They said, "We are missing the king's measuring cup"

(They did not say, "You stole it," or "It has been stolen." It is said: The apparent implication is that they should have hurried to deny it and reject the accusation that they were thieves, but they spoke in this manner to complete the claim, for it might contain within it that which would invalidate their case, thus rendering a confrontation unnecessary. They turned away from saying "What have you stolen from us?" to what is in the sublime arrangement, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

The Suwa' (measuring cup) is of the weight of ghurab (crow); it is the vessel of measurement and the Siqayah (drinking cup). He did not use the latter word to emphasize clarification and explicitness; for this reason, he repeated the verb. The use of the future tense is either for what has preceded or for mushakalah (stylistic conformity).

Al-Hasan, Abu Haywah, and Ibn Jubayr read it—as transmitted by Ibn Atiyyah—like the majority, except they vocalized the Sad with a kasra. Abu Hurairah and Mujahid read it as Sa' without the waw, following the pattern fi'l; the alif is a substitute for the fatha on the waw. Abu Raja read it as Suw' with the weight of qaws (bow). Abdullah bin 'Awn bin Abi Artaban read it as Suw' with a damma on the Sad. All of these are linguistic variants of the Sa', which is treated as both masculine and feminine, although Abu Ubaidah did not record the feminine usage.

Al-Hasan and Ibn Jubayr, as reported by the author of al-Lawami', read Suwag with a dotted ghayn, also following the weight of ghurab. Yahya bin Ya'mar read it similarly, but deleted the alif and made the waw quiescent. Zayd bin Ali read Suwgh as a verbal noun derived from sagha yasughu (to fashion/mold), intending the passive meaning. Likewise, the intended meaning of Suwag and Suwgh in the two readings is: "We are missing the king’s molded vessel."

"And for him who produces it" (meaning, brings it, absolutely, even if from his own possession). It is said: "The one who points to the thief and exposes him."

"Shall be a camel's load" (that is, of grain, as a reward for him). Hamlu (with a kasra on the ha') is used for what is separated, and hamlu (with a fatha on the ha') is used for what is attached, as stated in Majma' al-Bayan. It is as if he alluded to what al-Raghib mentioned: that haml with a fatha is used for burdens carried internally, like the fetus in the womb, water in the clouds, and fruit on the tree.

"And I am a Za'im (guarantor) for it," meaning a surety who will deliver it to him. This is the statement of the crier. This has been used as evidence, as in al-Hidayah and its commentaries, for the permissibility of making a guarantee conditional, because the crier made the commitment to guarantee conditional upon a cause of obligation—namely, the arrival with the king’s vessel. Since his calling was by the command of Joseph (peace be upon him), and the law of those before us is a law for us when it is related without denial, this serves as a proof.

Two objections were raised against this: First, what some Shafi'is said: that this verse is to be interpreted as Ju'alah (reward for a task) for what is brought, not as a declaration of Kafalah (guarantee). It is like the statement of one whose slave has fled: "Whoever brings him has ten dirhams." This is not a Kafalah, because Kafalah only occurs when one commits on behalf of another, whereas here he committed on behalf of himself. Second, that the verse is not taken by its apparent meaning because it involves an unknown party being guaranteed for (makful lahu), which invalidates a guarantee.

The response to the first: Za'm is synonymous with Kafalah, and acting upon it whenever possible is mandatory. It is as if the crier’s statement to others was: "The King says: 'Whoever brings it shall have a camel's load, and I am the guarantor for it.'" Thus, he is a guarantor on behalf of the King, not himself, and the reality of Kafalah is fulfilled. The response to the second: The verse mentions two things: the guarantee alongside the reward for the one to whom the guarantee is made, and its attribution to the cause of obligation. The non-permissibility of one does not necessitate the non-permissibility of the other.

In the book al-Ahkam, it is narrated from 'Ata' al-Khurasani that Za'im means Kafil (guarantor). Some people thought this meant a guarantee of a person, but it is not so, because the speaker made the camel’s load a wage for the one who brings the vessel and confirmed it by saying, "And I am a guarantor for it," meaning he made himself responsible for the payment of the wage for returning the vessel. This is a foundational principle for the permissibility of a person saying: "Whoever carries this goods to such-and-such place shall have a dirham," and that it is a valid Ijarah (hiring/contract) even if it is not stipulated with a specific individual. Similarly, Muhammad bin al-Hasan said in al-Siyar al-Kabir: "Perhaps the camel's load was a known amount, so it cannot be said that the contract is invalid unless the wage is known." This is what some researchers have mentioned.

The Imam said: The verse indicates that Kafalah was valid in their law, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ruled by it in his statement, "The guarantor is liable." It is not a guarantee of something unknown, because a camel's load of food was known to them, so the guarantee for it was valid. However, this is a guarantee of property for the return of a stolen item, and it is a guarantee for something not yet obligatory, for it is not permissible for a thief to take anything for returning stolen property.

Perhaps such a guarantee was valid among them. This is countered by the fact that there is no evidence that the one returning it is the one known to be the thief, such that we would need to commit to the validity of that in their religion. The full discussion belongs in its proper place.