قَالُوا۟ فَمَا جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥٓ إِن كُنتُمْ كَٰذِبِينَ
“They said: And what shall be the penalty for it, if ye prove liars?” — M. M. Pickthall
The given text passage is very brief and fragmented (consisting only of the expression 'فأجابوا و'), making it impossible to determine the exegete's view on this verse. The text points to a response verb ('fe ecâbû') but since it continues no further, textual coherence cannot be established.
فأجابوا وAccording to Kurtubî, this expression relates to Jacob's question directed at his children; it is asked what the punishment of the liar would be if their lies were exposed, and Yusuf's brothers respond to this question.
فما جزاء الفاعل إن بان كذبكم فأجاب إخوة يوسفAccording to Ibn Kesîr, this expression asks what the punishment of the thief would be (among Yusuf's brothers) if the stolen goods were found in their possession. The text clarifies the content of the question as 'if someone among you commits theft, what is his punishment.'
أي السارق إن كان فيكم أي أي شيء يكون عقوبته إن وجدنا فيكم من أخذهAccording to Beydâvî, when the caravan people asked what the punishment for theft was, Yusuf's brothers informed them that in their law (the law of Jacob, peace be upon him), the punishment of the thief is that the person in whose possession the stolen goods are found becomes a slave. The expression 'فهو جزاؤه' confirms and establishes this ruling or functions as the response to a conditional sentence; the sentence, by substituting a pronoun in place of a noun, carries the meaning 'his punishment is whoever it is found with.'
قالوا جزاؤه من وجد في رحله فهو جزاؤه أي جزاء سرقته أخذ من وجد فى رحله واسترقاقه، هكذا كان شرع يعقوب عليه الصلاة والسلام.According to this exegete, Yusuf's brothers informed Yusuf that in their homeland, the punishment for theft was to keep the thief as a slave. In other words, this is a ruling that was valid in their religion; because of this ruling, Allah created a way out (a stratagem) for Yusuf and enabled him to keep his brother with him in this manner.
وذلك كان حكمهم في دينهمAccording to this exegete, the pronoun in the question 'what is the punishment of theft' refers to the stolen goods (the cup); this expression is a hypothetical construction against their claim of being innocent from the crime—it is not a real accusation. Although it appears on the surface as if they were being accused of lying (takzîb), this appearance takes the form of a false accusation (buhtân), but in reality it is not a false accusation.
هو في صورة البهتان وليس ببهتان في الحقيقةCommon ground
The views of Taberî, Kurtubî, Ibn Kesîr, and Beydâvî are fundamentally aligned: the expression relates to the answer given by Yusuf's brothers to the question 'what is the punishment of the thief' directed at them, and the answer is based on the ruling in their law (making the person in whose possession the stolen goods are found into a slave). Zamahshawî also addresses the same event but presents a separate linguistic analysis regarding what the pronoun refers to.
Differences
While Taberî and Kurtubî narrate the event within the flow of the narrative contextually, Ibn Kesîr and Beydâvî add linguistic and rhetorical analysis to clarify the content of the question and the relationship between the pronoun and the conditional statement. Zamahshawî, with a different emphasis, argues that the expression is not an 'accusation' but a hypothetical construction (an apparent false accusation that is not actually a false accusation), thus bringing an original interpretation based on linguistic analysis. The text fragment attributed to Fahreddin er-Râzî is incomplete, making it impossible to determine this exegete's view; this is due not to a difference in method but to the fragmented transmission of the text.
Historical context
While Taberî (early period) addresses the event as a transmission of historical-legal information, later exegetes (Zamahshawî, Beydâvî) have inclined more toward linguistic and rhetorical refinement, whereas Ibn Kesîr and Kurtubî have continued with contextual and report-based reading. The fundamental meaning (the punishment for theft and the brothers' answer) has remained constant throughout the periods, but the methods of explanation (report-oriented or linguistically-oriented) have diversified.
This narrative provides an example of how a just and consistent ruling can be sought in a matter that arises within a community through patience and careful deliberation. The need to reconsider rulings that were valid in different times and circumstances reminds us that both knowledge and conscience must be engaged together. The importance of adopting a cautious and constructive attitude when investigating the truth in family and social matters is a general lesson that can be drawn from this narrative.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar