Tafsir of Yusuf 12:4

(When Yusuf said...): This is in the accusative case due to an implied verb, "remember" (udhkur), based on its functioning as an adverb of time; mentioning the time is a metonymy for mentioning what occurred within it. The discourse is a commencement of fulfilling what the Glorious One had promised. Makki narrated that the governing factor (‘amil) for "when" (idh) is "the heedless."

Ibn Atiyyah said: It is permissible for the governing factor to be "narrate" (nuqassu), a view also reported from al-Zajjaj, with the meaning: "We narrate to you the situation when..." And idh is for absolute time, stripped of any consideration of the past. There are criticisms regarding both views. Abu Hayyan argued that it remains in its original meaning, and that the governing factor is "said, 'O my father...'," just as one says: "When Zayd stood, Amr stood." However, this is not free from far-fetchedness.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted it to be a substitute (badal) for "the best of stories," on the condition that the latter is considered a direct object, and it would be a substitute of inclusion (badal ishtimal). It was objected that if it were a substitute for the object, the time itself would be "narrated," which makes no sense. The reply given was that the intent is its necessary implication, which is the narration of what Yusuf, peace be upon him, said, for the narration of the time of the speech entails the narration of the speech.

It was countered that this would make it a substitute of part (badal ba‘d) or total (kull), not inclusion. The reply was that the aforementioned necessity only holds if "time" meant "speech"—which is either identical to the narrated thing or a part of it—or if it remained in its meaning and was considered "narrated" in consideration of what it contained. Thus, the objection does not apply.

However, they did not permit the substitution if "the best of stories" is in the accusative case as a verbal noun (masdar). This was reasoned by the invalidity of the meaning in that case and by a linguistic barrier. The first: because what is narrated is the event at that time, not the act of narration. The second: because "the best of narration" is a verbal noun; if the adverb were a substitute, it would—being the intended object—also be a verbal noun, which is permissible as it cannot be interpreted as a verb.

It was objected to this that just as a verbal noun can be an adverb—like "I came to you at the rising of the sun"—an adverb can also be a verbal noun and a cognate object (maf‘ul mutlaq) because it takes the place of the verbal noun, as in the verse: "Your eyes did not close the night of a bleary-eyed man." For they have explicitly stated, as in al-Tashil and its commentaries, that "night" is a cognate object—meaning "the closing of a night." What was mentioned regarding the interpretation as a verb is among the hollow delusions. Yes, if it substitutes for the verbal noun, there is a suspicion regarding it being a substitute of inclusion, which is a different matter entirely. As for the first point, even if the time does not "include" the narration, it includes the narrated object; so why was substitution not permitted through this connection? The response was that such a connection does not validate substitution.

It was reported from al-Radi that inclusion is not like the inclusion of a container by the contained, but rather its being an index for it in summary, demanding it in such a way that the soul, upon hearing the first, remains yearning for the second and awaiting it; then the second comes, clarifying what was summarized in the first. If it is not so, it becomes a substitute of replacement (badal ghalat). Based on this, it is said regarding the invalidity of the substitution: the soul yearns for the mention of the time of the thing, not for the mention of the time of its implication, and the time of the speech is not the time of the narration.

Yusuf is a foreign proper noun, not an Arabic one derived from al-asaf (grief). It is said he was named so because of his father's grief for him, or his own grief for his father, or the grief of those who see him upon parting due to his immense beauty, as has been said. Otherwise, it would have been diptote (munsarif) because it has no property other than being a proper noun. Let no one imagine it also has the weight of a verb, for we have no imperfect verb (mudari') with a damma on the first and third letters. The same is said for Yunus. It was recited with a fatha and a kasra on the sin, based on the common change in foreign names, not because it is an imperfect verb built for the passive or active voice from asafa, as the famous recitation confirms its foreignness. It cannot be both foreign and non-foreign, as stated by more than one scholar.

In al-Sihah, it is stated that if you say "Yagfir," the son of al-Aswad the poet, with a fatha on the ya, it is diptote because it is like "yaqtul." Yunus said: I heard Ru’bah say: "Aswad ibn Ya‘fur" with a damma on the ya, and this is triptote because the resemblance to a verb has been removed. They have explicitly stated that this is the school of Sibawayh, and that al-Akhfash disagreed with him, preventing it from being triptote due to the damma being for following (itba‘). Based on this, it is possible to say it is Arabic, and it is prevented from being triptote—on the recitation of fatha and kasra—due to it being a proper noun and having the weight of a verb. Similarly, on the recitation of damma, based on what al-Akhfash says, it is committed that the third letter is damma following the damma of the first. It was answered that if it were Arabic, there would have been a dispute over it just as there was regarding "Ya‘fur." The obvious view is that its foreignness is established for them, which is why they committed to preventing it from being triptote due to that and being a proper noun, and there is no attention paid to that possibility. Talhah ibn Musarrif recited it as Yu’saf with a hamza and fatha on the sin. Damma and kasra with a hamza have also been mentioned; thus, there are six variants.

To his father (Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim). In the Sahih, it is narrated from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "The noble, son of the noble, son of the noble, son of the noble: Yusuf ibn Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim."

O my father (ya abata): The original is ya abi (O my father), and the ta of the feminine was substituted for the ya because they correspond in that both are letters of augmentation. It is joined to the noun at the end, which is why Ibn Kathir and Ibn ‘Amir changed it to a ha (ya abah) when pausing. The others differed, keeping it a ta when pausing, and it was vocalized with a kasra because it is a substitute for the ya, which is the sister of the kasra. It was vocalized with a vowel that suits its origin, not to indicate the ya, for that would be like combining two substitutes, or the substitute and the original. Al-Zamakhshari made this kasra the kasra of the ya that slipped to the ta because the preceding letter was opened, as the letter preceding the feminine marker must be open. Ibn ‘Amir, Abu Ja‘far, and al-A‘raj recited it with a fatha because its original—the ya—was vocalized with a fatha when it had a vowel. It is said it is because the original was ya abata, where the ya was turned into an alif, then deleted, and its fatha was kept as an indication of it. This was countered by saying that ya abata is weak, like ya abati, to the point that some say it is confined to poetic necessity, as in the verse: "O my father, perhaps you might..."

Al-Farra, Abu ‘Ubaydah, and Abu Hatim said: The alif deleted from ya abata is for nudbah (lamentation). It was answered that the context is not one of nudbah. From Qutrub, it is that the original was ya abatan with tanwin, then it was deleted, and the vocative is a chapter of deletion. This was answered that tanwin is not deleted from an accusative vocative, such as ya dariban rajulan. It was also recited with a damma on the ta, treating it like nouns made feminine by the ta without considering it a substitute. You know that the damma of a genitive vocative is anomalous. It was not given a sukun—even though the ba in its place is a substitute for it—because it is a genuine letter placed in the position of a noun, so vocalizing it is obligatory, like the pronoun of address (kaf al-khitab).

Some claimed that the ya was substituted with a ta because it indicates exaggeration and exaltation, as in ‘allama (highly learned) and nassaba (expert genealogist), and "father" and "mother" are objects of exaltation. On this view, there is no deletion and no substitution. The ta is then a noun, for they have explicitly stated that if a noun consists of one letter and is substituted, it does not lose its status as a noun. The Kufans said: the ta is merely for feminization, and the ya of addition is implied. This is refuted by the fact that ya abati is not heard in standard speech, nor is the fatha on it heard according to what is said. This was countered by the fact that the ta in lat is for feminization according to the majority, as is the ta in rubbat and thammat, and it is open.

I saw (i.e., in a dream, as indicated by the speech of Ibn Abbas and others, and likewise His saying: "Do not relate your vision"). "This" is the interpretation of my vision, for the verbal noun of "saw" when meaning a dream is ru’ya, and when meaning visual sight is ru’yah, according to the famous view. This is why al-Mutanabbi was criticized for his saying: "And your vision is sweeter in the eyes than sleep." al-Suhayli and some linguists held that ru’ya was heard from the Arabs meaning visual sight at night and absolutely. Some used as evidence that "saw" was a dream because if it had happened while awake, it would be a supernatural occurrence, would have become famous, and would have been considered a miracle for Ya‘qub, peace be upon him, or a portent (irhas) for Yusuf, peace be upon him. It was answered that it is possible it occurred in a small amount of time at night while people were heedless. The truth is that it was a dream, and such probability is not worth considering.

Abu Ja‘far recited inni with a fatha on the ya. Eleven planets: They are Jurthan, al-Tariq, al-Dhayyal, Qabis, ‘Amudan, al-Faylaq, al-Musbih, al-Faza‘, Wathab, Dhu al-Katfayn, and al-Darud. It is narrated from Jabir that Sinan the Jew came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and said: "Inform me, O Muhammad, about the stars that Yusuf saw." He remained silent, then Gabriel, peace be upon him, descended and informed him of that. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Will you believe if I inform you?" He said: "Yes." He, peace be upon him, counted what was mentioned. The Jew said: "Yes, by Allah, these are their names!"

Al-Suhayli extracted from al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah similar to this, except he mentioned al-Natuh instead of al-Musbih. A group of exegetes and historians extracted the first report, and al-Hakim authenticated it, saying it is on the conditions of Muslim. Abu Zur‘ah and Ibn al-Jawzi said it is reprehensible and fabricated.

Al-Hasan, Talhah ibn Sulayman, and others recited eleven (ahada ‘ashar) with a sukun on the ‘ayn to avoid consecutive vowels and to show that the two names are made into one. The sun and the moon: A conjunction to what preceded. Some claimed that the waw is for accompaniment, but that is not strong. Specifying them by mention—and not including them in the generality of the planets—is due to their distinction in nobility. Their delaying is because their prostration is more eloquent and higher in status; it is of the category of "this is unknown to so-and-so, let alone the people of his town." The sun is placed before the moon because this is the custom of the Quran when the sun and moon are paired. This is either because it is greater in mass, brighter in light, and more beneficial than the moon, or because its sphere is higher than his and its orbit is simpler than his, as claimed by astronomers and many others. Or it is because it is the source of light. Upon this view—as claimed by more than one—support is sought from His saying: "He it is Who made the sun a radiance and the moon a light." The discourse was presented in this style, and the mention of the number was not omitted, because the primary intent is for the dream to correspond to those who are in its affair, and by leaving out the number, that is missed. I saw them prostrating to me.

I saw them prostrating to me (4): It was argued in al-Bahr that "I saw them" is an emphasis of what preceded, to refresh the memory, as in the saying of the Exalted: "Does he promise you that when you have died and become dust and bones, that you will be brought forth?" Al-Zamakhshari chose that it is a foundation, and that the speech is a response to an implied question, as if Ya‘qub, peace be upon him, said to him when he said, "I saw eleven planets..."—how did you see them?—inquiring about the state of his seeing them. So he said, "I saw them prostrating to me." It is as if he does not see "saw" as a dream-verb that takes two objects like a knowledge-verb, so he must commit to the second object of the first verb being deleted. He sees that it takes one, like the vision-verb, so there is no deletion, and "prostrating" is a state (hal) according to him, as his speech indicates. The famous view among the majority is that it takes two objects and the second is not deleted for brevity. It was permitted that his doctrine is the claim of taking two objects, but that he says it is permissible to delete the second, which they forbade. You know that what was argued in al-Bahr is safe from contradiction, and the theory is something known in the Glorious Book. These conjoined items were treated as rational beings in the pronoun, collecting the attribute to describe them with an attribute of rational beings—I mean prostration—whether the intent is humility or real prostration. Giving something that is related to another in some respects the status of its attributes—to show the effect of the connection and proximity—is common in ancient and modern speech. There is, as it is said, a metaphorical implication (isti‘arah makniyyah) by reinforcing the mentioned items with rational prostrating beings, and the pronoun and the prostration are the cue, or one of them is an imaginary cue and the other is a reinforcement.

A group of philosophers held that the planets are living, speaking beings, and they used this verse and its counterparts as evidence for themselves. Many of the apparent meanings of the Book and Sunnah bear witness to them, and there is no denial of what is from the necessities of religion in saying so. The fronting of the prepositional phrase (jar wa majrur) is to show concern and importance, along with what is implied—as is said—of observing the rhythm of the verses. This dream occurred, as it is said, on the night of Friday. Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Ibn Munabbih that it was the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr). Perhaps there is no contradiction, given the apparent possibility of one night being both the Night of Power and the night of Friday. The difficulty of it being on the Night of Power—that it is a specialty of this nation—was answered by saying that what is a specialty is the doubling of the reward of deeds on that night, to what Allah the Exalted decreed. He was twelve years old when he saw that, according to what is narrated from Wahb.

It is said he was seventeen. He had seen before, while seven years old, that eleven long sticks were planted in the ground in a circular shape, and a small stick jumped upon them until it uprooted them and overcame them. He described that to his father, who said: "Beware of telling this to your brothers." The interpretation of the sticks for eleven is exactly the same as the interpretation for eleven planets, for each of them is an indication of his brothers. There is nothing in the first vision that indicates what the sun and moon indicate in the second. There is no necessity to commit to the view of the two dreams being identical, by saying that he, peace be upon him, saw eleven things in each—except that in the first they were sticks, and in the second planets—and that the conjunction of the sun and moon to what preceded is like the conjunction of Michael and Gabriel to the angels, as suggested by the speech of some. The sun was interpreted as his father and the moon as his mother, in consideration of their place and status. This was narrated from Qatadah. From al-Suddi, the moon is his maternal aunt because his mother, Rachel, had died. The saying that Allah the Exalted revived her afterward to confirm his dream, the state of such a claim is not hidden. From Ibn Jurayj: the sun is his mother and the moon his father, which is a consideration of the feminine and masculine. The sun may be interpreted as the King, gold, or a beautiful wife, and the moon as the Prince, and the planets as leaders, and also as scholars. From Ja‘far al-Sadiq, may Allah be pleased with him, the vision of the moon is interpreted in seventeen ways: a king, a vizier, a king's companion, a leader, a noble, a servant girl, a young man, a false matter, a governor, a corrupt scholar, a revered man, a father, a mother, a wife, a husband, a son, or greatness. Perhaps that is based on the difference in the viewer and the nature of the vision. Some claimed that he, peace be upon him, did not see the planets, the sun, or the moon, but rather saw his brothers and parents, yet he expressed them through that by way of explicit metaphor. This is very contrary to the apparent meaning and almost counts as the talk of a sleeper. The manifest of what many exegetes narrated supports that he, peace be upon him, saw the planets, the sun, and the moon, and they had descended and prostrated to him, and he related that to his father.