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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.