ٱرْجِعُوٓا۟ إِلَىٰٓ أَبِيكُمْ فَقُولُوا۟ يَٰٓأَبَانَآ إِنَّ ٱبْنَكَ سَرَقَ وَمَا شَهِدْنَآ إِلَّا بِمَا عَلِمْنَا وَمَا كُنَّا لِلْغَيْبِ حَٰفِظِينَ
“Return unto your father and say: O our father! Lo! thy son hath stolen. We testify only to that which we know; we are not guardians of the Unseen.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
Taberî discusses the meaning of the brothers' words to Jacob: 'We did not know that he would steal.' According to one view, they only testified to the theft through external evidence, such as the vessel/measure being found in Benjamin's load; according to another view, what they said was that they conveyed to Joseph their knowledge that the thief's punishment is enslavement. According to the view transmitted from Mujahid and Qatada, the meaning of the expression is 'we did not perceive/suspect that he would steal.'
واختلف أهل التأويل في تأويل ذلك، فقال بعضهم: معناه: وما قلنا إنه سرق إلا بظاهر علمنا بأن ذلك كذلك، لأن صواع الملك أصيب في وعائه دون أوعية غيره
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
According to al-Zamakhsharī, the brothers testified only to the extent of what they knew; their knowledge was limited to the vessel (measure) being drawn from the load, which was the apparent evidence of theft. They expressed that they did not know beforehand that Benjamin would actually commit theft or that a calamity like the one that befell Joseph would befall him. According to the reading 'Suriqat,' the meaning is that they testified only to the extent they knew, and they had no knowledge of hidden/unseen matters such as whether the theft actually occurred or whether the vessel might have been placed in the load without their knowledge.
وما علمنا أنه سيسرق حين أعطيناك الموثق . أو ما علمنا أنك تصاب به كما أصبت بيوسف . ومن قرأ : ( سرق ) فمعناه : وما شهدنا إلا بقدر ما علمنا من التسريق ، وما كنا للغيب : للأمر الخفي ، أسرق بالصحة أم دس الصاع في رحله ولم يشعر
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this exegete, the brothers' statement 'we did not know the unseen' can be explained in several different ways: according to one view, the true situation is known to no one except God; according to Ikrimah, 'unseen' means night and the vessel was placed secretly at night; according to Mujahid-Al-Hasan-Qatada, the brothers meant that they did not know their son would steal; according to a fourth interpretation, they themselves informed the king about the penalty for theft in the law of the Children of Israel, but they did not know beforehand that this situation would befall them. Additionally, it is separately established that testimony is something different from knowledge, it is a mental judgment (speech of the self).
قال عكرمة معناه : لعل الصواع دس في متاعه بالليل ، فإن الغيب اسم لليل على بعض اللغات . والثالث : قال مجاهد والحسن وقتادة : وما كنا نعلم أن ابنك يسرق ، ولو علمنا ذلك ما ذهبنا به إلى الملك وما أعطيناك موثقا من الله في رده إليك
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
Al-Qurtubī conveys different readings (active voice form, passive voice form) related to the reading 'Suriqat' in the verse and notes that this could mean 'being accused/charged with theft.' He also transmits that the expression 'and we testified only to what we knew' indicates that the brothers testified only to the apparent situation they witnessed (the items found in Benjamin's load) and did not know the unseen.
وما شهدنا إلا بما علمنا يريدون ما شهدنا قط إلا بما علمنا وأما الآن فقد شهدنا بالظاهر وما نعلم الغيب
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
Ibn Kathīr transmits different views regarding the meaning of Jacob's sons' statement 'we did not know.' According to Qatada and Ikrimah, this expression indicates that the brothers did not know that their son (Benjamin) would commit theft. According to Abdur-Rahman b. Zayd b. Aslam, they did not know the unseen, meaning they did not know that something belonging to him was stolen; they only asked what the penalty for theft was.
قال قتادة وعكرمة ما علمنا أن ابنك يسرق وقال عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم ما علمنا في الغيب أنه سرق له شيئا إنما سألنا ما جزاء السارق
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to al-Baydāwī, the brothers testified to their father only according to the apparent aspect of the incident, because they were present and witnessed it when the theft was committed, but they could not know the unseen, meaning the reality/inner truth of the matter or what would happen in the future. Furthermore, it is noted that what is meant by the expression 'and ask the city' is not literally asking the city itself, but rather asking the people of that city or the people of the caravan; this is a figurative attribution (the thing attributed to the place belongs to its people).
وما كنا للغيب لباطن الحال. حافظين فلا ندري أنه سرق أو سرق ودس الصواع في رحله، أو وما كنا للعواقب عالمين فلم ندر حين أعطيناك الموثق أنه سيسرق
Comparison
Common ground
All exegetes agree on the point that the brothers' statement means 'we testified only with the apparent evidence we saw (the vessel being in the load), we could not know the unseen/inner truth.' The emphasis that testimony is a limited statement based on knowledge, and that the brothers could not have known beforehand that Benjamin would commit theft, is common. The transmission of names such as Mujahid, Qatada, and Ikrimah as sources of reports is repeated in almost every exegete.
Differences
While Taberî and Ibn Kathīr proceed with a report-focused approach and are satisfied with listing different transmissions (transmission of knowledge of punishment, not knowing the unseen, not knowing about theft); al-Zamakhsharī and al-Qurtubī bring linguistic explanations based on reading differences (Suriqat/Fuila). Al-Rāzī presents the most systematic approach by establishing the distinction between testimony and knowledge in a philosophical/logical framework (speech of the self) and also transmits Ikrimah's interpretation of 'unseen' as 'night.' Al-Baydāwī emphasizes the linguistic/rhetorical aspect by connecting the matter to the concept of figurative attribution.
Historical context
The early period (Taberî, Ibn Kathīr) exhibits a pluralistic stance based on report transmission, whereas in later periods when linguistics and rhetoric developed (al-Zamakhsharī, al-Rāzī, al-Qurtubī, al-Baydāwī), reading differences and linguistic analyses have been treated more systematically. While the basic meaning (testimony limited to apparent knowledge) remains constant from beginning to end, the methods of explanation have become enriched from reports to linguistic/logical analysis.
Modern connection
This comparative reading reminds us that human knowledge is limited, and one should speak only to the extent of what one has seen and witnessed; this points to the importance of acting with sincerity and honesty, making judgments while staying within the limits of our knowledge. In social relations and within families, acting cautiously on matters we do not know, and trying to reach true knowledge before making judgments, can be seen today as a valuable ethical stance. Furthermore, the emphasis on the distinction between knowledge and testimony can make us reflect on the importance of evidence-based speech and that social trust must be founded on knowledge.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar