Tafsir of Yusuf 12:76

(فَبَدَأَ بِأَوْعِيَتِهِمْ) i.e., by searching the vessels of the ten brothers. This is supported by the dialogue of Joseph, peace be upon him, for it ostensibly necessitates that what was mentioned occurred after they were brought back to him. It is not hidden that the attribution of the search to him, peace be upon him, is figurative; the searchers in reality were his companions by his command. (قَبْلَ) the search of (وِعَاءِ أَخِيهِ) Benjamin, to dispel the accusation.

It is narrated that when the turn reached his vessel, he said, "I do not think he has taken anything." They said, "By Allah, you shall not leave him until you look into his baggage, for that is better for your peace of mind and ours." He did so. (ثُمَّ اسْتَخْرَجَهَا) i.e., the drinking cup or the measure—because, as you know among the scholars, it is both feminine and masculine. It is also said that the pronoun refers to the "theft" implied by the speech, i.e., then he extracted the theft (مِنْ وِعَاءِ أَخِيهِ). He did not say "from it" [referring back to the vessel] or "from his vessel" [referring back to the brother] in order to emphasize clarity and explanation. The wi'a (vessel) is the container in which a thing is kept, and it seems the intent here includes what encompasses the rahl (baggage) and otherwise, because it is the most appropriate for the context of a search. Thus, he did not use the word rihal (baggages), according to what is said. According to this, he, peace be upon him, searched everything that could possibly hold the measure that was with them, from baggage and otherwise.

Regarding their statement: "The opposition of a plural to a plural requires the division of units by units," as the scholar Abu al-Qasim al-Samarqandi stated, it does not necessitate that in every opposition the one must correspond to the one. For the division of units by units, just as it may be equal—as in "the people rode their beasts"—it may also be unequal—as in "the people sold their beasts," for it is understood along with that that each of them sold their own beast. A warning regarding this has passed previously. Thus, it is possible that "from the vessel of his brother" refers to either the singular or the plural.

Al-Hasan recited wu'a' with a damma on the waw, and it is also reported from Nafi'. Ibn Jubayr recited i'a' by substituting the kasrah-bearing waw with a hamza, just as they say ishah for wishah and isadah for wisadah. The turning of a kasrah-bearing waw at the beginning of a word into a hamza is consistent in the dialect of Hudhayl.

(كَذَلِكَ) i.e., like that wondrous plot, which is the guiding of the brothers to the aforementioned legal ruling by having them utter it themselves and compelling them toward it by means of those who asked for the ruling, from where they did not anticipate. (كِدْنَا لِيُوسُفَ) i.e., We fashioned and planned for the sake of attaining his objective through the preliminaries he arranged, such as planting the drinking cup and what follows it. So, "plot" is a linguistic metaphor for that. Otherwise, the reality of it—that you make another imagine the opposite of what you hide and desire—is, according to their [the scholars'] statements, impossible for Him, the Exalted. It is said that this is to be taken as a representation. It is also said that the plot has two attributions: in meaning to Joseph, peace be upon him, and in explicit wording to Him, the Exalted. The first is real and the second is metaphorical, and the meaning is "We performed the plot of Joseph," but that is not strong. In Durar al-Murtada, it is stated that "We plotted" means "We willed," and it is cited: He plotted and I plotted, and that is the best of wills, If only the past of the lover's passion would return. The lam is for benefit, not like the lam in His saying: (فَيَكِيدُوا لَكَ كَيْدًا), for that is for harm, as is the common usage.

(مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِي دِينِ الْمَلِكِ) i.e., in his sultanate, according to what is reported from Ibn Abbas, or in his law and judgment, as is reported from Qatada. The speech is an initiation and a justification for that plot, as if it were said: Why did he do that? It is said: Because he would not have been able to take his brother as a penalty for the presence of the measure with him in the religion of the king regarding the matter of the thief, except through that plot. For the penalty of the thief in his religion—according to what is reported from al-Kalbi and others—is that the compensation is doubled, and in another narration, he is beaten, rather than being seized and enslaved as in the law of Jacob, peace be upon him. Thus, he could not have managed to seize his brother for what was attributed to him of theft in any way at all, (إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ) i.e., except in the state of the will of the Exalted, which is an expression of that plot, or except in the state of His will for the seizure in that manner. It is permitted that the intent of that plot is the aforementioned guidance and its beginnings that led to it, all of them being from the guidance of Joseph, peace be upon him, and his people, to what emanated from them of actions and words as has been explained in order. The matter of the justification is as it is, except that the meaning in this possibility is: "Like that plot which reached this extent, We plotted for Joseph, peace be upon him, and We did not suffice with some of that, because he would not have taken his brother in the religion of the king by it except in the state of Our willing it for him by creating what leads to it." So the apparent penalty ran its course from the complete cause, which is the guiding of his brothers to the aforementioned legal ruling. The limitation derived from the precedence of the prepositional phrase is taken in relation to the part. The same is said in the interpretation of the one who interpreted (كِدْنَا لِيُوسُفَ) by saying: "We taught it to him and inspired it to him," i.e., "Like that teaching that entails what has been explained, We taught him, and not just some of that alone," etc. The exception in any case is from the most general of conditions. It is also permitted that it is from the most general of causes and reasons, i.e., "He would not have taken his brother in the religion of the king for any cause of the causes or reason of the reasons except for the cause of the will of the Exalted." Whatever the case, it is connected, because the seizing of the thief, when he is one who sees that and believes it to be a religion—especially when there is consent and a legal ruling for it—is not contrary to the religion of the king. Therefore, the king and his companions did not dispute him regarding the violation of their religion; rather, they did not consider it a violation.

It is said that the sentence (مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ) is in the position of explaining and interpreting the plot, and that the meaning of the exception is: "Except that Allah, the Exalted, willed to make that judgment the judgment of the king." There is debate regarding this. It is also permitted that the exception is disconnected, i.e., "But he seized him by the will of Allah, the Exalted, and His permission, in a religion other than the religion of the king."

(نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَاتٍ مَنْ نَشَاءُ) i.e., many high ranks of knowledge. Their accusative case is, according to what is narrated from Abu al-Baqa', based on adverbiality, or based on the omission of the preposition, i.e., to ranks. More than one permitted the accusative based on it being the source (masdar). In any case, the object of the verb is His saying, the Exalted: (مَنْ نَشَاءُ), i.e., whom We will to raise according to what wisdom requires and interest demands, just as We raised Joseph, peace be upon him. The preference for the future tense is to signal that this is a continuous tradition, not restricted to this incident. The sentence is an initiation and has no place in grammatical analysis. (وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ) among those raised ones.