Yusuf: (5) He said, "O my dear son..."

"He said: 'O my dear son'—he used the diminutive form out of affection. Grammarians call this the diminutive of endearment, and how graceful is the saying of one of the later poets: 'He has diminished the jewel in his mouth, but it is a diminutive of endearment.' It is also possible that the diminutive is used because of his young age. Hafs reads the 'Ya' with a fathah (ya bunayya), while the others read it with a kasrah (ya bunayya).

The sentence is an initiation based on an implied question, as if it were said: 'What did the father say after hearing this wondrous vision from his son?' It was said: 'He said: "O my dear son, do not relate your vision to your brothers, lest they devise a plot against you."' That is: lest they contrive a great ruse to ruin you, from which you cannot escape, or fear that you might not be able to defend yourself against. He said this to him because he, peace be upon him, knew from his vision that Allah the Exalted would cause him to reach a lofty station of wisdom, choose him for prophethood, and bless him with the honor of both worlds. He feared for him the envy of his brothers and their transgression, so he spoke those words to him as a protection for them from falling into what is not befitting regarding his rights, and to spare him from enduring hardships and suffering sorrows, even though he was confident that they could not alter what the vision indicated, and that He, the Exalted, would surely fulfill it. It was also out of hope that it would be attained without hardship. This is in no way considered the prohibited backbiting.

'Ru'ya' (vision) is the verbal noun derived from 'ra'a' (to see) in the sense of dreaming, denoting what occurs in sleep, whether it is actually seen or not, as is well-known. 'Ru'yah' (sight) is the verbal noun derived from 'ra'a' in the sense of physical sight, denoting a specific act of perception. A distinction is made between the verbal nouns of the two meanings by the two types of ta-marbuta. An analogy for this is 'qurbah' (nearness) for spiritual closeness through worship and the like, and 'qurba' for kinship closeness.

Its reality, according to the People of Sunnah—as Muhyiddin al-Nawawi stated, quoting al-Mazini—is that Allah the Exalted creates beliefs in the heart of the sleeper just as He creates them in the heart of the wakeful. He, the Exalted, creates whatever He wills; neither sleep nor wakefulness hinders Him. He has made those beliefs signs for other matters that He creates subsequently. Furthermore, what serves as a sign for something that brings happiness, He creates without the presence of Satan, and what serves as a sign for something that brings harm, He creates in his presence. The former is called 'ru'ya' and is attributed to Him, the Exalted, as an attribution of honor; the latter is called 'hulm' (dream/nightmare) and is attributed to Satan, as is common in attributing detested things to him, even though everything is from Him, the Exalted. It is in this sense that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'The vision is from Allah the Exalted, and the dream is from Satan.'

In the Sahih, it is reported from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'If one of you sees a vision he loves, it is from Allah the Exalted; so let him praise Allah and speak of it. And if he sees something else that he dislikes, it is from Satan; so let him seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan and from its evil, and let him not mention it to anyone, for it will not harm him.' And it is authentically reported from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'If one of you sees a vision he dislikes, let him spit three times to his left, seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan, and turn from the side he was lying upon.' It is not far-fetched that Allah the Exalted made what was mentioned a cause for safety from the disliked, just as He made charity a cause for averting calamity, even if we do not know the mechanism by which spitting to the left or turning from one's side acts as a cause.

It is also said: Visions are the speech of the angel entrusted with the souls if they are truthful, and the whispering of Satan or the self if they are false. This is attributed to the hadith scholars. One might reconcile these two views by saying that the intent of those who say they are 'beliefs created by Allah in the heart' is that they are beliefs created through the speech of the angel or through the whispering of Satan. According to the majority of Ash'arites, effects are created by Him, the Exalted, alongside the causes, not by the causes themselves. Consider this.

Several philosophers have said: It is the impression of a form descending from the horizon of the imagination to the common sense. A truthful vision only occurs through the soul's connection to the spiritual realm due to the affinity between them when the soul is free from managing the body—even to the slightest degree. It then conceives of the meanings acquired there that befit it. Then, the faculty of imagination simulates this with a suitable form and sends it to the common sense, where it becomes perceived. If the form is highly appropriate to that meaning, such that the only difference is between the universal and the particular, it does not need interpretation; otherwise, it does.

Some of the great Sufis mentioned something close to this: Visions are of the laws of the realm of the 'Bounded Exemplar' called the 'imagination.' It is sometimes influenced by the celestial intellects and the rational souls that perceive universal and particular meanings, thus manifesting forms appropriate to those meanings. It is sometimes influenced by the imaginative powers that perceive only particular meanings, manifesting a form that befits them. This may be due to a poor temperament of the brain, or it may be due to the soul focusing its imaginative power on creating a form—like one who strongly imagines the form of an absent beloved, such that the image appears in his imagination and he perceives it. This is the first stage of divine revelation for those under [Divine] care, because revelation does not occur except through the descent of an angel, and its first descent is into the imaginative realm, then the sensory. It is authentically reported from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: 'The first of the revelation that came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was the truthful vision, and he would not see a vision but that it came like the breaking of the dawn.'

The perceived, as some have said, whether it is in its original form or not, may be by the will of the perceived, or by the will of the perceiver, or by both, or by neither. The first is like the appearance of an angel to a prophet in one of the forms, or the appearance of perfected humans to some righteous people in forms other than their own. The second is like the appearance of a spiritual or human soul when a perfected person summons it to his realm to reveal a meaning whose knowledge is exclusive to it. The third is like the appearance of Gabriel (peace be upon him) to the Prophet (peace be upon him) through the Truth, the Exalted, sending him and causing the Prophet (peace be upon him) to be sent. The fourth is like Zayd seeing the image of 'Amr in a dream without any intention from either of them. The vision of Yusuf (peace be upon him) belongs to this category, as it is evident that if it had been by the intention of his brothers, they would have known it, and the prohibition against relating it would have had no meaning. A sign that it was not by his intent is his saying afterward: 'My Lord has made it a reality.'

This is the case, and what is transmitted from the theologians is that they are false fantasies, which is exceedingly strange after the testimony of the Book and the Sunnah to their truth. Some researchers have addressed this by saying that their intent is that what the sleeper imagines as perception through sight is not [literally] sight, and what he imagines as perception through hearing is not [literally] hearing. Thus, this does not negate the 'truth' of the vision in the sense of it being an indication of certain things, whether that thing itself or something that resembles or simulates it. The discussion on this has passed, so be alert.

The famous view, supported by consistent narrations, is that a truthful vision is one of forty-six parts of prophethood. Some suggest this is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) remained for six months, as indicated by Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), seeing revelation in dreams, then the angel came to him while he was awake. Six months in relation to twenty-three years is one of forty-six parts. Al-Halimi mentioned that revelation came to him, peace and blessings be upon him, in forty-six forms: such as inspiration in the heart, the angel appearing in the form of Dihya (may Allah be pleased with him), and hearing sounds like the ringing of a bell, and so on. That is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said what he said.

Hafiz al-Asqalani mentioned that the status of a truthful vision being a part of prophethood is based solely on its truthfulness, for otherwise, it would be permissible for its bearer to be called a prophet, which is not the case. I have already presented to you that some narrations contain contradictions regarding the number of parts. Perhaps the intent of all of this—as it is said—is to praise the truthful vision and highlight its lofty status, not the specificity of the number or the reality of the division.

Ibn al-Athir said in 'Jami' al-Usul': 'It is narrated by a few that it is one of forty-five parts,' which has a suitable aspect, as his age (peace be upon him) did not complete sixty-three, meaning he passed away in the middle of the sixty-third year. The narration that it is one of forty parts is interpreted as his age (peace be upon him) being sixty, which is a narration for some. It is also narrated that it is one of seventy parts, and I know of no basis for that. And you know that 'seventy' is often used to denote a large quantity, so perhaps that is the explanation, and the intent is to indicate the numerous parts of prophethood. Think on this.

The intended 'brothers' here, as it is said, are those whose calamities and plots are feared: the eleven brothers of the same father, namely Judah, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Zebulun, Issachar, and Dinah—the children of Jacob from Leah, daughter of Laban, who was his cousin—and Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher—his children from his two handmaidens, Zilpah and Bilhah. They are the ones referred to by the 'stars.' As for Benjamin, who was Yusuf's full brother—their mother being Rachel, whom Jacob married after the death of her sister Leah, or during her lifetime, as the combining of two sisters was not forbidden at that time—he is not included in this prohibition, as neither harm nor shame was feared from him, and he was not with them in the vision because he was not with them in the prostration.

This is countered by the fact that the established view is that the sons of the same father were ten, and among them is no one named Dinah. Some mention her in the count of Jacob's children, but say: 'She is Yusuf's sister.' The structure of the statement based on this is clearly corrupt; indeed, she is hardly included among the brothers except by way of generalization, because 'brother' is a collective noun specific to males. Perhaps the preferred view is that 'brothers' includes both those of the same father and mother and those of the same father only, and Benjamin is counted in place of Dinah to complete the eleven, the number of the stars seen. The prohibition against relating the vision to him, even if he were not one whose calamities were feared, is a matter of precaution and blocking the possibility [of trouble]. It is said: 'Every secret that exceeds two, spreads.' It is also maintained that the prostration happened from him like the rest of his family, and attributing the plot to the brothers is by way of the majority, so there is no problem. Thus it is said, and even with its flaws, it is better than what was said: that 'brothers' does not include Benjamin and Dinah because their harm is not feared. They would then be nine, and the count is completed by his father and mother or aunt, and the conjunction of the 'sun and the moon' is like the conjunction of Gabriel and Michael to the 'angels,' containing in that the exaltation of their status.

The verb 'yakidu' (they plot) is in the subjunctive mood due to a hidden 'an' following the prohibition. It is connected with the 'lam' even though it is a verb that usually takes its object directly, as in His saying: 'So plot against me' (fa-kiduni), because it is imbued with the meaning of 'devising a ruse,' as we have pointed out. This is to emphasize the meaning by conveying the sense of both the verb and what it is imbued with. Because the intent is emphasis and the context is one of warnings, he emphasized the verb with the verbal noun and affirmed it with the reason afterward, making the 'lam' redundant, unlike the view that it takes the object directly or with a preposition. It is said: the prepositional phrase relates to the emphasis, meaning 'they will plot a great ruse against you.' And some made the 'lam' for causality, meaning 'they will contrive a firm or hidden plot for your sake and your destruction,' claiming this style is more emphatic than saying 'fa-yakiduka,' as that does not imply that the act itself is the object of the plot. This also involves some opposition to the apparent meaning, so understand.

The majority read 'ru'yaka' (your vision) with a hamza and without imala, while al-Kisa'i read it with imala and without hamza, which is the dialect of the people of Hijaz.

'Indeed, Satan is to man'—that is, to this species—'a manifest enemy.' He is open in his enmity and does not spare any effort in tempting your brothers and stirring up envy in them until he carries them to what is not good, even though they were raised in the house of prophecy. It appears that the people were such that Satan could have a way over them. This is supported by the fact that they were not prophets.

The matter is a subject of dispute. The majority, both predecessors and successors, hold that they were not prophets at all. As for the predecessors, it is not reported from the Companions that any of them said they were prophets, nor is it preserved from any of the Successors. As for the followers of the Successors, it is reported from Ibn Zayd that he said they were prophets, and a small group followed him. As for the successors, the exegetes are divided: some hold the view of Ibn Zayd, like al-Baghawi; some have exaggerated in refuting it, like al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir; some have narrated both views without preferring one, like Ibn al-Jawzi; some did not address the issue but mentioned things that suggest they were not prophets, such as interpreting 'the Tribes' (al-Asbat) as those who were given prophethood from among the Children of Israel, and 'revealed to them' as revealed to their prophets, such as Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi and al-Wahidi. Some did not mention any of that but interpreted 'the Tribes' as the children of Jacob, so people assumed this meant they were prophets, but it is not a textual proof for it, as it is possible he meant by 'the children' his progeny through his direct sons.

Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in a special work on this issue a summary of what the Quran, language, and logic indicate: that the brothers of Yusuf (peace be upon him) were not prophets. There is no report in the Quran, nor from the Prophet (peace be upon him), nor from any of his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that Allah the Exalted made them prophets. Those who argued that they were made prophets did so using His saying in the verses of Al-Baqarah and An-Nisa': 'and the Tribes,' and they interpreted that as the children of Jacob. The truth is that what is meant by them are his descendants, just as they are called 'Children of Israel,' and just as all people are called 'Children of Adam.' His saying, the Exalted: 'And among the people of Moses is a community that guides by the truth and by it they judge' and 'And We divided them into twelve tribes (Asbat) as communities' is explicit that the Asbat are communities from the Children of Israel, and each 'sibt' is a community. They stated that the Asbat of the Children of Israel are like the tribes of the Children of Ishmael. The origin of 'sibt,' as Abu Sa'id al-Darir said, is a single tree, intertwined and with many branches. So there is no meaning in calling the twelve sons 'Asbat' before descendants spread from them.

Therefore, specifying the Asbat in the verse as his sons by direct descent is an error not supported by the wording or the meaning. Anyone who claims it has erred clearly. The truth is also that they were only called 'Asbat' from the time of Moses (peace be upon him), and from then on, prophethood was among them, for no prophet is known before him except Yusuf. What supports this is that when He, the Exalted, mentioned the prophets from the progeny of Ibrahim, He said: 'And among his progeny were David and Solomon...' (the verses), mentioning Yusuf and those with him but not mentioning the Asbat. If the brothers of Yusuf had been made prophets as he was, they would have been mentioned as he was. Furthermore, Allah the Exalted mentioned for the prophets (peace be upon them) praises that befit prophethood, even if it were before it. It came in a hadith: 'The most honorable of people is Yusuf, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Ibrahim—a prophet, the son of a prophet.' If his brothers had been prophets, they would have shared in this honor. When He, the Exalted, related their story and what they did to their brother, He mentioned their confession of sin and their seeking forgiveness from their father, but He did not mention of their virtue what befits prophethood, even if before it; nor did He mention a prominent repentance for them as He did for those whose sin was less than theirs. He did not mention about any of the prophets, before or after prophethood, that they committed such grave matters as disobedience to parents, severing family ties, enslaving a believer and selling him into a land of disbelief, and clear lying, among other things He recounted about them. Indeed, if there were no other proof of their lack of prophethood than the occurrence of these grave matters from them, it would be enough, for prophets are protected from such things before and after prophethood according to the majority. These are matters that those who have not reached maturity could not bear, so it is not valid to excuse them by saying it happened before maturity, as that would not prevent the later conferral of prophethood.

Moreover, historians mentioned that the brothers of Yusuf all died in Egypt, and he also died there but requested to be transported to the Levant, so Moses (peace be upon him) transported him. It is not mentioned in the Quran that a prophet came to the people of Egypt before Moses other than Yusuf, and if there had been a prophet among them, he would have been mentioned. This is less significant in terms of proof than what came before it, as is not hidden.

The conclusion is that the error in claiming their prophethood only came from the assumption that they are the 'Asbat,' but it is not so. The Asbat are a great community. If 'Asbat' meant the sons of Jacob, He, the Exalted, would have said: 'Jacob and his sons,' for that is clearer and more concise. However, He, the Exalted, expressed it that way to indicate that prophethood was obtained in them from the time they were divided into tribes starting from the time of Moses (peace be upon him). So keep this in mind."