Tafsir of Yusuf 12:44

(They said) is a discursive resumption, as if it were asked: "What did the dignitaries say to the King when he told them that?" It is said: They said, "It is a confused medley of dreams."

Adghath (confused medleys) is the plural of dighth, which is less than a bundle and more than a handful of mixed plants. It is sometimes used for things of the same type, as in the saying: "A woman whose bed was laid with adghath (bundles) of sweet basil on a north-wind morning." Included in this usage is the verse: "Take in your hand a dighth (bundle/bunch) and strike with it," for it has been narrated that Job—peace be upon him—took a bunch of palm stalks and struck with it.

In al-Kashshaf, it states that "the confused medleys of dreams" are their mixtures, absurdities, and whatever arises from self-talk or the whisperings of Satan. The word has been metaphorically applied to this, though its origin is what is gathered of mixed plants and bundled together. Its genitive construction (idhafah) is according to the meaning of "from" (min), i.e., "a collection [of things] from dreams."

An objection has been raised against this: if adghath is used metaphorically for false dreams, and "dreams" (ahlam) are already mentioned, and the implied pronoun "it" (hiya) refers to a specific vision, then both the vehicle and the tenor have been mentioned. According to the two correct opinions among scholars, this prevents metaphor. Many have answered this with arguments that are not free from contention, and some researchers have posited two points in explaining this:

The First: That the intent is that the reality of adghath is a mixture of plants, to which mixtures and absurdities in general are likened—whether dreams or otherwise. This is supported by the Sahah and al-Asas, which state: "He daghatha (mixed) the speech, i.e., he jumbled it." Then, through the genitive construction, specific absurdities were intended. Thus, the two poles of the metaphor are "plant mixtures" and "concocted absurdities"; "dreams" and "the King's vision" are external to these, so their mention does not cause harm—similar to saying "I saw the Lion of Quraish," where it acts as a contextual indicator or abstraction. The phrase "their mixtures" is an explanation after specification, and "it has been metaphorically used for that" refers to the mixtures.

The Second: That adghath is used metaphorically for the mixtures occurring within a single dream; thus, they are its parts, not the thing itself. The vehicle is the bundle of plants, and the tenor is the parts of the dream. This is like metaphorizing "rose" for the cheek and then saying, "I smelled the rose of Hind"; it is not said that both sides were mentioned there. There is no doubt, however, about the artificiality and deviation from the apparent meaning in this.

Some have suggested that "confused medley of dreams" belongs to the category of lujain al-ma' (the silver of water [referring to the water itself]). It is clear that this is safe from the objection raised against al-Zamakhshari; however, the author of al-Asas explicitly stated that this is a trope (majaz), and what is understood from it is the conventional trope, which is not applied to what he mentioned. Perhaps the matter here is simple.

Ahlam is the plural of hulm (with a damma or two dammas), meaning false dreams, as stipulated by a group. Others have said: "Vision" (ru’ya) and "dream" (hulm) both signify what a sleeper sees in general, but "vision" has become dominant for what he sees of good and beautiful things, while "dream" has become dominant for the opposite. In the Hadith: "The ru’ya is from Allah the Exalted, and the hulm is from Satan."

Al-Turabashti said: "Among the Arabs, hulm is used in the same way as ru’ya. The distinction is a convention established by the Lawgiver—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to separate truth from falsehood. It is as if he disliked calling what is from Allah and what is from Satan by the same name. He made 'vision' an expression for the righteous portion, because of its indication of seeing the thing through sight and insight, and he made 'dream' an expression for what is from Satan, because the root of the word was not used except for what is imagined to the dreamer in his sleep regarding the fulfillment of desires with that which has no reality." This is a sound statement. What supports his claim that hulm is used by the Arabs as ru’ya is the aforementioned verse cited by al-Mubarrad. They used the plural adghath (confused medleys), even though the vision was only one, to exaggerate the description of its invalidity. This is like saying, "Such-and-such rides horses and wears silk turbans," for someone who only rides one horse and owns one turban.

In al-Fara'id, it is stated: Since "confused medley of dreams" is used metaphorically for what was mentioned—its mixtures and absurdities—and these are realized in a single vision insofar as it is composed of things each of which is a dream, it is therefore "dreams." Al-Shihab said: "This is weak, even if al-Allamah al-Tayyibi approved of it." Indeed, this is not a case of applying the plural to the singular, as it exists in this genus—since the genitive construction is in the sense of "from." He then quoted al-Radi, who said in his commentary on al-Shafiyah that the plural of paucity is not primary in pluralization, because it is only mentioned where one wishes to denote paucity; it is not used for mere plurality or genus as the plural of multitude is. It is said: "Such-and-such has good thiyab (garments)," in the sense of a good garment, but "good thawb" is not good [in this context]. And "How many thawb do you have?" or "How many thiyab?" [is correct], but "How many athwab?" is not good. Then he said: "The Sharif mentioned this in the commentary on al-Miftah, and it contradicts what they mentioned here, so contemplate it." Perhaps what was mentioned, once accepted, applies only to a plural of paucity that has a plural of multitude alongside it, as in the example, and not to this case where there is no plural of multitude. For we have not found in the books of language a plural for the singular of this plural other than this plural itself. Many have mentioned that if a plural of paucity has no plural of multitude with it, it is used as a plural of multitude. There is no doubt about the beauty of the placement of adghath (medleys) alongside sanabil (ears of corn). May Allah grant success to the station of revelation; how wonderful are the gardens of its eloquence!

(And we are not aware of the interpretation of dreams), i.e., false visions. (Because they have no interpretation; interpretation belongs only to truthful dreams.) This is either because ahlam (dreams) is commonly associated with absurdities, or because the definite article (al) is for naming the known, and what is known of them is the "confused medleys." The speech is constructed in a style of: On a path whose beacon is not guided by. It is a reference to a major premise of a syllogism they presented as an excuse for their ignorance, as if they said: "This is a false vision, and every vision of this kind, we do not know its interpretation"—meaning it has no interpretation for us to know. The result is: "This is a vision that has no interpretation."

It is permissible that "dreams" here means visions in general, with the article denoting the genus. The statement is an admission of the limitation of their knowledge and that they are not experts in the interpretation of visions, even though they have an interpretation. Ibn al-Munir chose this and claimed it is the apparent meaning. He argued that the King’s saying to them, "If you are interpreting visions," is evidence that he did not know them to be knowledgeable in it, as he used a word of doubt. Thus, their admission of deficiency corresponds to the King’s doubt, which he phrased as an interrogation of their knowledge. The youth’s statement, "I will inform you of its interpretation," up to "that I may return to the people, that they may know," is also evidence of this.

Some researchers mentioned that it is felt from their turning away from the expression used in the King’s speech—which expresses mere movement from the signifier to the signified—as they did not say "interpretation of dreams" or "their expression," but rather "interpretation" (ta'wil), which implies dealing and effort due to the distance between the signifier (ayil) and the signified (ma'al). It was objected that, according to this, their saying "confused medleys of dreams" remains wasted, as it has no role in the excuse. It was answered that it is possible the intended purpose was to remove the King's fear of that vision, so it does not remain wasted.

The author of al-Kashf said: The way to resolve this is to make the first a self-standing answer and the second likewise, meaning: "Here there are two matters: one from the side of the dreamer and one from the side of the interpreter." The way of predicating the prepositional phrase to its operative verb is: "We are people of opinions and strategies, and our knowledge in that is solid, not in the interpretation of visions." Its resolution regarding the first [option] is clear, and he claimed the context matches it and its arrival in that style is not a weakness, contrary to what is in al-Intisaf. It becomes stronger when choosing the second viewpoint if the address is to his attendees and members of his council of resolution and contract, because the most common state for people like them is ignorance of such a science, which is only known by the elite among men.