Tafsir of Yusuf 12:81

"Return to your father and say to him, 'O our father, your son has stolen.'"

The apparent interpretation is that this statement is a continuation of the speech of their eldest brother. It has been said that it is the speech of Joseph, peace be upon him, but there is far-fetchedness in this. It is also apparent that they meant he had stolen in reality.

"And we did not testify except to what we knew," regarding his theft, and we witnessed it when the King's measuring cup was extracted from his pack.

"And we were not guardians of the unseen."

"We did not know that he would steal when we gave you the covenant," or "We did not know that you would be afflicted by him as you were afflicted by Joseph." Al-Dahhak read it as sariq (as an active participle). Ibn Abbas, Abu Razin, and Al-Kisa'i, in one narration, read it as suriqa (with a shadda on the ra, in the passive voice), meaning "he was accused of theft." Thus, the meaning of "and we did not testify..." is "we did not testify except to the extent of what we knew regarding the accusation of theft, and we were not guardians of that which is hidden," as to whether he stole it genuinely or whether the cup was slipped into his pack without his knowledge. This reading has been considered excellent because it contains a sense of exoneration, as they have stated.

However, the apparent truth is that the claim of having attained certainty from the extraction of the cup from his pack is something invalid. How could it necessitate certainty when the possibility exists that it was slipped in without his knowledge? Is the mere presence of an object in the possession of the accused, after his denial, deemed a necessary proof of theft according to their law?

It has been said that a clear presumption stands in the place of knowledge; do you not see that testimony is permitted based on presumption (istishab) and is referred to as "knowledge," as in His saying: "If you know them to be believers"? They were only certain of this because the opposing possibilities were distant in their estimation. When the ruling of theft—and likewise their knowledge—is based on what they witnessed of the outward circumstance, the two readings become unified, and "and we were not..." is interpreted as it was interpreted in the latter reading.

It is said that the meaning of "and we did not testify..." is "our testimony in our lifetime has never been about anything except what we knew, and this is not a testimony from us, but merely an account of your son’s action according to their claim." Regarding "and we were not..."—it is as it is. This is also an approach suggesting they were not certain.

However, in Al-Kashf, it is said that what is supported by refined intuition is that they were certain, and their statement "If he steals, a brother of his has stolen before" was a preamble. The claim of knowledge does not necessitate actual knowledge. If it was due to the remoteness of the opposing possibilities, it would not be a forbidden lie; otherwise, it is at most a lie in the claim of having knowledge, and it is not the first of their lies, for they had lied before. This is why their father betrayed their trust in this instance as well. Furthermore, their saying, "His recompense is [for] whoever is found in his pack," emphasized with that level of confirmation, indicates that they treated the finding in the pack as decisive. Otherwise, they ought to have said, "His recompense is whoever is found in his pack acting transgressively or as a thief," and the like. If we allow for their decisiveness there, why not allow for it here?

There is in this an opposition to some of what we hold, as well as to what we mentioned in the interpretation of "His recompense..." but perhaps the matter in this is of little consequence.

Among the strange interpretations is that the meaning of their saying "to the unseen" refers to the "night," as it bears this meaning in the language of Himyar. It is as if they said, "We did not testify except to what we knew of his outward state, and we were not guardians of the night," meaning we do not know what occurs during it; perhaps he stole during it or it was slipped into his pack, and we do not know. What is the call for this obscure interpretation when the morning of the famous meaning shines so brightly?

In any case, the lam in "for the unseen" is for reinforcement, and the intended meaning is "guardians of the unseen."