فَبَدَأَ بِأَوْعِيَتِهِمْ قَبْلَ وِعَآءِ أَخِيهِ ثُمَّ ٱسْتَخْرَجَهَا مِن وِعَآءِ أَخِيهِ كَذَٰلِكَ كِدْنَا لِيُوسُفَ مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِى دِينِ ٱلْمَلِكِ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَٰتٍ مَّن نَّشَآءُ وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِى عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ
“Then he (Joseph) began the search with their bags before his brother's bag, then he produced it from his brother's bag. Thus did We contrive for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother according to the king's law unless Allah willed. We raise by grades (of mercy) whom We will, and over every lord of knowledge there is one more knowing.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this exegete, Yusuf could not detain his brother according to the Egyptian king's legal and judicial system, because in that king's law there was no enslavement as punishment for the crime of theft; instead, through a stratagem (keyd) that Allah arranged for Yusuf, his brothers accepted this and willingly surrendered themselves according to their own rulings (as a theft penalty for detention). Additionally, the text transmits the views of Basra grammarians regarding whether the feminine pronoun (تأنيث) in the verse refers to siwâ' (water vessel) or sikaye.
ما كان يوسف ليأخذ أخاه في حكم ملك مصر وقضائه وطاعته منهم، لأنه لم يكن من حكم ذلك الملك وقضائه أن يسترق أحد بالسرق، فلم يكن ليوسف أخذ أخيه في حكم ملك أرضه إلا أن يشاء الله بكيده الذي كاده له
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
Zemahşerî describes in this verse the scene of the search of the belongings of Yusuf's brothers: in order to dispel doubt, the loads of the other brothers were searched first, then the load of Benjamin was searched and the vessel was brought out from it. Additionally, the text discusses the use of the words 'sikaye' and 'sûvâ' and their masculine-feminine nature; it is indicated that this situation may stem from the fact that in Yusuf's language it is called 'sikaye', while in the language of his servants it is called 'sûvâ'. Finally, this 'stratagem' (keyd) is explained by recalling that according to the Egyptian king's religion, the punishment for theft is not slavery but double compensation; the question of how this stratagem can be 'good' (hasun) is also opened for discussion.
فإن قلت : لم ذكر ضمير الصواع مرات ثم أنثه ؟ قلت : قالوا رجع بالتأنيث على السقاية ، أو أنث الصواع لأنه يذكر ويؤنث ، ولعل يوسف كان يسميه سقاية وعبيده صواعا
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this exegete, the expression in the verse supports the Ahl al-Sunnah's view that the attribute of knowledge is established for Allah, against the Mu'tazilah's view regarding Allah being knowledgeable by His essence. Razi conveys that there is a difference between 'ذا علم' and 'عليم' in the verse, stating that one makes someone else possess knowledge while the other qualifies Allah with action, and that this distinction is evidence.
واعلم أن أصحابنا قالوا دلت سائر الآيات على إثبات العلم لله تعالى وهي قوله : ( يوسف : 76 ) فجعل غيره ذا علم ووصف نفسه بالفعل فبين ذي العلم والعليم فرق وكذلك بين ذي القوة والقوي
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Qurtubi, Yusuf began searching the bags of his brothers first to remove doubt and suspicion from their hearts, and came to Benjamin's bag last. Furthermore, he states that the word 'كدنا' means 'we did/we arranged', and from this he concludes that it is permissible to reach aims through stratagems that are not contrary to the Sharia; he connects this matter to the discussion of legal stratagems (hile-i şer'iyye) for disposing of property to avoid paying alms.
إنما بدأ يوسف برحالهم لنفي التهمة والريبة من قلوبهم إن بدأ بوعاء أخيه والوعاء يقال بضم الواو وكسرها لغتان وهو ما يحفظ فيه المتاع ويصونه يعني بنيامين
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
Ibn Kesîr states that the subject of riba is one of the most difficult chapters for those learned in knowledge, and that every means that leads to what is forbidden is also forbidden. He conveys that the ruling in the story of Yusuf is not valid in the Egyptian king's law but is an obligation that the brothers accepted in their own Sharia, and that this is a stratagem (keyd-i mahbûb) that Allah loves and is pleased with. Furthermore, he emphasizes that knowledge ultimately returns to Allah, that there is someone more knowledgeable above every scholar, and that ultimately all knowledge belongs to Allah.
والشريعة شاهدة بأن كل حرام فالوسيلة اليه مثله لأن ما أفضى إلى الحرام حرام كما أن ما لا يتم الواجب إلا به فهو واجب
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Baydawi, Yusuf's finding and bringing out the water vessel from Benjamin's load was a 'keyd' (stratagem/device) and he accomplished this through Allah teaching it to him; since according to the Egyptian king's religion the punishment given for theft was not enslavement but beating and compensation of double the amount, Yusuf could only detain his brother through Allah's will—not according to the king's religion. Furthermore, the expression 'above every person of knowledge there is someone more knowledgeable' is answered by stating that this 'every person of knowledge' is particular to the created beings and that the name 'Alim' is particularly Allah's.
ما كان ليأخذ أخاه في دين الملك ملك مصر لأن دينه الضرب وتغريم ضعف ما أخذ دون الاسترقاق وهو بيان للكيد. إلا أن يشاء الله أن يجعل ذلك الحكم حكم الملك، فالاستثناء من أعم الأحوال
Comparison
Common ground
Taberî, Zemahşerî, Qurtubi, Ibn Kesîr, and Baydawi agree on the point that Yusuf's detaining of his brother was not according to the Egyptian king's law, but was a stratagem (keyd) that Allah arranged and a ruling that the brothers accepted according to their own Sharia. Additionally, the femininity of the words sikaye/sûvâ and linguistic analysis is also a common topic treated by more than one exegete (Taberî, Zemahşerî). Razi and Baydawi, on the other hand, share a theological emphasis regarding Allah's attribute of knowledge based on the knowledge expression in the verse.
Differences
While Taberî and Zemahşerî remained primarily on the axis of language/rhetoric and transmission; Qurtubi transfers this keyd matter to juridical stratagems (hile-i şer'iyye) and the chapter on alms, directing it toward a more practical conclusion. While Ibn Kesîr works on the matter of the rulings of transmissions and means, Razi and Baydawi transform the verse into a theological axis by turning it into a defense of the Ahl al-Sunnah's attribute of knowledge against the Mu'tazilah. These differences are related to the schools to which the exegetes belonged (language/transmission school, jurisprudential school, theological school) and the prominent discussion topics of their time.
Historical context
Early period exegete Taberî focused on transmission and linguistic analysis, while in later periods Zemahşerî increased rhetorical and linguistic depth, Qurtubi brought juridical conclusions to the forefront, and Razi and Baydawi included theological discussions in the text. Ibn Kesîr continued the transmission-based approach while also addressing the matter of juridical means. The basic narrative (keyd, the king's law, the brothers' consent) remained fixed, but over time the theological and juridical layers added to the text increased.
Modern connection
This comparative reading presents a reminder that a measured, patient approach within legitimate and moral boundaries can preserve trust and consent in social relations. Furthermore, the emphasis that the ultimate source of knowledge is Allah may point to the importance of humility and openness to learning in scientific work. An approach in family matters that attempts to dispel doubt, and that is just and patient, can be considered as a constructive example in today's social relations.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar