Tafsir of Yusuf 12:35

"Then it appeared to them" (meaning: it appeared to the Aziz and his companions who were responsible for resolving and deciding). Perhaps they were content with commanding Joseph (peace be upon him) to remain silent and to turn away from that matter, after having seen the signs that diverted them from that "appearing"—which were the evidences indicating his innocence (peace be upon him) and his purity: the tearing of the shirt and the women cutting their hands. Qatadah limited it to these two in what Ibn Jarir recorded from him, and in this, the plural is used for the dual, which is a minor matter. Mujahid limited it only to the tearing of the shirt, because the cutting of the hands is not, in his view, an evidence indicating innocence. In that case, the plural is used for magnification, or the definite article "al" is for the generic, which negates the meaning of plurality—thus it is said, and it is as you see. Some explained the inclusion of the cutting as an evidence by arguing that his (peace be upon him) beauty, which captivated the women in one sitting and at first sight, indicates her being captivated by him a fortiori, and that the solicitation came from her, not him. Others counted his (peace be upon him) resistance against the women when they invited him to themselves—as the Aziz and his companions had heard of it and were certain of it, to the point that it became as if they had witnessed it—as a manifest indication of his innocence.

Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh recorded from Ikrimah, who said: "I asked Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) about the 'signs,' and he said: 'No one before you has asked me about them.' Among the signs were: the tearing of the shirt, its mark on his body, and the mark of the knife." Thus, he (may Allah be pleased with him) included the mark as one of the signs, which was not mentioned previously. From this, it is said: it is possible that there were signs other than those mentioned, the mention of which was omitted, just as the mention of many of the prophets' miracles (peace be upon them) was omitted.

The agent of "appeared" (bada) is a pronoun that refers either to the bada' (appearing) as a verbal noun of the mentioned verb, or in the sense of an "opinion," as in the saying: "Perhaps an opinion occurred to you regarding those she-camels." Or it refers to the "imprisonment" (al-sijn), with a fathah on the sin, which is understood from His saying: "they should imprison him." The oath clause and its response is either the object of an implied verb that occurred as a circumstantial state from their pronoun—and this is the view of al-Mubarrad—or it is an explanation for the hidden pronoun in "appeared," and thus has no grammatical position.

It is said: The clause "they should imprison him" is the response to "appeared" because it is one of the verbs of the heart, and the Arabs treat them like an oath and receive them with what an oath is received. Some claimed that the content of the clause is the agent of "appeared," as they said regarding His saying: "Has it not become clear to them how many generations We destroyed before them?" and His saying: "And it became clear to you how We dealt with them," that the agent is the content of the clause, meaning the abundance of Our destruction and the manner of Our dealing. The manifest view of Ibn Malik in Sharh al-Tashil is that the agent in this category is the clause, due to its interpretation as a singular, as he said: "It is permissible to assign the agent in this chapter based on interpretation, just as it is in the chapter of the subject/predicate, such as: 'It is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them.'" However, the majority of grammarians do not permit this, as has been established in its proper place.

Al-Mazini chose the first view regarding the agent. It is said: "It appeared to them an appearance" (bada lahum bada') is eloquent, even if "it appeared to them an appearance" (zahara lahum zuhur) is not, because al-bada' has been used in a sense other than the verbal noun, as you have learned. Abu Hayyan chose the latter view, and that it is the pronoun of the "imprisonment" mentioned earlier, according to the reading with a fathah on the sin. The most appropriate view is that it is the pronoun of the imprisonment understood from the clause, meaning: their destined imprisonment of him appeared to them, saying: "By Allah, they will surely imprison him." That "appearing" was due to the woman inciting her husband, his compliance with her, his love for her, and his placing the reins of his affairs in her hands.

It is narrated that when he (peace be upon him) resisted her and she despaired of him, she said to the Aziz: "This Hebrew boy has disgraced me among the people, telling them that I solicited him and he refused, and he describes the matter as he chooses, while I am imprisoned and veiled. So, either you grant me permission to go out and excuse myself to the people and call him a liar, or you imprison him just as I am imprisoned." So he imprisoned him. Ibn Abbas said: "He ordered him (peace be upon him), so he was carried on a donkey, a drum was beaten beside him, and it was proclaimed in the markets of Egypt that Joseph the Hebrew had solicited his mistress, and this is his punishment." Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to weep whenever this was mentioned, as Abu Salih said. She wanted by this to realize her threat so that his character would soften and his resolve would submit to her, after her ropes of hope to bring him to follow her by displaying her beauty herself or through her aides had been severed.

Al-Hasan read it as "latasjununnah" (you shall imprison him) in the form of an address, addressing some of them to the Aziz and those beside him, or addressing the Aziz alone for magnification, or addressing the Aziz and those with him from the advisors who were directly involved in the imprisonment and confinement.

"Until a time." Ibn Abbas said: "Until the speech ends and the obscenity that spread in the city ceases." This is the superficial opinion of the Aziz. As for her opinion, it is until the prison humbles him and makes him subservient to her, and the people believe that he is the criminal. It is said: The "time" here is five years, and it is said: rather, seven. Muqatil said: He (peace be upon him) was imprisoned for twelve years. The best approach is not to be definitive about the duration, but rather to be definitive about it being a "long period." "Time" (al-hin), according to the majority, is a duration of time that is not limited, applicable to both short and long periods. It has been used in other contexts as we mentioned in the explanation of al-Qadiriyyah. Ibn Mas'ud read it as "at'in" by replacing the ha of hatta with an ayn, which is the dialect of Hudhayl. He (may Allah be pleased with him) used to teach it that way until Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to him to teach in the dialect of Quraish, which is "hatta" with the ha.