Tafsir of Yusuf 12:17

(They said, "O our father, indeed we went racing")—that is, competing in foot races, as narrated by al-Suddi, or competing in archery, as al-Zajjaj stated, or engaged in tasks we divided among ourselves, such as watering, grazing, and gathering firewood, or hunting and capturing game, as has been said. What al-Zajjaj said is supported by the recitation of Abdullah: "Indeed, we went to compete in archery (nantadil)." An objection was raised against the first interpretation: how was it permissible for them to race, as it is a childish activity devoid of benefit? It was answered by denying this; its benefit lies in training for running to fight the enemy or to ward off a wolf, for example. In sum, (nastabiqu) means "we were racing." Sometimes the forms ifti'al and tafa'ul share the same meaning, such as intidal (competing in archery) and tanadul (competing in archery), and their equivalents.

("And we left Joseph by our belongings")—meaning what they enjoyed and utilized of clothing, provisions, and other items. ("And the wolf ate him")—immediately following that, without the passage of time usually required for checking and safeguarding. Since belongings are typically not left anywhere except in a place where one is secure from harm, leaving him—peace be upon him—with them was not considered a matter of negligence or an abandonment of the obligatory preservation, especially since they did not go far from him. It is as if they were saying: "We did not fall short in protecting him, nor were we heedless of watching over him; rather, we left him in a place of safety, in a gathering place within our sight, and we were only separated from him for a short time, with only a small distance between us and him, yet what happened, happened." This is what the Shaykh al-Islam stated.

It is apparent that they intended nothing other than that the wolf ate Joseph, and they did not intend any insinuation by it. Therefore, the claim that they were insinuating that the wolf ate the belongings is not to be heeded, as it involves departing from the obvious path without cause.

("And you are not a believer to us")—that is, you are not one who believes us in this statement, ("even if we were")—in your estimation and belief—("truthful")—that is, described as truthful and trustworthy due to your excessive love for him. So how could it be otherwise, when you have a poor opinion of us and do not trust our word?

It has been said that this interpretation is necessary; for if the meaning were "even if we were truthful" in reality, its implication would be, "How then [would you believe us] if we were lying about it?" This would require them to confess their lying regarding it. It has already been established that the intent in such contexts is to confirm the previous ruling in any case; thus, it is as if it were said here: "And you are not a believer to us" in any circumstances. So, remember and reflect.