Tafsir of Yusuf 12:13

(He said: "Indeed, it saddens me that you should take him away") due to the intensity of his separation from me and my lack of patience regarding him. Regarding the lam (emphatic particle) prefixed to the predicate of inna (the particle of emphasis) when it is in the imperfect tense: some have said it restricts it to the present tense, which is the apparent position of Sibawayh. Others hold that it applies to the present and other tenses, and they cite as evidence the Almighty’s saying: "Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection." Still others argue that it is for the present tense if it is free of any contextual indicator, but with one, it applies to other tenses, and they categorized this verse accordingly.

Some have classified it here as present tense, but this raises a difficulty: the "taking away" is in the future, which would necessitate the action preceding its agent, and that is impermissible because the action is the effect of the agent, and the effect cannot be conceived before the cause. It was answered that the estimate is "the intention or expectation that you take him away." Thus, the speech is based on an implied added term, which is the agent; this is not something future, but present. There is no prohibition in this against omitting the agent, as they have clearly stated that such omission is only forbidden if nothing occupies its place, whereas here something has occupied it. It is not mandatory that the occupant be the mudaf ilayh (possessive), as some have thought; rather, if something else occupies the place, the omission is also permissible. From this, the estimate "your intention to take him away" is correct. It is also possible that this is an estimation of meaning rather than an estimation of syntax.

Some have said that the difficulty can be dismissed without the need to estimate an added term by stating that the act of "taking away" saddens him by virtue of his mental conception of it, just as a similar argument was made regarding the final cause. Shihab said: "I believe the argument they made in addressing this difficulty is a fallacy with no basis. The necessity that the agent must exist at the time of the action applies only to the 'real' agent, not the grammatical or linguistic one. For the action may precede the agent, whether the action is present, as in our case, or past. Just as it is valid for an agent in such cases to be something non-existent, as in the saying: 'Whoever is pleased that he should not see what displeases him, let him not take anything for which he fears the loss.' No one has claimed in such an example that it requires interpretation." Indeed, sadness and grief, like joy and happiness, occur regarding a thing before it happens, as Ibn Hilal explicitly stated in his Furuq (Distinctions). There is no need for interpretation, estimation, or treating the mental existence as equal to the external one—if one were to hold such a view—or being satisfied with it, as such a thing is not recognized by the scholars of Arabic or language. If you persist in arguing for it, then let it be a metaphorical attribution to a future event because it is the cause of the present sadness.

You know that they have explicitly stated that the action of the agent—in terms of reform—either resides within the agent or originates from him; the existence of a thing within that which does not yet exist, or its origination from it, is inconceivable. Therefore, interpretation that renders the residence or origination valid in the apparent absence of the thing is mandatory, as it is said. So, reflect upon this.

Ibn Hurmuz and Ibn Muhaysin read it as li-huzni (with idgham - assimilation), and Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with both) also read it this way. He also read tadhhabu bihi (that you take him away) from the quadriliteral adh-haba. Abu Hayyan explained this as an additional ba in bihi, just as some explained tunbitu bil-duhn (causing oil to grow) in the reading where the ta is damma (u) and the ba is kasra (i), meaning: li-huzni an tadh-habuhu (that you should take him).

(And I fear that the wolf may eat him). This is a known animal, and he singled it out because the land, as it is said, was infested with wolves. It is also said it is because the wolf is a weak and lowly beast, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) signaled by his fear of it that his fear of what is more predatory—a fortiori—is greater. Because of the wolf's insignificance, Al-Rabi’ ibn Dabi’ al-Fazari singled it out for fear despite his advanced age, saying: "And the wolf I fear if I pass by it alone, and I fear the winds and the rain." It is said he mentioned it because he saw in a dream that a wolf had attacked him, so he was cautious of it. Perhaps this caution was because the prophets (peace be upon them), due to their complete connection with the realm of the Malakut (heavenly realm), have their visions manifest exactly as they appear; otherwise, a wolf in a dream is interpreted as an enemy.

Some have claimed that he (peace be upon him) used the wolf as a metaphor for one of them, for he was of too high a status to not know which category his dream belonged to; for some dreams require interpretation and others do not, and the perfect one knows the difference. This was countered by saying it is possible that the matter was hidden from him, just as something similar was hidden from his grandfather Abraham (peace be upon him). This is based on what our master Ibn al-Arabi (may his secret be sanctified) mentioned: that Abraham's vision of slaughtering his son was a vision that was interpreted by the slaughter of a ram, but the interpretation was hidden from him. The implications of this are well known. It is mentioned in some reports that he saw in his dream as if he were on a mountain peak, and Joseph were in the valley, and ten wolves had surrounded him, wanting to eat him, and he fended off one, then the earth split and Joseph hid in it for three days. I have found no reliable chain of narration for this dream story, and we have no need to consider it to avoid the difficulty of speaking about it. In short, what occurred from him (peace be upon him) in this statement was like a prompting of the answer without intent, in the manner of His saying, the Almighty: "What has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous?" And trials are attached to speech.

Abu al-Shaykh and others narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Do not prompt people lest they lie; for the sons of Jacob did not know that a wolf eats people, but when their father prompted them, they lied and said: 'The wolf ate him'."

Grief is a pain of the heart for the loss of a beloved, and fear is an agitation of the soul due to the arrival of something disliked. Therefore, he attributed the first to the "taking away," which causes the cessation of his continued company and intimacy with Joseph (peace be upon him), and the second to what is expected to befall him from being eaten by the wolf.

The word dhi'b (wolf) originally contains a hamza (glottal stop); this is the dialect of the Hijaz, and many have read it this way. Al-Kisa'i, Khalaf, Abu Ja'far, Warsh, al-A'sha, and others read it by substituting the hamza with a ya due to its vowelless state and the kasra preceding it; this is the standard rule for such cases. Some have mentioned that Ibn Kathir, Nafi’ (in the narration of Qalun), Abu Amr (when pausing), Ibn Amir, and Hamza (in continuity) articulated the hamza, while they substituted it when pausing. Perhaps this is because, although the meeting of two vowelless letters when pausing is permissible, it is better if the first is a letter of prolongation. Nasr said: "I heard Abu Amr not articulating the hamza," and the apparent meaning is that he intended it absolutely, so the former is one narration and this is another. It is pluralized as adh'ub, dhi'ab, and dhu'ban. According to al-Zamakhshari, its derivation is from tadha'abat al-rih (the wind blew from every direction). Al-Asma'i said: "The derivation of tadha'abat is from al-dhi'b (the wolf), because the wolf does this in its running." It is said: This is more appropriate, and for this reason, tadha'abat al-rih is considered a metaphor in al-Asas. However, it was objected that deriving a verb from non-derived nouns (like ibil - camels) is rare and contrary to the standard rule.

(And you are of him unaware) Due to your preoccupation with grazing and play, or because of your lack of concern for his safety.