of his meeting with the king. People may exercise their common sense and decide which of the two images is more consistent with and closer to one expected of a Prophet.

One more point is of significance. If Joseph was truly as degraded a character as the Talmud would have us believe, it does not make sense that the Egyptian king would have entrusted to him control over his whole dominion. In a civilized country one is elevated to such a high position only if one has established one's mental and moral standing. Thus, the Qur'ānic account seems considerably more plausible and consistent with reason and common sense than the Biblical and Talmudic ones.

43. Joseph pointed out that as far as his Lord - God - was concerned, He fully knew him to be innocent. He stressed, however, that before his release, their lord the king of Egypt - should also thoroughly ascertain what had occasioned his imprisonment. For Joseph did not want to be released under circumstances that would warrant the continuance of any stigma on his character. Hence, before Joseph was freed, it was necessary to establish beyond doubt that he was absolutely innocent. For it was not Joseph who had committed any offence. The real culprits were the high officials of the state. It is they who had made him unjustly suffer imprisonment, despite the purity of his character. Ironically, he was imprisoned on the grounds of his alleged moral corruption of which their own ladies were guilty.

The way Joseph makes this demand clearly suggests that the Egyptian king knew well about the whole incident which had taken place in the banquet hall of the Egyptian chief's wife. The incident seems to have been so well known that it was enough to merely allude to it.

Moreover, while asking that the king might inquire about the incident, Joseph refers only to the ladies present in the banquet to the exclusion of the chief's wife. This is further proof of his dignified character. For although the chief's wife had attempted to harm him, her husband had been very kind to Joseph. He acted, therefore, with unusual sensitivity and circumspection lest his name and honour were subjected to any slur.

44. So far as this query is concerned, it is possible that the ladies might have been brought to the palace where they were asked to answer this question. Another possibility is that the king might have sent some reliable messenger to each of those ladies who might have put this question singly to each of them.

45. It can well be imagined how these pieces of evidence would have revived the incident that had taken place some eight or nine years earlier. It would have once again brought into full prominence the personality of Joseph who had languished in the oblivion of prison for several years. It would also have established the moral authority of Joseph both among the Egyptian élite and the general public.

We have already noted that the Bible and the Talmud mention that the king made a public declaration through which he invited all the wise men and magicians of his realm. The men so assembled failed to interpret the king's dream and the dream was interpreted by Joseph. (See n. 37 above and Genesis 41: 1 ff. - Ed.)

This incident would have made Joseph the centre of everyone's attention. Moreover, when the king summoned Joseph to the court, instead of rushing out of the prison, he sent back the king's envoy with the request that his case may first be examined so that it be known whether he was guilty or innocent.

It is possible that such an attitude may have created, in the minds of some people, the suspicion that Joseph was perhaps overly ambitious and vain. They would have wondered at his not rushing out of prison as soon as the king had asked him to come out of it. However, people would subsequently have come to know that Joseph had set some preconditions for his release and for meeting the king. This would also have aroused curiosity among the people concerning the result of the inquiry that Joseph had proposed.

Naturally some time after that the findings of the inquiry would have become known. This would certainly have aroused among the general public deep admiration for Joseph's righteousness and purity of character. No one could have ignored the fact that those very persons who had once collaborated in having Joseph imprisoned now testified to his moral excellence.

If one remembers the situation obtaining at that time, it is amply clear that the circumstances were propitious for Joseph's rise to the highest positions of authority. It is, therefore, not surprising that in his meeting with the king Joseph asked him to entrust to him the financial affairs of the kingdom. The readiness with which the king appointed him to this position becomes quite understandable if we consider the moral prestige that Joseph then enjoyed in Egypt. Had his prestige rested merely with the fact that a prisoner had rightly interpreted the king's dream, Joseph could have expected, at the most, some reward from the king and his release from prison. It is quite unreasonable to assume that the mere ability to interpret dreams would have prompted Joseph to ask the king: 'Place me in charge of the treasures of the land' (see verse 55). Nor is it feasible that the king's recognition of his ability to interpret dreams would have prompted him to place the treasures of Egypt in Joseph's hands.

46. Probably this remark would have been made by Joseph after he was informed of the findings of the inquiry while he was still in prison. Some Qur'an-commentators, including such outstanding ones as Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Kathir, consider this not to be a remark made by Joseph, but one by the chief's wife. The argument they put forward in support of this opinion is that it occurs in close sequence to the earlier remark by the chief's wife. It is also pointed out that there does not occur any word in between that would indicate that the statement of the chief's wife comes to an end withỊ ('He is indeed truthful'), and whatever follows thereafter is the statement of Joseph.

They hold that if there is a two-part statement it would ordinarily be regarded as the statement of one person unless there is some strong reason to hold the contrary view. Such a view could be held, for instance, if there is explicit ascription of a part of the statement to another person. However, if there is no explicit statement to that effect, then there must be some circumstantial reason for believing that one part of the statement was made by one person, and another part by someone else. For it would only then be possible to distinguish between the statements of two persons. Since the above passage provides no such indication, it should be assumed that the whole passage starting from (Now the truth has come to light') right up to the end of verse 53 is that of the chief's wife.

It is indeed surprising that even a perceptive scholar such as Ibn Taymiyah should have overlooked the most important clue as to who made a statement. Now, let us consider the first sentence in verse 51, (viz. 'Now the truth has come to light. It was I who sought to tempt him. He is indeed truthful"). This undoubtedly befits the chief's wife. That statement, however, is followed by another which has quite a different tenor: 'I did this so that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not allow the design of the treacherous to succeed. I do not seek to acquit myself; for surely one's self prompts one's evil except him to whom my Lord may show mercy. Verily my Lord is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.' It is crystal clear that such a statement is altogether out of tune with the tenor and character of the chief's wife. The content of the statement is sufficient to prove that it was made by Joseph rather than by the chief's wife. Clearly, the virtues of righteousness, magnanimity, modesty and God-consciousness which underlie the statement are not at all in harmony with the character of the woman who had earlier tried to seduce Joseph, shamelessly saying to him: 'Come on now'. (See verse 23 above.)

We also know the other remarks made by the chief's wife, such as: 'On seeing her husband she said: "What should be the punishment of him who has foul designs on your wife?" (verse 25). Not only that but, she had also brazenly declared: 'If he does not follow my order, he will certainly be imprisoned and humiliated' (verse 32). But the remark under discussion is of quite a different nature. Such a statement could have been made only by one who had earlier made remarks such as the following: 'My Lord has provided an honourable abode for me (so how can I do something so evil?') (verse 23) and 'My Lord! I prefer imprisonment to what they ask me to do. And if you do not avert from me the guile of these women, I will succumb to their attraction and lapse into ignorance' (verse 33).

In sum, no sensible person can believe that such a noble and lofty statement was made by the chief's wife rather than by Joseph unless there is a clear indication to the effect that the chief's wife had undergone a basic change of manner and character; regrettably there is no indication to that effect.

47. This statement by the king clearly indicates that he considered Joseph worthy of every position of responsibility.

47(a). In light of the clarifications made earlier, it is evident that the present statement by Joseph was not at all in the nature of an ambitious job-hunter applying to the king for a government post at the first available opportunity. This statement was in fact the last in a series of efforts made by Joseph to push open the door to the desired transformation of the entire system. Thus, this marked the culmination of Joseph's rise to moral authority which had proceeded apace for a period of ten to twelve years.

The time was thus quite ripe and all that Joseph had to do was to push gently, and the door to the desired transformation would be flung open. For Joseph had come a long way. He had successfully faced a series of tests and trials. Also, things had happened in such a manner that everyone in Egypt, from the king down to the paupers, had become fully acquainted with Joseph. In the course of the tests to which he was put he had fully established that he was perceptibly above his contemporaries in such qualities as trustworthiness, truthfulness, forbearance, self-restraint, magnanimity, intelligence and far-sightedness. These qualities in his personality were too manifest to be denied by anybody. Everyone in Egypt bore witness to Joseph's superb character. Thus Joseph had in fact won the hearts and minds of all including the Egyptian king.

Joseph's remark that he was a good keeper and knew his task well was not merely a claim. It was an established fact which everyone recognized. The only thing that needed to be done, therefore, was that Joseph should express his readiness to accept the reins of power. Nothing more was required than that Joseph should communicate his readiness to assume power. For the king and his council were already convinced that he was the most appropriate person to administer Egypt. This requirement was completed by the above statement.

No sooner had Joseph expressed his readiness to assume governmental responsibility than the council happily agreed to hand over power to him. All this goes to prove that the situation had become fully ripe for Joseph to seize power and there was no resistance to it from any quarter. (According to the Talmud, the decision to hand over power to Joseph was not made by the king alone. It was rather a unanimous decision by the royal council.)

Now, what was the nature and extent of the power that Joseph sought and which was entrusted to him? Those who are not fully familiar with Joseph's true story tend to interpret the expression 'treasures of the land' quite literally. They tend to assume that Joseph was perhaps appointed as the treasury or revenue officer, or minister of finance, or minister of food.

However, in light of the Qur'ānic, Biblical and Talmudic accounts of the story, there is no disagreement on the point that Joseph was handed total control (in Roman terminology, dictator) of the Egyptian empire. He enjoyed absolute authority over the affairs of Egypt. According to the Qur'an, when Jacob reached Egypt, Joseph was seated on his throne so that he 'raised his parent to the throne beside himself' (verse 100). This clearly indicates the extent of his authority. The Qur'an also recounts Joseph's remark to the effect that: 'My Lord! You have bestowed dominion on me' (verse 101). Likewise, the officials describe Joseph's cup as the king's cup (see verse 72). Referring to Joseph's rule over Egypt, the Qur'an describes it: Thus did we establish Joseph in the land and he had the authority to settle wherever he pleased' (verse 56).

As to the Biblical version, it also confirms that Joseph wielded total authority. The Bible mentions that Pharaoh said to Joseph:

Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you. Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt... Moreover Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zephenath-paneah (Genesis 41: 39-45).

The Talmudic version presents the same picture. It identifies that when Joseph's brothers returned to their father, they told him the following:

The king of Egypt is a mighty potentate; over his people he is supreme: upon his word they go out and upon his word they come in; his word governs, and the voice of his master Pharaoh is not required.

Now let us turn to the other question as to why Joseph sought such power? Did he offer his services to an un-Islamic government, indicating his readiness to administer it in accordance with its un-Islamic laws? Or did he instead intend to shape the cultural, moral and political system according to Islamic principles after assuming power? This question has been best answered in al-Zamakhshari's Commentary on the Qur'an, al-Kashshāf, in these words:

When Joseph said: 'Place me in charge of the treasures of the land' (verse 55 above), what he really wanted was to make God's commands operate, to establish the truth, and promote justice. He wanted to achieve the necessary authority for accomplishing the task for which Messengers are raised. He did not demand power out of any love for it or out of love for the world. Since he knew well that no one else could accomplish such a task, he presented himself for that. (See al-Zamakhshari's comments on verse 55.)

As a matter of fact were this line of questioning to be pursued seriously, it would give rise to another question which is even more important and fundamental. The question is: 'Was Joseph a Prophet or not?' If he was a Prophet, then it must be asked: 'Does the Qur'anic concept of prophethood warrant that a Prophet should offer his services for administering the affairs of an un-Islamic system in accordance with its ungodly laws?' In fact this question gives rise to an even more sensitive question: 'Was Joseph at all a truthful person?'

Now, if we believe that Joseph was truthful, that raises still another question: 'How can we reconcile Joseph's truthfulness with the fact that he invited people to something quite different from that?' For we know that Joseph had launched his Prophetic mission during his imprisonment by putting forth the question: Is it better that there be diverse lords, or Allah, the One, the Irresistible?' (see verse 39 above). We also know that Joseph had also repeatedly told the people that their ruler was one of those whom they had falsely taken as lords.

Moreover, Joseph had also clearly expressed the idea, which was a basic ingredient of his message, that sovereignty belongs only to the One True God (see verse 40 above). Now, were we to accept that as soon as the opportunity offered itself Joseph sought and became a part of the system of government which was led by the Egyptian king and which operated on the premise that sovereignty belongs to the king rather than God, that would be totally inconsistent with all that he had taught.

The fact is that the above interpretation of the verse by scholars during a period of Muslim decline betrays the mentality displayed at some stage of Jewish history and is characterized by the Jews. When the Jews fell prey to degeneration, they found it too difficult to rise to the heights displayed by the noble characters from their ancestry. Instead, they almost brought down their great ancestors, including Prophets, to their own level so that they might rationalize their own degeneracy. They wished to serve un-Islamic regimes. When they wished to so degrade themselves, they felt embarrassed by the heights to which the exponents of Islam had reached in the past. In order to overcome their embarrassment and to relieve their conscience of any guilt, they brought down a very noble Prophet - Joseph - to the degrading level of serving an un-Islamic system of government.

The Jews did so even though Joseph's life offers the lesson that even a single righteous believer suffices to bring about an Islamic revolution by dint of his character and wisdom. Joseph's life also illustrates that a believer's moral strength-provided he knows how to use it well-can enable him, even without recourse to arms, to conquer a whole country, even an empire.

48. This means that now that Egypt was under his control, he could call every part of it his own. Joseph could go without any let or hindrance to any part of Egypt that he wanted. The above verse, thus, describes the total sway, the all-pervasive authority Joseph held over Egypt.

Early commentators of the Qur'an have understood this verse in this way. For instance, Ibn Jarir al-Tabarī, citing Ibn Zayd, has explained this verse to mean that God had put Joseph in charge of everything in Egypt. Joseph was free to do whatever he wished since the whole land was under his control. Such was his authority that had he wanted, he could even have placed himself above Pharaoh. Al-Tabarī also quotes a statement from Mujahid, one of the earliest leading Qur'an-commentators, that the Egyptian king had embraced Islam at the hand of Joseph. (See al-Tabari's comments on verse 56 - Ed.)

49. This is to warn people from assuming that worldly power and authority constitute the true reward of righteousness. The best reward of righteous conduct and one which a believer must aim at - is what God will bestow on him in the Next Life.

50. Once again the events of some seven or eight years have been skipped over and the narration has been resumed at the point which describes the migration of the Israelites to Egypt and the first clues that Jacob (peace be on him) received concerning his missing son. The events of the intervening period which have been omitted refer to the period in which, according to Joseph's interpretation of the dream, there would first be seven years of prosperity in Egypt. During this period Joseph took all the precautionary measures which he had suggested to the king at the time he interpreted the dream.

This was followed by a famine and the famine was not confined to Egypt. It also spread to neighbouring countries, namely Syria, Palestine, Transjordan and northern Arabia. Thanks to the wise measures adopted by Joseph, only one country Egypt - had plenty of grain despite the severe famine conditions which prevailed in the region. This compelled people in neighbouring countries to turn to Egypt, soliciting it to provide them with grain. It was this need to purchase grain which occasioned Joseph's brothers to travel from Palestine to Egypt. Presumably, Joseph had banned foreigners from carrying grain without special permission from the government, and beyond a certain measure. Hence when Joseph's brothers tried to purchase grain they would have been faced with the need to obtain permission from the government. It is for this reason that they had to appear before Joseph.

51. That Joseph's brothers did not recognize him came as no surprise to him. For at the time they had cast him into the pit, Joseph was only seventeen years old. Now, he was around thirty-eight. During such a long period everyone changes a great deal. Moreover, it could never have occurred to Joseph's brothers that their brother, whom they had thrown into a pit, would have become the all-powerful ruler of such a great country as Egypt.

52. In view of the brevity of the narration one may find it difficult to grasp why, despite Joseph's desire not to reveal his identity to his brothers, he insisted his step-brothers bring Benjamin along on their next visit.

A little reflection, however, should clarify the point. It will be recalled that food rationing was in force in Egypt at that time and each individual was entitled to a specified quantity of grain and no more. As we know, the ten brothers had come with the purpose of obtaining grain, and would naturally have asked for a share on behalf of their father and their eleventh brother. This presumably provided Joseph with reasonable enough grounds to make his point. He could possibly have accepted there was a valid reason for their father not to come to Egypt, for he was old and blind but there was no such reason in respect of their brother. Joseph might even have expressed the suspicion that they were perhaps trying to obtain additional supplies of grain under fictitious names, and that they may illegally try to sell the grain they had obtained for their family at some extortionate price. In response, Joseph's brothers might have explained their family circumstances. They might even have said that their brother was a step-brother, and that for certain reasons their father was unwilling to send him along with them. In reply, Joseph might have said that trusting their word he would permit them to receive the full supply of grain on this occasion, but if they failed to bring their step-brother the next time, they would receive no grain at all.

On the one hand, Joseph warned them. On the other hand, he tried to win over their hearts by doing them a favour and entertaining them. All this is understandable since Joseph (peace be on him) would have been very keen to meet his brother Benjamin again and to become acquainted with the welfare of his family.

All this is simple enough, a matter easily understood. On reflection, the whole affair is so plain and natural that one need give no credence whatsoever to the exaggerated version of the story we find in the Bible (see Genesis 42-3).

53. This shows how Jacob, who had already gone through the bitter experience of sending Joseph with his step-brothers, might have felt about sending Benjamin with them. Although Jacob had full trust in God and also displayed the utmost patience, he was, after all, a human being. It is natural that a host of suspicions would have crossed his mind. It is also natural that occasionally he would have shivered at the possibility that he might never see Benjamin again. He, therefore, spared no effort in taking precautionary measures.

The precautionary measure suggested by Jacob - that the eleven brothers should not enter the Egyptian capital by the same gate - can be appreciated when one considers the political conditions of the day. For Joseph's brothers hailed from the independent tribal areas adjacent to Egypt. It is likely, therefore, that the Egyptians might have looked upon them suspiciously. (Witness the suspicions entertained by the British about the residents of the free tribal areas neighbouring the North Western Frontier Province during the Raj.) Jacob might have feared that if his sons entered in a group during a period of famine, they would be mistaken for wild tribesmen looking for loot and plunder. In the previous verse, too, Jacob's remark that 'unless you yourselves are surrounded' (verse 66) seems to indicate his apprehension was of a political nature.

54. Jacob's statements show how one should combine and maintain an even balance between one's worldly means and the full trust that one ought to have in God. Such a perfect balance was possible only because of the knowledge which God had bestowed on Jacob out of His grace and mercy. Jacob took all possible measures required by common sense and dictated by experience. It is also for this reason that he reminded his sons of their unbecoming behaviour towards Joseph and warned them not to repeat it; he made them solemnly swear in the name of God that they would protect their step-brother Benjamin. Moreover, in view of the political conditions then prevailing, he ordered them to adopt all measures that would prevent them from being 'surrounded' by others.

On the other hand, Joseph was fully conscious of the fact as suggested by his remark (see verse 68) that no matter what precautionary measures human beings might take, nothing prevails against God's will. Hence, man should be clear in his mind that there is no security except God's. Man should, therefore, place his true reliance on Him rather than on worldly measures.

Such a balance in thought and deed can be maintained only by a person who has full knowledge of the truth. Such a person knows the requirement of God's laws: that man should work and strive for something for which he has a natural predisposition. At the same time, he is quite aware that the power that really counts is God's. While a believer strives as others do, he nevertheless knows that without the support of God man's effort is absolutely useless.

Sadly, this fact is known only to a very few. For most people are totally dependent on their own efforts and become oblivious to the fact that man must have trust in God and remember that God's will alone prevails. On the other hand, there are those who indolently leave things to God; they disregard the fact that alongside their trust in God, they are also required to work.

55. This little sentence encapsulates all that transpired between the two real brothers at their reunion after a lapse of some twenty-one to twenty-two years. During this meeting, Joseph would have told Benjamin of all the situations he found himself in prior to having reached his present stage of power and renown. Benjamin would have told Joseph of the maltreatment meted out to him by his step-brothers. Joseph would also have comforted Benjamin, saying that from now onwards he would stay with him and that he would not allow him to return with his cruel step-brothers. It is quite likely that at this point the two brothers would have jointly worked out a plan that would enable Benjamin to remain behind in Egypt. The two brothers did not, however, wish to disclose this plan as Joseph (peace be on him) wanted certain things to stay concealed at least for a while.

56. Apparently, Joseph himself devised the scheme whereby his drinking cup be put in Benjamin's saddle-bag. This was done with Benjamin's full knowledge and consent as is evident from the preceding verse. For, had Joseph simply issued a public order preventing Benjamin from returning, he would have been forced to reveal his true identity. This was unwise at that stage. Hence, the two brothers would have discussed how to achieve their desired purpose.

Doubtlessly the scheme which they devised was bound to bring Benjamin's reputation under a temporary cloud as he would be implicated in a case of theft. However, it would not be difficult to subsequently remove such a misunder- standing. For, at a date mutually agreed upon by the two brothers, they could reveal the undisclosed part of the whole story and, thus, remove the stigma of moral turpitude from his brother.

57. Neither the present verse nor the ones that follow provide any hint whatsoever to support the belief that Joseph (peace be on him) had taken his servants into his confidence regarding this matter and directed them to level a false charge of theft against the caravan. The incident seems to have been no more than that the drinking cup was surreptitiously put in Benjamin's saddle-bag. Later on, the government officials would have concluded that someone from the caravan had committed the theft.

58. It must be remembered that since Joseph's brothers belonged to the Abrahamic family, the relevant law which they referred to was the Abrahamic law. According to that law, a thief had to be handed over to the person whose property he had stolen.

59. It is worth casting a glance at the whole series of events and then considering which specific device was directly inspired by God in support of Joseph. Obviously, Joseph himself suggested putting the drinking-cup in Benjamin's saddle-bag. In normal circumstances, the servants would have detained all members of the caravan suspecting that any one of them might have stolen Joseph's cup. What, then, constitutes the step which was part of God's own plan?

A careful study of the relevant verses brings out one fact very clearly - that the servants asked the suspected culprits to state the punishment for theft. In response, they mentioned the punishment laid down by Abrahamic law. This served two purposes. Firstly, it enabled Joseph to act according to Abrahamic law. Secondly, it enabled Joseph to detain Benjamin rather than to send him to prison.

60. It was unbecoming of Joseph, as a Prophet, to follow Egyptian law in a matter that related to him personally. The scheme which had been devised to retain his brother presented one problem. Joseph could have detained his brother but in order to do so it would have been necessary to have recourse to Egyptian penal law. This was unbecoming of a Prophet who had taken authority into his own hands in order to replace man-made laws with those of God.

Had God so willed, He could have let Joseph - a Prophet - commit this mistake. However, God did not do so. Thus, thanks to God's inspiration, a way out of the difficulty was found. An inquiry was addressed to Joseph's brothers. What punishment was laid down for a thief? In response, they mentioned the relevant provision of Abrahamic law. This was quite pertinent since Joseph's brothers were not subjects of the Egyptian state. Instead, they came from another territory which was independent. They were quite prepared, in accordance with the provisions of their law, to hand over a member of their group to the authorities that he may be punished for his crime. Hence, there was no need for Joseph to have recourse to Egyptian penal laws.

In this way God bestowed His favour upon Joseph and demonstrated His infinitely superior knowledge. What could be a greater means of exalting Joseph's position than this? When out of human weakness, Joseph was on the verge of committing an error God planned from on high and found a way to prevent this from happening. Such an exalted status is conferred only on those who prove their mettle after successfully going through a series of tests. Now, although Joseph (peace be on him) was quite knowledgeable and acted wisely, there was nevertheless a gap in the plan he had devised. That gap was filled by the One Whose knowledge surpasses the knowledge of every knower. There are some points relating to the incident which deserve some explanation:

(1) Usually translators and commentators on the Qur'an consider the verse to mean the following: 'Joseph could not have apprehended his brother according to the law of the land'. The Qur'anic expression مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ is interpreted to mean that Joseph 'did not have the authority to apprehend his brother', rather than that it was 'inappropriate and unbecoming of Joseph' to do so. Such an understanding of the verse is wrong both from the point of view of Arabic idiom and Qur'ānic usage. For the Arabic usage مَا كَانَ لَهُ means 'it is not proper for him'. There are many instances of this usage in the Qur'an to support this sense:

(a) 'It is not befitting to the majesty of Allah that He should take a son' (Maryam 19: 35).

(b) 'It is not proper for us to associate any with Allah in His divinity' (Yusuf 12: 38).

(c) 'Allah is not going to disclose to you what is hidden in the realm beyond the reach of perception' (Al 'Imran 3: 179).

(d) 'And Allah will never leave your faith to waste' (al-Baqarah 2: 143).

(e) 'It is not Allah who wrongs them' (al-Tawbah 9: 70).

(f) `Allah will not let the believers stay in the state they are' (Al 'Imrān 3: 179).

(g) 'It is not for a believer to slay another believer' (al-Nisa' 4: 92).

In view of the above instances of Qur'anic usage, the verse under discussion as usually interpreted by Qur'an-commentators, makes no sense. For, what would prevent Joseph from arresting a thief under the king's law? In fact, there has never been any state on earth which prevented the arrest of a thief.

(2) By using the expression din al-malik to signify 'royal law', God has Himself indicated the meaning of the word (din). For it is quite evident that God's Messengers are raised to implement and enforce din Allah ('the law of God') rather than 'the law of the king'. However, if it was not possible, due to adverse circumstances, to replace the king's law by God's law, it was at least unbecoming of a messenger to follow the king's law in a matter that related to his own self.

Thus, Joseph's decision not to punish his brother in accordance with the king's law was not based on the grounds that it was not possible for him to do so under the king's law. Rather, the only reason was that, being a Messenger of God, it was not appropriate for Joseph to follow the king's law instead of God's law in matters relating to himself.

(3) By using the term din to denote 'the law of the land', God has indicated the wide-ranging jurisdiction of din. This strikes at the very root of the concept of din or religion - which is perceived, according to ordinary parlance, to be concerned merely with adherence to a set of religious belief and rituals, of adhering to certain forms of worshipping the One True God.

Were one to accept such a narrow conception, religion would be able to say nothing worthwhile about man's societal life, about politics, civilization, economy, justice, legislation and such other facets of man's worldly life. Or, if religion has anything to say about such matters, it would merely be of a recommendatory nature. According to such a view, if people follow the guidelines provided by religion, all well and good. But if they do not, and instead follow man-made laws, then there is nothing objectionable about this.

This patently erroneous concept of religion, which has been popular among Muslims for quite some time, largely accounts for why Muslims have become negligent in their duty of establishing an Islamic order of life. As a result, they have become reconciled to live under a way of life based on Jahiliyah. Not only that but some Muslims, in our time, have even come to believe that it is the sunnah of a Prophet (viz. Joseph) to administer a system of life based on Jahiliyah. Such ideas have made Muslims ready to become cogs in the machinery of an un-Islamic government, willing to bend their efforts to operate it efficiently..

Such an attitude, according to the present verse, is altogether wrong. Instead we are told that the law on which society is based and which governs the affairs of the state is as much a part of din (religion) as prayer. This is further borne out by such Qur'anic verses as: "The true religion with Allah is Islam' (Âl 'Imrän 3: 18). 'And whoever seeks a way other than this way of Islam, will find that it will not be accepted from him' (Al 'Imran 3: 85).

These verses require that believers should totally submit themselves to din. And din, apart from prescribing Prayer and Fasting, also lays down laws relevant for operating the social system and the administra- tion of a country. The Qur'an, as we have noted above, stipulates that if Muslims deviate from Islam whether in matters of worship or of social organization, such an attitude is unacceptable to God.

(4) It should also be pointed out, in light of the above verse, that at that time 'the law of the king' rather than the 'law of God' operated in Egypt. Now, since Joseph had political control over Egypt, the conclusion is that Joseph enforced the 'law of the king' rather than the 'law of God'. It might even be argued that Joseph's adherence to Abrahamic law rather than to the royal law of Egypt in a matter relating to himself makes little difference. For it is evident that it is according to man-made laws that cases were judged in Egypt during his period of rule.

Such a view might seem quite weighty at first sight, but those who look at the matter a little more carefully will be able to put things into perspective. It is true that Joseph (peace be on him) was designated to give effect to the laws of God. In fact this was at the heart of his mission as a Prophet and his basic task as a ruler. All this is quite evident.

It should be remembered, however, that the system operating in any country does not change overnight. Suppose a group of people who sincerely wish to establish the Islamic order of life gain total control over the affairs of a country. It would nevertheless take several years before those people succeeded in changing the social, economic, political, judicial, and legal system of that country. During the transitional period they would be forced to retain existing laws until such time as their proposed changes make some significant head- way.

It should also be remembered that Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) took some nine to ten years (after the Hijrah) to bring about total change in Arabia. During the transitional period people continued to drink wine, followed the inheritance laws of the Jahiliyah period, and engaged in business transactions which were not at all in conformity with the principles of Islam.

Likewise, Islamic civil and criminal laws did not begin to fully operate from the very first day. So, if during the first eight or nine years of Joseph's rule, the old laws of the Egyptian state remained in operation, it is not at all surprising. This does not in any way warrant the idea that God's Messenger was designated to put into effect laws made by men rather than by God.

A further question might also be raised. If it was appropriate for Egyptian royal law to be in force in the whole country, why was it inappropriate for Joseph (peace be on him) to follow that law in his personal life? This matter can perhaps be fully understood if we remember the method of Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him).

It is well known that during the first few years of Prophet Muhammad's rule when a great many Islamic laws had not been promulgated, people drank wine but the Prophet certainly did not indulge in it. Likewise, people carried on transactions involving interest but the Prophet (peace be on him) never engaged in any such transaction. Other Muslims continued to indulge in several practices relating to marriage such as mut'ah (temporary marriage) and the combining of two sisters in wedlock all of which were later prohibited. It is significant, however, that while others indulged in these practices the Prophet (peace be on him) always abstained from them.

This shows that there is a difference between a Prophet's gradual enforcement of Islamic law owing to compulsions of a practical nature, and to following the ways of Jahiliyah during the period of transition. Ordinary believers are condoned during the transitional phase, but it is certainly unbecoming of a Messenger of God to engage in practices which he had been designated to obliterate.

61. Joseph's brothers made this remark to overcome their embarrassment. They had said earlier that they were not thieves. But when they came to know that the stolen cup had been recovered from the saddle-bag of their brother, Benjamin, they invented a lie and dissociated themselves from him. They even made a scandalous statement about Benjamin's brother, Joseph. This only shows the kind of treatment they were capable of meting out to Benjamin had he not enjoyed Joseph's protection. This also demonstrates why both Benjamin and Joseph preferred that Benjamin not join the ten brothers on their return journey.

62. In the above verse the title ‘aziz (literally the 'powerful one') has been used for Joseph. In view of this usage, some Qur'an-commentators are of the opinion that Joseph was appointed to the same office that had been held earlier by Zelicha's husband. Some have even gone further towards the fantastic with the stories they have weaved. In these stories, it is claimed that since the former *aziz had died, Joseph was appointed to his office; that by dint of a miracle Zelicha's youth was restored, and that the Egyptian king joined Joseph and Zelicha in wedlock. To crown it all, these writers even claimed to know what transpired between Joseph and Zelicha on their wedding night.

It is obvious such stories are nothing more than fiction. We have already noted that the word 'aziz was not the specific appellation of any particular office. (See n. 16, above - Ed.) It was used in the sense of 'incumbent of power'. This expression, in Egypt, was synonymous with the honorific words used for incumbents of power in different languages. Whatever word might have been used for incumbents of power in the Egyptian language at that time has been denoted in the Qur'an by the Arabic word 'aziz.

Now so far as Zelicha's marriage with Joseph is concerned, the only basis for it is the Biblical and Talmudic account of Joseph's story. In that account Joseph has been mentioned as having married Asenath, the daughter of Potophra. (Genesis 41: 45 - Ed.) Now the name of Zelicha's husband was Potiphar. Such diverse fragments of information reached Qur'an-commenta- tors from a variety of Israelite sources. Quite a bit of this material was derived from oral accounts. It is not surprising, therefore, that Potophra was confused with Potiphar. Again, the word 'daughter' changed into 'wife' and it was easily imagined that the wife could be none other than Zelicha. And Zelicha could have been married to Joseph only if her husband had died. Potiphar was, therefore, assumed to have died. Thus, the whole romantic legend of ‘Joseph and Zelicha' came into being.

63. Joseph's circumspection is noteworthy. When the cup was found in Benjamin's saddle-bag, Joseph did not charge him with stealing. Joseph, according to the Qur'an, used the expression 'with whom we found our good' (see verse 79). In Islamic terminology, such an expression is termed as tawriyah. The term denotes 'covering up' or 'concealing' some fact. One may resort to tawriyah in a situation when there remains no other alternative to save a victim from his oppressor, or to ward off a serious mischief other than resorting to a statement or device which conceals the true facts. Faced with a difficult situation such as the one mentioned above, a pious person would refrain from lying, but he might well resort to an ambiguous statement or to a device aimed at concealing facts so as to ward off wrongs. Such an action is quite permissible from both the religious and moral viewpoints, provided the motive for the action is to ward off some serious evil rather than to reap some benefit.

Now let us consider how in this particular instance Joseph fulfilled all the conditions of a permissible tawriyah. First, he put the drinking cup in Benjamin's saddle-bag with the latter's full consent. He did not, however, direct the servants to charge Benjamin with stealing. When the servants charged the brothers with theft, Joseph simply stood up and without uttering a word searched their belongings. Subsequently, when Joseph's brothers requested him to detain any of them in place of Benjamin, he simply responded by saying that they themselves had suggested that only the person with whom the stolen good was found should be detained. Now since the cup was found in Benjamin's saddle-bag he could be detained. For, how could anyone else be detained?

Instances of such tawriyah are also found in the military campaigns of the Prophet (peace be on him): There is no valid reason, therefore, to find fault with the practice of tawriyah in the manner described above.

64. Jacob said that it was not at all difficult for his sons to accuse Benjamin - whose character and conduct he knew to be excellent - of stealing a cup. Such behaviour on their part did not surprise him. For in the past, they had deliberately caused their brother Joseph to be lost. Not only that, they had felt no compunction in bringing back his shirt with false blood-stains in order to reinforce their claim that Joseph had been eaten by a wolf. And now they were telling Jacob, with equal ease of conscience, that Benjamin had committed a theft.

65. They told Joseph that whatever he would grant them would be charity. For the trivial amount they offered as a price for the large amount of grain given to them was far from adequate.

66. This indicates the extraordinary faculties possessed by the Prophets. The caravan had just set out from Egypt, carrying Joseph's shirt. And yet, even though Jacob was hundreds of miles away, he could smell its fragrance. From this we also learn that these faculties were not their personal acquisitions. They were special endowments bestowed upon the Prophets by God. Whenever God so wills, He enables the Prophets to mobilize those faculties and to do so to the extent that He pleases. We know that Joseph had been in Egypt for years and yet Jacob had never smelled his fragrance. But suddenly, when God so willed, it became possible for him to smell the fragrance of Joseph's shirt even though it was far away.

It is also interesting to note the difference between the Qur'anic and Israelite images of Jacob. The Qur'an portrays Jacob with all the glory of a Prophet. On the contrary, the Israelite sources portray him as hardly different from an ordinary bedouin. According to the Bible:

And they [i.e. the sons] told him: 'Joseph is still alive, and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt.' And his heart fainted, for he did not believe them and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of their father Jacob revived... (Genesis 45: 26-7).

67. It is evident from the above verse that except for Joseph none of the brothers truly valued his father. Jacob himself had despaired of his sons because of their moral degeneracy. Jacob's mission and message had enlightened those outside his household. But members of his own family scarcely held him in any esteem. Such instances are quite common in history. Many great men have received no appreciation from their compatriots.

68. According to the Bible, the members of Jacob's family who migrated to Egypt at that time were sixty-seven in number. This number does not include Jacob's daughters-in-law. Jacob was then one hundred and thirty years old and subsequently lived in Egypt for another seventeen years.

One may wonder about one thing. When the Israelites first entered Egypt their number, including Joseph, was only sixty-eight. But after some five hundred years, when they migrated from Egypt, their numbers had swelled to hundreds of thousands. According to the Bible, when Moses conducted a census in the Sinai desert after just one year, the number of combatant males was 603,550. Using this figure as our basis, their total number at the time must have been at least two million. Is it physically possible that a group of sixty-eight people could grow into two million within a span of just five hundred years?

If we were to suppose that the total population of Egypt at that time was twenty million - which would be a highly exaggerated figure - the Israelites would form just one tenth of it. Is it possible for a family to multiply in such great numbers by normal reproduction? Reflection on this question leads us to another important fact; it is simply impossible for a family to multiply so profusely in just five hundred years.

However, the Israelites were the progeny of Messengers of God. Their leader, Joseph, who had paved the way for their settlement in Egypt, was himself a Messenger. For between four and five centuries the Israelites held total sway over Egypt. During this period, they must have preached their religion. As a result, those Egyptians who had embraced Islam would have become distinct from non-Muslim Egyptians and in the course of time assimilated into the Israeli way of life.

As a consequence, the local unbelieving Egyptians would have treated the converted Egyptians as aliens in the same manner as the Hindus of India treated the Muslims of Indian origin. The appellation 'Israeli' would have been applied to those converts in the manner that the term 'Muhammadan' is often applied to all non-Arab Muslims. Moreover, owing to the close religious, social and matrimonial relationships with the Israelites, those Egyptians who converted to Islam would have become distinct from their non-Muslim Egyptian compatriots and in the course of time would have been identified with the Israelites. This accounts for the fact that when an upsurge of nationalist feeling took place in Egypt, it was not only the original Israelites but also the converted Egyptians which were subjected to severe oppression. Later on, when the original Israelites migrated from Egypt, these converts migrated with them.

Our conclusion on the subject is corroborated by several Biblical statements. For example, in a passage in Exodus where the departure of the Israelites from Egypt has been described, it is remarked, 'a mixed multitude went up also with them...' (Exodus 12: 38). The following statement also has the same import: 'Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving...' (Numbers 11: 4). Thus, in the Commandments revealed to Moses we find the following statement:

For the assembly, there shall be one state for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the sojourner be before the Lord. One law and one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, (Numbers 15: 15-16).

But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people, (Numbers 15: 30).

And I charged your judges at that time, 'hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien that is with him', (Deuteronomy 1: 16).

It is difficult, however, to determine the exact term used in the Scriptures for non-Israelites for which the terms 'strangers' and 'aliens' were subsequently used.

69. According to the Talmud, 'when Joseph learned that his father was upon the way, he gathered together his friends and officers, and soldiers of the realm, attired in rich garments... and formed a great company to meet Prophet Jacob on the way and escort him to Egypt. Music and gladness filled the land, and all the people, the women and the children assembled on the house tops to view the magnificent display'. (H. Polano, The Talmudic Selections, p. 111.)

70. The use of the term 'sajdah' (prostration) in the above verse has given rise to considerable misconception. This misconception reached such heights that some people interpreted the verse to justify prostration before kings and saints, calling it 'prostration of greeting' or 'prostration of respect' as distinguished from 'prostration of worship'.

Since in Islam prostration is associated with worship, some scholars resorted to an altogether novel explanation. They contended that it was only the prostration of worship, provided it was directed to any other than God, which was prohibited in the earlier versions or Divine Law. As for prostration which did not signify any worship, it was permissible even in respect of persons other than God. They claimed that it is only in the Shari'ah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) that all forms of prostration directed to anyone other than God are forbidden.

What lies at the core of all this confusion is the word sajdah (prostration) as used in the verse. It has been taken in the technical sense in which it has come to be used in Islam as meaning putting one's feet, knees and forehead on the ground. However, the true meaning of sajdah is 'to bow' and in the above verse the word has been used exactly in that sense. Bowing as a form of respect was in vogue in ancient cultures. The practice is still in vogue in some countries of the world. When people wish to thank or welcome, or even receive someone, they are wont to put their hands on their chest and bow a little. The act, called bowing in English, is expressed in Arabic by the word sajdah. Numerous references to this bowing are found in the Bible signifying that it was an established form of paying respect to others. The Arabic version of the Bible uses exactly the same expression with reference to Abraham's reception of three persons approaching his tent.

فلما نظر ركض لاستقبالهمْ مِنْ بَابَ الخَيْمَةِ وَسَجَدَ الى الأرض (تكوين: ۱۸-۲۳)

In the English version of the Bible too we find references to bowing as a sign of respect. For instance, after mentioning that a piece of land was donated as a burying place for Sarah, Prophet Abraham expressed his thankfulness in the following manner: 'Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land' (Genesis 23: 7). To cite another example: "Then Abraham bowed down before the people of the land' (Genesis 23: 12). Numerous references to this practice are found in the Bible which establishes beyond doubt that the act concerned did not mean prostration in the sense in which sajdah is used as a technical Islamic term.

Some people, who have studied the question superficially, have contended that in the different versions of the Divine Law prior to the advent of Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him) it was permissible to prostrate before others than the One True God. Such a statement is utterly devoid of all justification. For if prostration is taken in the technical sense that it denotes in Islam, it has never been lawful to offer it to anyone other than God. According to the Bible, during the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites, King Ahasuerus advanced Haman and set him above all the princes who were with him: 'And all the king's servants who were at the king's gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance' (Esther 3: 2). This was because the Israelites were not supposed to do so. The following details of this incident found in the Talmud are significant.

The servants of the King said to Mordecai: "Why will thou refuse to bow before Haman, transgressing thus the wishes of the King? Do we not bow before him?' 'Ye are foolish' answered Mordecai, 'aye wanting in reason. Listen to me. Shall a mortal, who must return to dust, be glorified? Shall I bow down before one born of woman whose days are short? When he is small he cries and weeps as a child: when he grows older sorrow and sighing are his portion; his days are full of wrath and anger and at the end he returns to dust. Shall I bow to one like him? No, I prostrate myself before the Eternal God, who lives for ever. To Him the great Creator and Ruler of the Universe, and to no other will I bow'. (H. Polano, The Talmudic Selections, p. 172.)

This speech was made some one thousand years before the revelation of the Qur'an by a believing Israelite. It does not suggest in any way that it was permissible to prostrate before anyone other than God.

71. These utterances by Joseph (peace be on him) present before us the image of a true man of faith, of a paragon of moral excellence. A person coming from a family of nomadic shepherds, a victim of the conspiracies of his own brothers, Joseph reaches the height of worldly glory by successfully going through the vicissitudes of fortune. The famine-stricken members of his family, including his jealous brothers who had wanted to kill him, are now solely dependent on him. All of them stand before him in abject humili- ation.

Such an opportunity is generally used by people to boast of their achievements and to reproach and insult those who had earlier been unkind to them. However, this truly God-conscious person behaves in an entirely different manner. Rather than take pride in his rise to eminence, he fully acknowledges God's favour which helped him to rise to such an exalted position. He does not reproach the members of his family who had been conspicuously unkind to him in his childhood. On the contrary, he thanks God Who has enabled him to be reunited with them after a long time.

In addition, Joseph does not utter a single word of complaint against his jealous brothers. He does not even mention their misdeeds. Ascribing their deeds to Satan's prompting, he simply says that it was Satan who had 'stirred discord between me and my brothers' (verse 100). Instead of dwelling on his brothers' misconduct, Joseph makes the best use of the incident, saying that it was God Who contrived his rise to glory. In other words, what Satan had prompted his brothers to do was a part of divine dispensation, something that turned out to be to his own good. In the end, summing up all this in a few words, Joseph once again submits to God in thanksgiving for bestowing on him kingdom and wisdom, of having rescued him from prison, for having placed him at the helm of the largest state in the world.

Finally, Joseph makes a moving prayer to God, asking Him to hold him fast in submission to Him and to join him with the righteous when he dies. This is indeed an example of the most noble and perfect conduct conceivable in a righteous person.

To one's utter astonishment, this highly significant speech by Joseph finds no place in either the Bible or the Talmud. These books abound in detail concerning trivial matters. However, they are usually devoid of things that have moral value or shed light on the mission of the Prophets or their basic teachings. These books scarcely provide the materials from which one may learn any important lesson.

As we conclude this story, it is worth reminding the readers that the Qur'anic account of Joseph's story is an independent account, not a rearrangement of the Biblical and Talmudic accounts. A comparative study of Joseph's story in these three sources makes it quite apparent that on several important points, the Qur'anic account significantly differs from the other two sources. In several cases, the Qur'an elaborates the information found in the Bible and the Talmud. It also omits some of the details mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, the Qur'an refutes the Bible and the Talmud on some important matters relating to the story. It, thus, leaves no grounds for the charge that Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) took over this story from the Israelites.

72. This refers to the stubbornness of the unbelievers. On the one hand, after careful deliberation and mutual consultation, they decided to put a number of questions to the Prophet (peace be on him) so as to test the truth of his claim to prophethood. When the Prophet (peace be on him) successfully responded to their demands it was naturally expected that they would no longer persist in their denial of the truth and would no longer cast any doubt on the divine origin of the Qur'an. God, however, tells Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him) that the unbelievers would still act unreasonably and would find one pretext after another for their denial of the Prophet (peace be on him). They did not disbelieve because they had failed to have access to the arguments that would convince them regarding his prophethood. That was not the case at all. They simply did not want to believe in the Prophet (peace be on him) and hence any reasonable discussion with them was out of the question.

The purpose of this clarification was not to remove any misgiving that the Prophet (peace be on him) might have had. Though the statement here is apparently addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him), it is in fact directed to the unbelievers and its purpose is to warn them against their obduracy. They had tried to put the Prophet (peace be on him) to the test by suddenly demanding that he tell them something about the migration of the Israelites to Egypt if his claim to prophethood was true. In response, the whole of Joseph's story was related to them there and then.

In conclusion, it was remarked that now it was for those stubborn people to judge for themselves whether they had any justification whatsoever for putting the Prophet (peace be on him) to any further test. If they had been sincere in testing him, then they should have welcomed the truth which had become apparent in response to their query. However, the unbelievers were still adamant in denying the truth even after it had become manifest.

73. In addition to the warning given in the preceding verse, the present verse also carries a subtle note of warning, wherein the element of admonition is more conspicuous than the reproach.

Even though the verse is apparently addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him), it is meant, in fact, for the unbelievers. They are being asked to think and to see for themselves how unjustified they were in their adamance. Had the Prophet (peace be on him) been carrying out his mission to fulfil his own personal ends, the believers would be justified in rejecting his message. However, they could see for themselves that he was an absolutely selfless person who was working for their good. The Prophet (peace be on him) could not have gained anything for himself out of the reform for which he was striving. Therefore, there was no point in their adamant rejection of him. There was no reason why a person should have prejudice against someone who was inviting them to their common good. The unbelievers were, therefore, well advised to pay heed to what the Prophet (peace be on him) taught and to do so with an open mind. After that it was up to them to accept his teachings if they were convinced, or to reject them if they were not.

74. The story of Joseph which began with the opening verse of this surah concludes here. Had the purpose been merely to tell a tale, this should have marked the end of the surah. But the Qur'an narrates stories in order to instruct and educate. Hence, the opportunity to bring home the true message or lesson of a story is never missed. The story of Joseph was narrated to people at their own asking. This accounts for the attention with which they listened to the story. Hence, after the actual story ended, the basic message of the Qur'ān was succinctly conveyed.

75. This verse aims at arousing people from their apathy to God's signs spread throughout the universe. For everything in the heavens and the earth is not only an object of existence, but also a sign that points to the reality. All those who observe different things as though they were merely objects of existence, fail to observe them in a manner becoming of human beings. Their observation is rather one characteristic of brutes. Were one to observe a tree or a mountain and see nothing beyond them, one would be engaging in an activity common to both animals and human beings. Animals also know the uses to which they can put those natural objects. What distinguishes man from animals in this respect is that man has been endowed with senses as well as with a rational mind. It does not behove man, therefore, to just observe things and exert himself to merely knowing how he could make use of them. Man is rather expected to go beyond observation and embark, by dint of his rational faculty, on a quest for reality. In his quest, he will be helped by the natural phenomena which in fact are signs of that reality.

Unfortunately, even if natural phenomena can successfully attract the attention of many people, these people still have no curiosity for the reality. They suffer from a state of apathy which leads them to all kinds of erroneous ideas and doctrines. Such people virtually shut their minds to the message of the Prophets. Had they not done so, it would not have been difficult at all for them to appreciate that Message and benefit from the guidance provided by the Prophets.

76. That is the natural consequence of the apathy and heedlessness mentioned in the previous verse. As people become blind to the landmarks, they go off the right track and get lost. Despite this, only a few are totally misdirected, in the sense that they go so far as to deny God as their Creator and Provider. Most people affirm the existence of God but associate others with Him. Their misunderstanding consists in believing that there are others as well who have a share in God's attributes, power, and authority, and also in God's rightful claims against His creatures. Men could have escaped such false doctrines if they had just reflected over the numerous signs across the universe which unmistakably point to God's unity.

77. This question is intended to shake people out of their complacency, to jolt them into abandoning their carefree attitude to life. Such an attitude is born of an inner feeling that a long life remains ahead of them, that they will continue to enjoy a secure life for a long time. Thanks to this action, people tend to put off concern for the ultimate end of life. This is obviously an erroneous attitude for no one knows exactly what the span of his life will be. Death can suddenly seize anyone at any moment. Who is not aware that man has no prescience of what will happen at the next moment?

Thus there is no justification for putting off matters. The basic problems of life must be faced without delay. Man should give serious thought as to the way he ought to go. And if a person decides to follow one way or another, he should carefully consider - and again without delay - if there are sufficient reasons to believe that the way he has chosen is the right one. He should also consider whether the natural phenomena also provide any evidence to support the rightness of the way he has chosen. Further, he should look at the historical record of man and examine the consequences that ensued from following the way of his choice in the past.

78. God is certainly free from any imperfections attributed to Him. Here reference has been made to the imperfections attributed to God by polytheists. Such ascriptions to God are a natural corollary of polytheistic beliefs.

79. This Qur'anic exhortation sums up a number of points and issues. Let us attempt an elaboration of what the Qur'an here seeks to convey.

The unbelievers pay no attention to the Prophet's message. This is because they find it quite unusual that one morning someone from among them, who grew up before their very eyes, should have been appointed God's Messenger. The Qur'an points out, however, that this was not a unique event in human history. For even before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) God had raised many Prophets and they too were human beings. Nor did it ever happen that a stranger appeared among a people and claimed to be God's Messenger. All those who were raised to bring about reform among the people of a given place belonged to that place, such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Noah (peace be on them).

Now it was for the unbelievers to consider the end of the people who did not accept the Prophet's messages of reform and kept running after their baseless fancies and unbridled lusts. In the course of their trade journeys the Makkans used to pass by the ruined houses of 'Ad, Thamūd, Midian, and the people of Lot. Was there a lesson that they could learn? The ruins were not only reminders of the tragic end of those peoples in this world; they also betokened a far worse end in the Next Life. In contrast, those who mend their ways and become righteous will not only enjoy a felicitous life in this world, but will be even better off in the Next.

80. 'A detailed exposition of everything' refers to a detailed exposition of all that is necessary for man's guidance. This does not encompass everything in a literal sense. Some people misunderstand the purpose of this verse and consider 'everything' to include even such matters as detailed knowledge of forestry, medicine, mathematics and all other branches of learning.