In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This third episode of Joseph’s story witnesses yet another trial he has to endure. It is the third and final test of hardship in his life. What comes after this is good fortune which also constitutes a test of his perseverance. The present trial sees him thrown in jail after his innocence has been established. When an innocent person is put in prison, he finds it especially difficult, although he can console himself that he has committed no crime.

During Joseph’s trial we see an aspect of the grace God bestows on him as He gives him knowledge which enables him to interpret dreams and visions, and gives him the ability to explain forthcoming events on the basis of indications he may see.

Then God’s grace is further bestowed on him when he is declared innocent in the presence of the King. His abilities are also recognized, giving him the chance to assume high position, coupled with the King’s trust and wide powers.

“Yet for all the evidence they had seen, they felt it right to put him in jail for a time.” (Verse 35) Such is the type of action taken in palaces. It is the action typical of the aristocracy, despotic regimes and social conditions reflecting a state of ignorance or jāhiliyyah. When all the signs point to Joseph’s innocence, the decision is taken to put him in prison. What a travesty of justice. The Chief Minister’s wife behaves with no sense of shame, throwing a party and inviting women of her class to show them the young man, Joseph. She then declares in public her infatuation with him. They experience the same feelings and so too try to tempt him. Joseph’s only recourse in the face of such tantalizing appeals is to turn to his Lord for protection. His mistress declares, shamelessly, before the other women that he will have to do as he is told or else be thrown in prison where he is sure to be humiliated. His choice is prison, and ultimately this is what occurs.

Despite all this, the decision is made to imprison him. Most probably by this time the woman has despaired of him responding to her attempts. Moreover, it must have become the subject of conversation among the public, and not confined to the aristocracy. It was, therefore, necessary to protect the reputation of high class families. Since the men in these families have been unable to safeguard their own reputation and that of their women, they are certainly able to throw a young man in prison, knowing that he has committed no offence other than not responding to the temptation of an aristocratic woman. After all, it is his resistance of temptation that made her the talk of all classes.

“Two young men went to prison with him.” (Verse 36) We will presently know that they belonged to the King’s private staff.

The sūrah does not dwell on what happened to Joseph in prison, and how he was recognized as a man of integrity and kindness, and that he soon won the trust of all those around him. There must also have been quite a few among them who had had the misfortune to work in the palace or for courtiers, yet had incurred the anger of their masters for one reason or another, and, as a result, were now in jail. All this is omitted. For the sūrah immediately moves on to portray a scene of Joseph, in prison, speaking to two young men who had found him to be a man of wisdom. They related their dreams to him, requesting that he interpret them.

One of them said: I saw myself [in a dream] pressing wine.’ The other said: And I saw myself [in a dream] carrying bread on my head, and birds were eating of it.’ ‘Tell us the meaning of these dreams, for we can see that you are a man of virtue.’ (Verse 36)

Joseph seizes the opportunity to speak to the prisoners about his faith, which is the true faith. The fact that he is in prison does not exempt him from his duty to preach the true faith and to criticize any situation that assigns lordship to human rulers. For submission to such rulers means that they usurp the rights of lordship and become pharaohs.

Joseph starts at the point which preoccupies his fellow prisoners. He reassures them that he will give them the correct interpretation of their dreams because his Lord has given him special knowledge as a result of his dedication in worshipping Him alone and his associating no partners with Him. In this way Joseph makes it clear that he follows the faith of his forefathers who were similarly dedicated. At the very outset then, he wins their trust, stating that he will rightly interpret their dreams. At the same time he also presents his faith in appealing guise.

[Joseph] answered: ‘Your food which is provided for you will not have come to you before I have informed you of the real meaning of [your dreams]. That is part of the knowledge which my Lord has imparted to me. I have left the faith of people who do not believe in God, and who deny the truth of the life to come. I follow the faith of my forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not for us to associate any partners with God. This is part of God’s grace which He has bestowed on us and on all mankind, but most people do not give thanks.’ (Verses 37-38)

The approach Joseph employs is particularly appealing. He is pleasant to listen to, moving from one aspect to the next in a relaxed, easy way. This is characteristic of Joseph throughout the story.

The first part of his statement is emphatic, inspiring confidence that he has divine knowledge whereby he is informed of what is coming and he tells it as he sees it.

This indicates that what he knows is a gift given to him by God for his sincere devotion. Moreover, it is fitting with what was fashionable at the time, since prophesying was a common practice. However, his assertion that it is all taught to him by his Lord is made at the most appropriate moment so as to make them more receptive to his call on them to believe in God.

“I have left the faith of people who do not believe in God, and who deny the truth of the life to come.” (Verse 37) This refers to the people who raised him in Egypt, in the Chief Minister’s home, and to the courtiers and aristocracy who hold sway in society.

Needless to say, the two young men whom he was addressing followed the same religion as the rest of their people. Joseph does not, however, confront them with this fact, but rather speaks about people in general so that they are not embarrassed. This demonstrates Joseph’s delicacy in approaching the subject and his choice of proper method to introduce his faith.

Joseph’s mention of the hereafter at this point confirms, as stated earlier, that belief in the Day of Judgement has always been a fundamental concept of faith, preached by all God’s messengers and prophets right from the beginning of human life. It is false to assume, as teachers of comparative religion do, that it is a recent concept in human faith in general. It may have been introduced at a late stage into pagan religions, but it has always been an essential concept of divine messages.

Joseph continues to outline the distinctive characteristics of false beliefs in order to highlight those of the true faith which he and his forefathers have followed. “I follow the faith of my forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not for us to associate any partners with God.” (Verse 38) It is a faith based on the concept of God’s oneness. Indeed it is part of God’s grace to mankind that they are guided to believe in His oneness. To enjoy this aspect of God’s grace is easy. Mankind have only to decide to accept it and it is theirs, because this belief is ingrained in their nature and in the universe around them. It is also explained in all divine messages. It is only human beings who choose to ignore it and not thank God for it. “This is part of God’s grace which He has bestowed on us and on all mankind, but most people do not give thanks.” (Verse 38)

Joseph’s approach is subtle, taking them carefully step by step before going deep into their hearts to reveal his faith plainly and completely. He couples this with an explanation that the misery they suffer in life is due to the false beliefs which they and their people generally hold. “My two prison companions! Which is better: [to believe] in diverse lords, or to believe in God, the One who holds sway over all that exists? Those you worship instead of Him are nothing but names you and your fathers have invented, and for which God has given no sanction from on high. All judgement rests with God alone. He has ordained that you should worship none but Him. This is the true faith, but most people do not know it.” (Verses 39-40)

In a few clear, lucid and enlightening words, Joseph outlines the main features of the true faith based on the oneness of God. He shakes violently the whole structure of polytheism and the very concept of associating partners with God.

“My two prison companions! Which is better: [to believe] in diverse lords, or to believe in God, the One who holds sway over all that exists?” (Verse 39) Joseph makes them his companions, drawing them close with his affable approach. This facilitates an easy way into the main subject, namely the essence of faith. He does not call on them directly to adopt it, but instead presents it as a subject for objective discussion:

“Which is better: [to believe] in diverse lords, or to believe in God, the One who holds sway over all that exists?” The question makes a direct and strong appeal to human nature which recognizes only one deity. How come that several beings are described as gods when the one who deserves to be Lord and to be worshipped and obeyed in all that He orders is the One who has complete sway over all beings. He is the One whose law must be implemented in life. When God is declared to be One and His absolute power in the universe is recognized, then Lordship must be declared to belong to the One Lord whose power over people’s lives must also be recognized. It should never happen that people who recognize God as One and Almighty, then accept someone else as having power over them, effectively making him a lord beside God. The Lord must be God who has absolute control over the whole universe. Anyone who does not have such power cannot be taken as lord and given power over people’s lives. If he cannot make the universe submit to his will, he must not be the one to whom people submit.

It is infinitely better that people should submit to God and acknowledge Him as their only Lord than that they submit to diverse, ignorant and powerless lords which they invent for themselves. This description applies to all lords other than God. No misery that has ever been suffered by mankind is greater than that caused by acknowledging a multiplicity of lords to each of whom a section of humanity submits. These earthly lords either usurp God’s power and authority directly, or are given such power and authority by ignorant human beings who may be influenced by superstition or legend. It is also true that people can be overpowered or tricked into such submission. These earthly lords cannot rid themselves for a moment of their own selfish desires, or their urge to ensure their own survival and the maintenance of their power and authority. Hence, they seek to destroy all forces and elements that constitute even the slightest threat to their power and authority. They employ all means and mobilize all resources to glorify themselves so that their power continues to be acknowledged by the masses.

God Almighty is in no need of anyone. He does not want anything from His servants other than righteousness and that they work for their own betterment, and to build human life in accordance with the code He has laid down. He then considers all this part of their worship. Even the worship rites He requires them to observe aim at keeping them on the right track, ensuring that they conduct their lives properly.

Indeed He is in no need of any of His servants. “Mankind, it is you who stand in need of God, and God is All Sufficient, Glorious.” (35: 15)

Joseph then takes another step to demonstrate the falsehood of their idolatrous beliefs: “Those you worship instead of Him are nothing but names you and your fathers have invented, and for which God has given no sanction from on high.” (Verse 40) These lords, whether they be human or non-human, spirits, devils, angels or forces of the universe that operate by God’s will are not real lords. Indeed they have nothing of the qualities of lordship. Lordship belongs to God alone, the One who has power over all things, and who creates and controls all. But in all ignorant societies, people invent names and attribute to them qualities and characteristics. The first of these is that of judgement and authority. But God has not given any authority to them, nor has He sanctioned what people invent.

At this point Joseph makes his final and decisive point, making it clear to his interlocutors where all power and judgement lie, and to whom obedience is owed and how it must be acknowledged. Or, in short, to whom worship should be offered:

“All judgement rests with God alone. He has ordained that you should worship none but Him. This is the true faith, but most people do not know it.” (Verse 40)

Judgement and authority belong to no one other than God. It is He who is the Godhead, with authority to legislate and judge. Indeed, sovereignty, belongs to Him, for sovereignty is one of God’s basic attributes. Whoever claims any right to it is indeed disputing God’s power, whether the claimant be an individual, a class, a party, an organization, a community or an international organization representing mankind. Anyone who claims this very basic attribute of God’s for himself disbelieves in God. His disbelief is in the form of denying a part of faith which is essentially and universally known as a fact.

Usurping the rights of sovereignty which belong to God alone does not come in one form only. For a person to claim the basic characteristic of Godhead, which is sovereignty, he need not be so crude as to say, ‘I know no God whom you may worship other than myself,’ or, ‘I am your Lord, the Most High,’ as Pharaoh did. He actually claims these rights disputing God’s authority when he starts to derive laws from any source other than God’s law, declaring that the source of power and authority belongs to some institution or being other than God. Even when that institution is the whole nation or all humanity, the result is the same. In the Islamic system, the nation selects the ruler, giving him the authority to govern in accordance with God’s law. The nation, or the community, is not the source of sovereignty which enacts the law and gives it its power. The source of sovereignty is God. Many are those who confuse the exercise of power and its source. This confusion is found even among Muslim scholars. What we say is that human beings, in their total aggregate, do not have the right of sovereignty. They only implement what God has legislated.

What He has not legislated has no legitimacy. It does not carry God’s sanction.

Joseph (peace be upon him) justifies his statement that all sovereignty belongs to God alone by saying: “All judgement rests with God alone. He has ordained that you should worship none but Him.” (Verse 40) We cannot understand this justification as the Arabs did at the time of the revelation of the Qur’ān unless we understand the meaning of ‘worship’ which can only be offered to God.

The meaning of the verb, `abada, or ‘to worship’ in Arabic is ‘to submit or surrender’. In the early days of Islam it never meant, in Islamic terminology, only ‘to offer worship rituals’. In fact none of the worship rituals was as yet imposed as a duty. So the statement was rather understood in the manner it was meant linguistically, and this later became its Islamic meaning. What it meant then was submission to God alone, and obeying His orders and commands, whether they related to worship rituals, moral directives or legal provisions. To submit to God in all these was the essence of worship which must be addressed to God alone. It could never be addressed to any of His creatures.

When we understand the meaning of worship in this light, we understand why Joseph stated that worship can only be addressed to God as his justification for saying that all judgement and sovereignty belong to Him alone. Submission to God will not become a reality if judgement and sovereignty belong to someone else. This applies to matters where God’s will is done by the laws of nature which God has set in operation in the universe, and to matters where human beings have a choice with regard to their actions and practices. True submission to God applies in both areas.

Once more we say that to dispute God’s right of sovereignty takes the disputant out of the religion of Islam altogether. This is a basic rule of Islam that is essentially known to all. This is because disputing God’s right and authority means a rejection of worshipping Him alone. It is essentially an act of associating partners with God, which means that those who dispute God’s rights of sovereignty are not Muslims at all. The same applies to those who approve their claims and obey them without rejecting, even mentally, their action of usurping God’s right and authority. The claimant and those who obey him are the same in the Islamic view.

Joseph (peace be upon him) states that the true faith is that which assigns all judgement to God alone in implementation of His being the only one to be worshipped. “This is the true faith.” (Verse 40) This is a statement of limitation. No faith can be true unless it gives all sovereignty to God and makes this a practical implementation of worshipping Him alone.

“But most people do not know it.” (Verse 40) The fact that they do not know does not make them followers of the true faith. A person who does not know something cannot believe in it or implement it. If people do not know the essence of faith, it is illogical to say that they follow it. Their ignorance is not an excuse for describing them as Muslims. Rather, their ignorance bars them from that characteristic in the first place. To believe in something presupposes knowing it. That is a basic, logical fact.

In a few clear words Joseph (peace be upon him) outlines his faith completely, showing all its constituent elements and shaking to the core the foundations of disbelief, polytheism and tyranny.

Tyranny cannot take place in any land without its claiming the most essential quality of Godhead, namely His lordship over people’s lives. This is the right to make people submit to its laws and orders, and implement its ideology. Even if it does not say so in words, it actually practises it. Tyranny does not exist unless the true faith has been removed from people’s thoughts and lives. For only when people firmly believe that all sovereignty and judgement belong to God alone, because worship belongs to Him, is there no room left for tyranny in their lives.

At this point Joseph has completed his task of preaching God’s faith to them, having attached it initially to the matter which preoccupied them. He therefore reverts to that point and interprets their dreams for them, so that their trust in what he says is strengthened, and they are more amenable to what he preaches: “My two prison companions! One of you will give his lord wine to drink. The other will be crucified, and the birds will eat from his head.” (Verse 41) He does not point out directly who will be released and who will meet the depressing end as he does not want to confront anyone with bad news. He stresses that he is certain of the knowledge imparted to him by God: “The matter on which you have sought to be enlightened has thus been decided.” (Verse 41) It will only be as God has decreed. There is no escape from it.

Joseph was an innocent prisoner, jailed on the strength of false accusations, without any proper investigation of his case. It may be that the incident of the Chief Minister’s wife and the other women was portrayed to the King in a way that totally misrepresented the facts, as often happens in such cases. It was only natural then that Joseph wanted his case to be put to the King in the hope that he would order that it be looked into properly. Hence, Joseph “said to the one whom he believed would be released: ‘Remember me in the presence of your lord.’“ (Verse 42) He actually asked him to mention his case and situation to the King and to tell him of the truth he had seen in him. He describes him as his lord because he was the ruler to whom he submitted.

The term ‘lord’ here means ‘master, ruler, a person of acknowledged authority and a legislator’. This re-emphasizes the meaning of lordship in Islamic terminology.

At this point, the sūrah leaves out mentioning that the two prisoners’ dreams came true in exactly the manner Joseph described. There is a gap here, as well as an implication that it is sufficient for us to know that all this took place. The prisoner whom Joseph felt would be released was actually released, but he did not act on what Joseph requested. He forgot all the lessons that Joseph had taught him. He forgot to remember his true Lord as he was distracted by the demands of life in the palace after he returned there. Indeed, he forgot all about Joseph: “But Satan caused him to forget to mention Joseph to his lord, and so he remained in prison for several years.” (Verse 42)

The pronoun ‘he’ in the last clause refers to Joseph. God wanted to teach him a lesson so that he would sever all ties in favour of his tie with God Himself. Hence, He did not make the achievement of what he wanted dependent on any human being or on anything relating to a human being. This is an aspect of the honour God gave Joseph. God’s true servants should be totally dedicated to Him. They must leave all decisions concerning their lives to God alone. When human weakness initially makes this impossible, He bestows on them His grace and makes them unable to adopt a different attitude so that they know its blessing. They are then able to accept it out of love and obedience to God. He then gives them more of His blessings and grace.

Now we move into the court with the King asking his courtiers and priests to interpret a disturbing dream he had had: “And the King said: I saw [in a dream] seven fat cows being devoured by seven emaciated ones, and seven green ears of wheat next to seven others dry and withered. Tell me the meaning of my vision, my nobles, if you are able to interpret dreams.’ They replied: ‘This is but a medley of dreams, and we have no deep knowledge of the real meaning of dreams.’” (Verses 43-44)

None could offer a plausible interpretation of the King’s dream. Or they might have felt that it signalled something unpleasant and hence did not wish to put it to the King. This is often the attitude of courtiers and advisors who prefer to deliver to their masters only that which is pleasant. Hence they said that it is all ‘but a medley of dreams.’ They described it as disturbed visions that did not constitute a proper dream. They followed this by saying, “We have no deep knowledge of the real meaning of dreams,” i.e. when they are so blurred and confused.

So far we have mentioned three dream incidents: the first was Joseph’s, the second was those of the two young men in prison and now we have the King’s dream. Each time interpretation was requested. That so much emphasis was placed on dreams tells us something about the atmosphere that prevailed in Egypt and elsewhere.

At this point, Joseph’s prison companion who was released remembered him and how he accurately interpreted his own dream and that of his fellow prisoner. “At that point, the man who had been released from prison suddenly remembered [Joseph] after all that time and said: I will tell you the real meaning of this dream, so give me leave to go.’“ (Verse 45)

He requests leave to go and see the man who was certain to give a true interpretation of the dream no one else dared interpret. The curtains drop here, and when they are raised again we are in the prison looking at Joseph and his former companion asking him to interpret the King’s dream: “‘Joseph, man of truth, tell us of the seven fat cows being devoured by seven emaciated ones, and seven green ears of wheat next to seven others dry and withered, so that I may return to the people [of the court], and that they would come to know.’” (Verse 46)

The man, who is the drink master of the King, calls Joseph a ‘man of truth,’ which is testimony that Joseph always tells the truth according to the man’s own experience with him. “Tell us of the seven fat cows...” Here the man quotes the King’s own words in relating the dream. Since he was asking for an interpretation of the dream, he had to quote the description accurately. The sūrah uses the same words again to indicate the accuracy of the reporting, and to enable the interpretation to immediately follow the statement.

However, what Joseph gives is not a passive interpretation of the dream. Instead it is coupled with advice on how best to cope with the consequences of what is going to happen. “He replied: ‘You shall sow for seven consecutive years.” (Verse 47) These are seven years without a gap when there is a rich harvest. Hence they are depicted in the dream as seven fat cows. “But let the grain you harvest remain in its ear,” (Verse 47)

because that would protect the crop against insects and atmospheric effects that may cause it to decay. “Except for the little which you may eat.” (Verse 47) What you need for eating you may take out of its ear. The rest must be stored for the following seven years of poor harvest which are depicted in the dream as seven emaciated cows.

“Then after that there will come seven hard years,” (Verse 48) when the land produces little or nothing. Hence these hard years “will devour all that you have laid up for them except a little of what you have kept in store.” (Verse 48) It is as if these years are the ones which do the devouring themselves. Their lack of harvest is described here as hunger. And they will eat all except a little which is kept from them.

“Then after that there will come a year of abundant rain, in which the people will be able to press [oil and wine].” (Verse 49) This brings to an end the hard years without harvest.

They are followed by a year of abundance when people will have plenty of water and a plentiful harvest. Their vineyards will yield richly and they will be able to press their wine. They will have plenty of sesame and olives which they will then press into oil.

We note here that this plentiful year is not symbolized in the King’s dream. Joseph mentions it, however, on the basis of the knowledge given to him by God. He gives the happy news of the approach of this year to the man who will transmit it to the King and the people. They will be happier that the seven hard years will be followed by a year of rich harvest.

At this point the sūrah again moves to the next scene, leaving a gap between the one just ending and the one about to begin. What happens during this gap is left for us to imagine. The curtains are then once again raised in the King’s palace. The sūrah leaves out what the man tells of the interpretation of the King’s dream, and what he says about Joseph, his imprisonment and its cause, and his present situation. What we have instead is the effect of all this, embodied in the King’s expressed desire to see him and his order that he should be brought before him.

“The King said: ‘Bring this man before me.’” (Verse 50) Again the sūrah leaves out the details of carrying out the King’s order. We simply find Joseph replying to the King’s emissary. He has spent so long in prison that he is in no hurry to leave until his case has been properly investigated. He wants the truth to be clearly known and his innocence to be declared to all people. All the false accusations hurled at him must be known for what they were: mere lies. He has been looked after by his Lord, and the way he has been brought up gives him reassurance and peace of mind. He is in no hurry until the truth is known.

The impact of the care God has taken of Joseph in bringing him up is clearly seen in the difference between his present attitude and his earlier one. Formerly, he had asked his prison companion to remember him to his master. Now he wants his innocence to be established first. Hence he says to the King’s emissary: “Go back to your lord and ask him about the women who cut their hands.” (Verse 50) The gulf between these two situations is great indeed.

Joseph refused to go to the King until the latter had investigated his case. He specifically mentions the women who cut their hands so that the circumstances leading to this, and what happened later will all be revealed. Moreover, he wanted all this to be done before leaving prison, so that the whole truth be known and without him having to question the women himself. He could afford to do this because he was absolutely certain of his own innocence, reassured that the truth would not be suppressed.

The Qur’ān quotes Joseph using the term, Rabb, or Lord, in its full meaning with regard to himself and to the King’s messenger. The King is the messenger’s lord, because he is his master whom he obeys, while God is Joseph’s Lord whom Joseph obeys and submits to.

The messenger went back to the King and reported Joseph’s reply. The King called in the women and interrogated them. The sūrah leaves this out, allowing us to know its conclusion: “The King asked [the women]: ‘What was the matter with you when you tried to seduce Joseph?” (Verse 51)

The Qur’ānic text uses a term much stronger than that expressed by the phrase, ‘What was the matter with you.’ It is much more like ‘what calamity came over you.’ It appears that the King asked for full information about the matter before he called them in. This the King did so that he would be appraised of the circumstances before he spoke to them. When they are brought before him, his question points an accusing finger, saying that something really serious must have happened: “What was the matter with you when you tried to seduce Joseph?” (Verse 51)

The King’s very question tells us something about what happened on that day at the Chief Minister’s house. We gather something of what the women said to Joseph, or hinted at, trying to tempt him into seduction.

When faced with such an accusation in the presence of the King, the women felt that they could no longer deny the facts: “The women said. God save us! We did not perceive the least evil on his part.” (Verse 51) That is the truth that could not be denied, even by them. Joseph was so innocent that no one could realistically accuse him of any misdeed.

At this point, the woman who loved Joseph and could not rid herself of such love, despite her despair of him ever succumbing to her guile, comes forward to confess all in a very frank statement: “The Chief Minister’s wife said: Now has the truth come to light.

It was I who tried to seduce him. He has indeed told the truth.’“ (Verse 51) It is a full confession admitting her guilt and his commitment to telling the truth.

She goes even further to reveal that she still has a soft spot for him, hoping that she will gain his respect after all that time. There is a further hint that his faith had found its way into her heart and that she believed in it: “From this he will know that I did not betray him behind his back, and that God does not bless with His guidance the schemes of those who betray their trust.”1 (Verse 52)

Her confession and what comes after is described here in highly charged but refined words which tell us much about the feelings behind it. “It was I who tried to seduce him. He has indeed told the truth.” (Verse 51) This is a full testimony of his innocence and his having always said the truth. The woman does not mind what happens to her as a result of her confession. Was it then only the truth that she knew which prompted her to deliver that full confession in the presence of the King and nobles of the state?

The text of the sūrah implies a different motive. It suggests she was keen to win the respect of a man who is full of faith, and who paid no attention to her physical beauty. She now wanted that he respect her for her faith and honesty in giving a true account of his personality in his absence: “From this he will know that I did not betray him behind his back.” (Verse 52) She carries on with a moral statement of the type Joseph loves and appreciates: “God does not bless with His guidance the schemes of those who betray their trust.” (Verse 52)

She even goes a step further to express her new virtuous feelings: “And yet, I am not trying to claim to be free of sin. Indeed man’s soul does incite him to evil, except for those upon whom God has bestowed His mercy. My Lord is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 53) She was a woman in love. She was several years his senior. Her hopes depended largely on a word from him or a feeling of pleasure that she might feel he entertained.

Thus the human element in the story becomes apparently clear. The story is not told as a work of art and literature, but it is given as a lesson which believers may learn. It tackles the question of faith and its advocacy. The artistic style of the sūrah gives a colourful and vivid account of feelings and reactions as it tells of events in an environment where varied influences and circumstances play parts that produce a harmonious effect on the main characters.

Joseph’s imprisonment is over. His life now takes a different course, where the trial is one of ease and comfort, not hardship.

And the King said: ‘Bring him before me. I will choose him for my own.’ And when he had spoken to him, the King said: ‘You shall henceforth be in a position of high standing with us, invested with all trust.’ Joseph replied: ‘Give me charge of the store- houses of the land. I am able to look after them with wisdom.’ Thus did We establish Joseph in the land, free to do what he willed. We bestow Our mercy on whom We will, and We never fail to give their reward to those who do good. But as for those who believe in God and keep away from evil, the reward of the life to come is much better indeed. (Verses 54-57)

The King established Joseph’s innocence. He also learnt how adept Joseph was in the interpretation of dreams, and how wise he was when he requested an investigation of the women’s behaviour. The King also learnt that Joseph was a man of dignity. He did not rush to leave the prison and meet the King of Egypt. He took the stand of an honourable man who had been wrongfully imprisoned. He wanted to prove the falsehood of the accusation even before his release. He wanted to re- establish his integrity and the truth of his faith before seeking any position of favour with the King.

His dignified attitude as a man of integrity and wisdom earned hire the King’s love and respect. Hence, the King ordered: “Bring him before me. I will choose him for my own.” (Verse 54) He does not want him brought before him so that he can release him, or just to know this learned interpreter of dreams, or to grant him audience and tell him that he is pleased with him. He wants him brought to him so that he can choose him for his own and make him a trusted advisor and even a friend.

There are those who are accused of no crime and have full freedom, who shed their dignity at the feet of rulers. They put a leash around their own necks, eagerly seeking a glimpse of satisfaction or a word of praise which keeps them as servants, not trusted advisors. I wish to God that such people would read the Qur’ān and Joseph’s story so that they would know that dignity and honour bring much more profit, even material profit, than can ever be gained through humiliating themselves before rulers and tyrants.

“The King said: ‘Bring him before me. I will choose him for my own.’“ (Verse 54) The text of the sūrah leaves out the details of how the King’s new order was carried out.

Instead, we find ourselves looking at the scene of Joseph and the King: “And when he had spoken to him, the King said: ‘You shall henceforth be in a position of high standing with us, invested with all trust.’“ (Verse 54) When the King speaks to him, he is certain that the impression he has had of him is a true one. Hence he assures him that he has a position with the King himself. He is no longer a Hebrew slave, but a man of high standing. He is no longer the accused, but one who is invested with trust. Such a position of trust and security are also with the King himself. So, what does Joseph say in response?

He does not prostrate himself before the King in a gesture of gratitude as do courtiers who strive to win a tyrant’s pleasure. He does not say to him may you live long and I always be your obedient servant, as those who vie for a tyrant’s favour do.

He only asks to be entrusted with the task he feels himself to be the best to discharge in the forthcoming period of hardship and of which he has warned the King by interpreting his dream for him. He feels that if he is entrusted with this task he will save the country from ruin and save many lives. He recognized that the situation needed his expert planning, efficiency, honesty and integrity. Hence he said to the King: “Give me charge of the store-houses of the land. I am able to look after them with wisdom.” (Verse 55)

The anticipated years of crisis, preceded by seven years of bumper harvests, required good management, with strict control over agriculture, managing the surplus harvest and ensuring its sound storage so that it did not decay. Joseph mentions the two qualities he possesses which he thinks the task requires: “I am able to look after them with wisdom.” (Verse 55) It should be noted that Joseph did not ask a personal favour from the King. This was not the time to make personal gain. Instead, he asked for that which would help the country and its people. He requests a position of very difficult responsibilities which people would rather steer away from, because it could easily cost them their careers or their lives. Hunger encourages lawlessness. A hungry multitude could easily tear apart those in power at a moment of confusion and trouble.

Nonetheless Joseph’s request appears to violate two principles of the Islamic code.

The first is a request of position, which is not allowed in Islam, as the Prophet says:

“We do not give a position [of government] to anyone who asks for it.” [Related by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.] The second is praising oneself, which runs contrary to the Qur’ānic instruction: “Do not pretend to purity.” (53: 32) However, such rules were established by the Islamic system laid down at the time of the Prophet Muĥammad (peace be upon him). Hence they did not apply during Joseph’s time. Besides, this is only a matter of organization and administration, and such matters are not necessarily the same in all messages sent by God, and they do not apply equally to all communities that accept divine guidance.

Valid as this defence of Joseph’s request is, we do not wish to rely on it. The matter is far too serious to rest on such an argument. In fact it is based on different considerations which need to be properly outlined so that we can fully understand the method of deduction and construction on the basis of established statements in the Qur’ān and Ĥadīth. We will be able then to appreciate the dynamic nature of Islamic jurisprudence, which is totally different from the stale situation which appears to have remained with scholars upheld over generations of inactivity.

Islamic jurisprudence was not born in a vacuum, nor can it function in one. It was born when an Islamic community came into existence. It thus began to answer the needs of that community to ensure that its life was in line with Islamic principles and values. The Islamic community was not the product of Islamic jurisprudence; in fact it is the other way round: the legal code came into being so that it might fulfil the needs of the Islamic community as it began to live and function. Both facts are of great importance, for they provide us with insight into the dynamic nature of Islamic jurisprudence and its provisions.

If we were to take statements and rulings deduced from them without reference to these two facts, or to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the revelation of the statement or the deduction of the rulings, and without understanding the social environment when they were deduced and the needs they tried to meet, we would betray a lack of understanding of the nature of Islam and its jurisprudence. A dynamic jurisprudence is essentially different from an academic legal theory, although the two may be based on the same original statements. Dynamic jurisprudence takes into consideration the practical situation which prevailed at the time of the revelation of the texts and the time when the rulings were deduced and formulated. It considers the practical situation to be inseparable from the statements and rulings. If we separate the two, we place ourselves in an unbalanced situation.

This means that there is no single ruling which may be viewed in isolation of the social environment and circumstances that prevailed at the time when it was deduced. Let us cite here the example relevant to our discussion, namely, recommending oneself for public office. The rule we have is that this is forbidden, on account of the Qur’ānic statement, “Do not pretend to purity,” and the ĥadīth which states: “We do not give a position [of government] to anyone who asks for it.

This rule was formulated in an Islamic community so that it could be implemented by that community, because it serves its purposes and fits with its historical requirements and general nature. It is an Islamic rule for an Islamic community. It is not a theoretical rule for an idealistic situation. Hence, it produces its beneficial effects only when it is implemented in a community that is Islamic in origin, make-up and commitment. Any community that does not meet these criteria is merely a vacuum, in as much as this rule is concerned. It is not a fitting environment for its implementation. This applies to all provisions of the Islamic legal code, but we are speaking in detail here only about this particular rule because it is the one related to the text of the sūrah we are discussing.

We need now to understand why people in Islamic society must not speak about their own good qualities, and why they must not nominate themselves for positions of government. Why are they not allowed to organize an election campaign so that they can be voted into parliament, or to a leadership position? The answer is that in Islamic society people do not need any of this in order to show their suitability for such positions. Moreover, such positions in society are really a heavy burden which does not tempt anyone to seek them, except for reward from God should one be able to discharge heavy responsibilities properly, for the general interest of the community. This means that positions of government are only sought by people who have some purpose of their own which they wish to accomplish by holding office.

Such people must not be given such positions. But this fact cannot be properly understood until we have understood the true nature of the Muslim community and its make-up.

Movement is the constituent element of Islamic society, and this is what gives birth to it. Initially, the faith comes from its divine source, conveyed by God’s Messenger in word and deed. In later generations, it is represented by advocates of the divine faith. Some people will respond to this advocacy, and they are met with resistance, and subjected to persecution by tyrannical regimes implementing different forms of Jāhiliyyah. Some may succumb to persecution and turn away from the faith and its advocating movement, while others remain steadfast. Some of the latter may become martyrs, and others continue the struggle until God has judged between them and their opponents. This latter group will be granted victory by God, who makes them a means of fulfilling His will. He fulfils His promise to them of victory and power, so that they can establish the rule of divine faith. The victory is not theirs as a personal gain or reward. It is a victory of their message, so that they establish God’s Lordship of mankind.

This group of people do not limit their faith to a certain piece of land, or to a certain race, nation, colour, language or similarly hollow tie. Their mission is to liberate mankind, the world over, from submission to anyone other than God, and to elevate mankind far above the level of subservience to tyrants, regardless of their type of tyranny.

As this movement goes on, people’s qualities become apparent, and their respective positions are identified on the basis of standards and values that are firmly rooted in this faith and acceptable to all the community. These are values such as dedication to the cause, sacrifice, piety, a high standard of morals, efficiency and ability. All these values are judged by practice, as they become apparent through action and movement. Thus the community comes to recognize those who have them. Such people do not need to make any pretension to excellence, nor do they need to seek a position of government or be elected to parliament on the basis of their own campaigns.

In such a Muslim community, the social make-up is based on the distinction achieved through movement and action to implement the values of faith. That is what happened in the first Muslim community, when distinction was achieved by the early group of the Muhājirīn and the Anşār, by the army in the Battle of Badr, by those who gave the Prophet the pledge to fight till death before the signing of the Treaty of Al-Ĥudaybiyah, and by the ones who fought in different battles for Islam before the victory that regained Makkah for Islam. In subsequent generations, distinction was achieved through dedication to the cause of Islam. In such a community people do not begrudge others their dues, and they do not deny them their positions of honour, even though human weakness may overcome some people who covet personal gains. This means that people do not need to extol their own virtues and seek power for themselves.

Some people may suggest that this quality belongs uniquely to the first Muslim community on the basis of its historical circumstances. They forget, however, that a true Islamic society will have no other foundation or method of existence. It will not come about unless a movement advocates a return to Islam and helps people abandon the jāhiliyyah into which they have sunk. That is the starting point. It will inevitably be followed by a period of hardship and trial, just like the first time. Some of its members will succumb to pressure, while others will remain steadfast. There will be martyrs among them while those who survive will be determined to continue the struggle. They will hate sinking back into jāhiliyyah as much as they hate being thrown into fire. They keep up the struggle until God has judged between them and their opponents, and gives them victory as He did with the first Muslim community.

This means the birth of a new Islamic system in some part of God’s land. At this point, the movement will have travelled from the point of beginning to the point of establishing an Islamic society, and in the meantime it will have sorted out its advocates into different grades based on faith and the standards and values they put into effect. These will not need to nominate themselves for positions of power, because their community, which fought the campaign of jihād with them, will have recognized their abilities and recommended them.

Some may argue that this only applies in the initial period. That it does not extend to the next period when Islamic society is well established and well settled. This notion betrays a complete lack of awareness of the nature of Islam. This faith of Islam will never stop its movement, because its goal is to liberate all mankind throughout the whole world from submission to tyrannical power. This means that the movement will continue and distinction in the movement will remain the criterion for recognizing those who have talent, ability and dedication. It will not stop unless there is a deviation from Islam. The rule that prohibits self-promotion for positions of government will remain operative within its environment, just as when it was first put into effect.

It may also be said that when the community gets larger, people will not know each other and those who have abilities and talents will need to stand up and speak about themselves, seeking position and authority. Again such an argument is fallacious, influenced by the present-day set up. In a Muslim community, the people of every neighbourhood will know one another well, because that is intrinsic to the Muslim community and its qualities. Hence, every locality will know those of them who have talent and ability, and they evaluate these by Islamic standards. It will not be difficult for them to choose those who are dedicated and hard working for the sake of the community to represent them in local councils or in parliament. As for positions of government, the ruler, who is chosen by the whole community on the recommendation of community leaders or parliament, will fill them with people from among those who have already been identified on the basis of their dedication and ability. As we have said, the movement will continue in Islamic society and jihād will continue for the rest of time.

Those who think or write about the Islamic system and its structure today place themselves in a maze, because they try to implement the Islamic system and its rules and values in their present social set-up. Compared with the Islamic system, such a set-up is like a vacuum which provides no room for the implementation of any Islamic rules. There is a fundamental difference in the very make-up of the two types of society. In the Islamic system, people and groups are distinguished through what they do in the process of establishing the Islamic faith in practice and in the struggle against the values and systems of jāhiliyyah. It is their perseverance which enables them to endure pressure, persecution and other hardships that continue until the establishment of an Islamic society in the land. Other societies belong to jāhiliyyah, and they are stagnating, upholding principles and values that have nothing to do with Islam. As such, they are like a vacuum that cannot support the functioning of Islamic principles and values.

Those writers and researchers look for a solution which enables them to advocate the Islamic system and its institutions, and to operate its values and laws. The first thing to trouble them is how the members of the Consultative Council are to be selected if they cannot put their names forward or speak about their own qualities.

How are the right people to be known in communities such as we have today where people do not know each other’s virtues and are not judged by the right standards of honesty, efficiency and integrity? They are also troubled by the method of choosing a head of state. Is he to be chosen by public referendum, or by the Consultative Council? If he is the one who nominates the members of the Consultative Council, how are these to select him in future? Will they not feel indebted to him and wish to return his favour? Besides, if they are the ones to select or elect him, will they not have leverage over him, when he is overall leader? When nominating them, will he not choose only those who are loyal to him? Such questions are endless.

The starting point in this maze is the assumption that our society today is a Muslim one, and that we only need to have the rules and laws ready to implement them, changing nothing of society’s set-up, values and moral principles. When we start at this point, we are in a vacuum, and as we move on further into this vacuum, we will soon feel dizzy as if we are moving through an endless maze.

The present society in which we live is not an Islamic one, and it will not be the one in which the Islamic system and its rules and values will be implemented. They are impossible to implement in such a society because, by nature, they neither start nor operate in a vacuum. Islamic society is composed of individuals and groups that strive and struggle in order to bring it about, facing all the pressures to which they may be subjected by the state of ignorance, or jāhiliyyah, that prevails in other societies. The status and qualities of these individuals come to be recognized during the struggle. Thus the Islamic society is a newborn society that moves along its set course, aiming to liberate mankind, throughout the world from submission to any authority other than God.

Countless other issues are raised along with that of choosing the leader and selecting the Consultative Council. These are all tackled by writers who try to fit Islam to the present society with all its principles, moral values, and various concepts. They preoccupy themselves with questions such as banks and insurance companies and the usurious basis of their work, family planning and similar matters.

In all these, they either respond to questions which people put to them, or they try to look at their status in an Islamic society. But they all begin at the point that leads them into the maze, assuming that fundamental Islamic principles will be implemented in the current social structures that have their un-Islamic basis. They think that when this is done, these societies become Islamic. This is both ludicrous and sad at the same time.

It was not Islamic jurisprudence, with all its codes and rules, that gave birth to Islamic society. It was the other way round. Islamic society faced up to jāhiliyyah and in the process gave birth to Islamic legal codes which were derived from the basic principles of Islam. The reverse can never take place. Islamic laws are not formulated on paper, but in the practical life of the Muslim community. Hence, it is absolutely essential that a Muslim community first comes into existence to provide the environment where Islamic law takes its roots and begins to be implemented.

In such a situation matters are totally different. There may be a need in such a society for banks, insurance companies, a family planning policy, or there may be no need for one or more of these. We cannot predict in advance what that society may or may not need in order to tailor laws to meet these needs. Moreover, the laws we have neither fit nor satisfy the needs of non-Islamic societies, because Islam does not accept these societies in the first place. It does not concern itself with their needs which arise from their own systems, nor does it trouble itself with finding solutions for them.

It is the divine faith that provides the social basis, and it is the responsibility of human beings to adjust their lives to fit it. Such adjustment can only come about through an active movement that aims to establish the basic principle of God’s oneness and His Lordship over mankind, and also to liberate humanity from submission to tyranny. All this comes about through the implementation of God’s law in their lives. Inevitably, such a movement will face resistance and persecution.

The cycle will also continue with some believers weakening and reverting to jāhiliyyah, while others remain steadfast, losing some of their numbers as martyrs while the others persevere until God gives them victory. At this point Islamic society comes into existence, with its advocates having distinguished themselves with its colours and values. Their lives will then have different needs, and the methods to satisfy those needs will also be different from those available in non-Islamic societies.

Deduction and construction of rules will begin to meet the needs of that society, and the legal code that is born then is one that lives in a practical environment that has definite needs.

Suppose that an Islamic society comes into existence. It collects zakāt and distributes it to its rightful beneficiaries; its people deal’ with each other on the basis of mutual compassion and a close, caring relationship within each local community, and within the whole of society. Moreover, people have no room for extravagance and arrogant rivalry in worldly riches, but instead uphold all Islamic values. How are we to tell today whether such a society will ever need insurance companies when it has all these values that ensure common social security? If it needs insurance companies, how are we to know whether the present ones, which operate in un- Islamic society and meet its needs, will fit the insurance needs of such an Islamic society? Similarly, how are we to tell whether an Islamic society that goes through a continuous struggle for God’s cause, i.e. jihād, will ever need to put in place a family planning policy? If we cannot predict the needs of our society when it is based on Islam, because of the great gulf between its values, concerns and aims and those of other societies, why should we waste our time and effort in trying to adapt and modify existing rules in order to fit them to the needs of that society when it comes into existence?

As we have explained, the basic flaw is in taking the present set-up as the starting point and thinking that an exercise of simple self adjustment will bring back the divine faith into practical existence. It is time for the advocates of Islam to think well of their faith and to place it far above a position of mere service to non-Islamic societies and their needs. They have to tell people that they must first declare their acceptance of Islam and willingness to submit to its rule, or in other words, declare their submission to God alone. This means that they are willing to implement Islam fully in their lives, removing all tyranny and acknowledging only God’s Lordship over the whole universe and in human life. When people, or a community of people, respond positively, an Islamic society begins to take root. It then provides the social environment for a practical Islamic code to be born and to prosper, as it provides for meeting the needs of that society in accordance with divine faith. Unless such a society comes into existence, busying ourselves with deducing rules and laws to implement now is an exercise in self-delusion which plants seeds in the air. No Islamic code will be formulated in a vacuum just as no plant will ever grow from seeds planted in the air.

Intellectual research in Islamic jurisprudence may be comfortable, because it involves no risks, but it is not part of Islamic advocacy. In fact it is not a part of Islamic strategy. Those who want to steer away from risk will be better off occupying themselves with literature, art or commerce. Academic study of Islamic jurisprudence on the lines described is in my personal view — and God knows best — a waste of effort and reward. The divine faith does not accept a position of subservience to jāhiliyyah which rebels against its rule and which, at times, ridicules it by requesting Islamic solutions for its own problems when it refuses to submit to God and the Islamic faith.

The method of birth of Islamic society is the same, and it follows the same stages.

A transformation from jāhiliyyah to Islam will never be an easy task, and it will never start with codifying Islamic principles in preparedness for Islamic society whenever it may come into existence. Nor are these codes the ingredient that non-Islamic societies require in order to become Islamic. The difficulty in such a transformation is not due to Islamic laws being inadequate to meet the sophisticated needs of advanced and civilized societies. That is all self-deception. What prevents such societies from becoming Islamic is tyranny that refuses to acknowledge that all sovereignty belongs to God alone. Hence they refuse to acknowledge God’s Lordship over human life and over the whole world. Thus they take themselves out of Islam altogether. That is a part of Islam that is essentially known to all. Moreover, when the masses submit to tyranny, they make the tyrants lords beside God, and they obey them. Thus the masses take themselves away from believing in the oneness of God to polytheism, because acknowledging Lordship as belonging to any beings other than God is to place such beings in the same position as God. That is how jāhiliyyah is established as a human system. It is founded on misconceptions as much as it is founded on material power.

The codification of Islamic law, then, cannot encounter jāhiliyyah with adequate means. What is adequate in encountering it is a movement which calls on society to return to Islam, and which fights jāhiliyyah with all its structure. The normal course will then start, and God will eventually judge between the advocates of Islam and their opponents on the basis of complete and pure justice. Only at that point does the role of Islamic law start, when its rules and provisions have a natural environment in which to be implemented. They are then able to meet the needs of the newly born Islamic society, according to the nature, circumstances and extent of these needs. We cannot predict these and what they will be like. To occupy ourselves now with formulating these is not the sort of serious preoccupation that fits with the nature of the Islamic faith.

This does not mean that the laws that the Qur’ān and the Sunnah mention are not applicable today. It only means that the society in which they are meant to operate is not yet in existence. Hence, their full application waits until that society becomes a reality. However, they must be implemented by every Muslim individual wherever he or she may be living while they work for the establishment of Islamic society.

To understand the nature of the birth of Islamic society according to the method already explained is the starting point in the real work to re-establish Islam in a real society after it has ceased to exist. It was because of the adoption of man-made laws in preference to God’s law over the last two centuries that Islamic society ceased to exist, despite the presence of mosques and minarets, prayers and supplication. All this gives us a false feeling that Islamic society is still alive, when it has rather been uprooted altogether. When Islamic society came into existence the first time, no mosques or worship rituals were available. It was born when people were called upon to believe in God and to worship Him alone, and they responded to that call.

Their worship of Him did not take the form of rituals like prayer, because these had not yet been made obligatory. It was represented in their submission to Him alone.

When these people acquired material power on earth, legislation was given to them.

When they had to meet the practical needs of their life, they were able to deduce codes and legal provisions, in addition to what the Qur’ān and the Sunnah legislate.

That is the proper and only way.

I wish there was an easy way to transform people generally at the first call made to them to accept Islam and explain its laws to them. But this is wishful thinking.

People do not abandon jāhiliyyah or change their submission to tyranny in order to adopt Islam and worship God alone except through the hard and arduous route along which the Islamic message advocates itself. It always starts with an individual, followed by a vanguard group. Then the conflict with non-Islamic society begins, bringing in its wake all sorts of trials and hardships. When the conflict is resolved and God grants victory to the Islamic message and its advocates, Islam is established and people enter into God’s faith in groups. That faith involves a complete way of life, which is the only way acceptable to God: “He who seeks a religion other than self- surrender to God, it will not be accepted from him.” (3: 85)

The above explanation may give us an insight into Joseph’s attitude. He was not living in a society that had submitted all its affairs to God’s law, thereby prohibiting seeking office or requesting a government position. He felt that the circumstances offered him a chance to be in a position of authority, not a position of subservience in jāhiliyyah society. Things turned out as he wished. He was then able to promote his faith in Egypt, while the Chief Minister and the King had their authority substantially curtailed.

Having elaborated the point about Joseph’s request to be in charge of the Kingdom’s store houses, and the issue of seeking government posts in Islamic society, we pick up the thread of the story again. When we consider the text of the sūrah we find that it does not mention the King’s agreement to Joseph’s request. It is as if the request itself implied the King’s approval. This is an even higher honour given to Joseph, and it shows his high standing with the King. He only needed to state his request for it to be answered. This is confirmed by the following verses:

“Thus did We establish Joseph in the land, free to do what he willed. We bestow Our mercy on whom We will, and We never fail to give their reward to those who do good. But as for those who believe in God and keep away from evil, the reward of the life to come is much better indeed.” (Verses 56-57)

Thus the proof of Joseph’s innocence in the way that it was done, and the King’s admiration that he has already won, and the granting of his request, all helped to establish Joseph in the land, giving him a firm and distinguished position.

“Thus did We establish Joseph in the land, free to do what he willed.” (Verse 56) He was free to take up the house he wanted, at the place of his choice, and to occupy the position he wished. That freedom contrasts fully with the well in which he was thrown by his brothers and the prison sentence he had to endure, with all the fears and restrictions of both situations. “We bestow Our mercy on whom We will.” (Verse 56)

We replace hardship with ease, fear with security, fetters with freedom, and humiliation with a high position of honour. “We never fail to give their reward to those who do good.” (Verse 56) Those who demonstrate a strong, unshakeable faith and reliance on God and who deal with other people in fairness and kindness will not fail to have their reward in this life.

“But as for those who believe in God and keep away from evil, the reward of the life to come is much better indeed.” (Verse 57) This is not reduced by the fact that such people receive their reward in this life. Yet it is infinitely better than this present reward. Its conditions are that a person should believe and do righteous deeds, steering away from what God has forbidden whether in public or private. Thus has God replaced Joseph’s trials with his new position of power, and also with the promise of better things to come in the life to come. All this reward is for faith, righteousness and perseverance in the face of difficulty.