قَالُوا۟ جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥ مَن وُجِدَ فِى رَحْلِهِۦ فَهُوَ جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥ كَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلظَّٰلِمِينَ
“They said: The penalty for it! He in whose bag (the cup) is found, he is the penalty for it. Thus we requite wrong-doers.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
Taberî explains this verse as expressing the statement made by Yusuf's brothers, namely that the punishment for theft is that whoever has the stolen goods in their possession shall be made a slave to the person from whom it was stolen. In other words, the punishment for the thief is to be handed over to the person whose property was stolen and to be enslaved by that person.
وقال إخوة يوسف: ثواب السرق من وجد في متاعه السرق فهو جزاؤه، يقول: فالذي وجد ذلك في رحله ثوابه بأن يسلم بسرقته إلى من سرق منه حتى يسترقه
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
Zemahşerî explains this expression as an emphatic reinforcement (ta'kid): the thief himself is the very punishment, not a separate penalty. He also discusses various grammatical parsing possibilities (i'rab) of the word 'cazâuhu' (such as it being the subject or the predicate of an omitted subject) and notes that the pronoun is substituted for the explicit noun.
تقرير للحكم ، أي : فأخذ السارق نفسه وهو جزاؤه لا غير ، كقولك : حق زيد أن يكسى ويطعم وينعم عليه ، فذلك حقه
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
In this text, Fahreddin er-Râzî explains the grammatical and semantic structure of the expression 'cazâuhu' in the verse in two different ways. According to the first view, this expression is an emphatic element in the clarification of 'punishment' and is itself the predicate, just as when one says 'the punishment of the thief is cutting off.' According to the second view, 'cazâuhu' is the subject and the clause 'man wujida fi rahlih' is the predicate; here the repetition of the pronoun carries the purpose of emphasis and exaggeration in expression.
زيادة في البيان كما تقول جزاء السارق القطع فهو جزاؤه . الثاني : أن يقال : { جزاؤه } مبتدأ وقوله : جملة وهي في موضع خبر المبتدأ . والتقدير : كأنه قيل جزاؤه من وجد في رحله فهو هو ، إلا أنه أقام المضمر للتأكيد والمبالغة في البيان
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Kurtubî, this expression indicates that the punishment for the crime of theft is that the person shall be recovered as a slave or servant (placed in a state of captivity or slavery); the expression 'man wujida fi rahlih' informs who this punishment will be applied to, and this is in the nature of an allusion to the punishment of enslavement or slavery. The sentence structure also carries a meaning of emphasis (stress).
أي يستعبد ويسترق فجزاؤه مبتدأ ومن وجد في رحله خبره والتقدير : جزاؤه استعباد من وجد في رحله فهو كناية عن الاستعباد وفي الجملة معنى التوكيد
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
Beydâvî explains the reply given by the brothers to the Egyptians' question 'what is the punishment if you are liars': Yusuf's brothers stated that the punishment for theft is that whoever has the stolen goods in their possession shall be taken as a slave. This is the ruling in the law (Shari'ah) of Prophet Jacob, and the expression 'fa-huwa cazâuhu' confirms and establishes this ruling.
جزاؤه من وجد في رحله فهو جزاؤه أي جزاء سرقته أخذ من وجد فى رحله واسترقاقه، هكذا كان شرع يعقوب عليه الصلاة والسلام
Comparison
Common ground
All the exegetes agree that the verse expresses that the punishment for theft is the handing over of the stolen property to the person to whom it belongs, to be enslaved or put into servitude. Additionally, most of them note that the expression 'cazâuhu' carries an emphatic element, indicating that the sentence aims to reinforce the ruling.
Differences
While Taberî presents an explanation based on narrations, Zemahşerî, Fahreddin er-Râzî, Kurtubî, and Beydâvî have oriented themselves more towards linguistic and rhetorical analysis (i'rab, the relationship between pronouns and explicit nouns, elision). Beydâvî additionally adds a contextual dimension by relating this ruling to the law of Prophet Jacob, while Kurtubî interprets it as an allusion concerning the punishment of enslavement. These differences reflect the transition from the narration-heavy exegetical methodology of the early period to the linguistically and rhetorically focused exegetical schools that developed in later periods.
Historical context
In the process extending from Taberî to Beydâvî, the essential substance of the matter (the application of the punishment for theft in the form of enslavement) remained constant, but the methodology evolved from narration transmission to linguistic and rhetorical analysis and jurisprudential context. This is related to how the science of exegesis increasingly gave place to textual analysis and comparative jurisprudential context over the mere transmission of narrations over time.
Modern connection
This verse reminds us that the concepts of justice in past societies could take different forms, yet regard for rights and trusts has continued to be a universal principle. In our time, this can be interpreted as showing that moral values such as individual responsibility, integrity, and loyalty to trusts form the foundation of social order. Moreover, the multi-dimensional approach of different exegetes to the same verse from linguistic and contextual perspectives demonstrates that reasoning and intellectual endeavor play a complementary role in understanding the religious text.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar