Tafsir of Yusuf 12:53

"And I do not acquit my own soul" (meaning: I do not declare it free from evil). He, peace be upon him, said this in order to humble his own soul—which is innocent of all evil—before Allah, the Most High, to avoid self-praise and vanity regarding its state, in the manner of the Prophet’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying: "I am the master of the children of Adam, and there is no boast." Or, it was to recount the favor of Allah the Almighty and to bring to light the mystery He had hidden regarding the nature of human actions. That is: "I do not acquit it in terms of its own intrinsic nature, nor do I attribute this virtue to it by its own inherent disposition without support from Allah, the Glorified and Exalted. Rather, it is entirely through His support and mercy."

It is said that he indicated by this that his [initial] reluctance to leave the prison was not due to a natural inclination [toward the crime], but out of fear of Allah the Almighty.

"Indeed, the soul"—the human soul, of which my soul is a part—"is an inveterate"—that is, frequently—"inciter to evil" (that is, to its genus). The intent is that it is prone to inclining toward desires, employing its powers and faculties to attain them. In many commentaries, it is stated that when he, peace be upon him, said: "So that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence," Gabriel, peace be upon him, said to him: "Not even when you felt the urge?" So he said: "And I do not acquit my own soul," etc. Al-Hakim recorded this in his History and Ibn Mardawayh recorded it with a similar wording on the authority of Anas in a marfu' (elevated) manner; it is also narrated from Ibn Abbas, Hakim bin Jabir, Al-Hasan, and others. If this is authentic, the "urge" (hamm) referred to is that which arises from human desire, not from firm resolution or intent.

Others have said there is no barrier to interpreting it as the latter, arguing that it refers to a minor sin, which is permissible for Prophets—peace be upon them—before their prophethood, and one must accept that he, peace be upon him, was not yet a Prophet at that time. Al-Zamakhshari classified such interpretations—and those similar to them—as the fabrications of the purveyors of falsehood and their calumny against Allah and His Messenger. Ibn al-Munir, who is the most worthy of such assessments, approved of this and alluded to the Mu’tazila by saying: "That is the habit of the purveyors of falsehood from every sect."

"Except those upon whom my Lord has mercy." Ibn Atiyyah stated: The majority hold that this is a munqati’ (disconnected) exception, and 'ma' is a masdariyyah (infinitive particle). That is: "But the mercy of my Lord is what averts evil from it," along the lines of what is permitted in His saying: "And they would not be saved except by a mercy from Us." It is also permitted that it be an exception from the most general times, where 'ma' is a masdariyyah zarfiyyah zamaniyyah (a temporal infinitive particle). That is: "It is an inciter to evil at every time, except at the time of my Lord’s mercy and protection." The accusative case here is for zarfiyyah (adverb of time) and not for exception, as some have mistakenly thought. However, this involves the structure of tafrigh (emptying/exception) in an affirmative sentence, and the majority hold that this is not permissible except after a negation or its equivalent. Yes, some permitted it in affirmative sentences if the meaning is sound, such as "I read except on Friday." An objection is raised against this: it would imply that the soul of Yusuf and other Prophets—peace be upon them—is inclined toward desires most of the time, unless this is restricted to the period before prophethood (based on the permissibility of what was mentioned before it) or if the intent is the genus of the soul, not every individual one.

This is countered by the argument that the latter is not apparent, because an exception is a standard for generality. Furthermore, the objection raised holds no weight at all because the intent is to humble the human species, acknowledging their helplessness if not for protection, noting that the time of mercy may encompass the entire life of some. Perhaps the most appropriate course is to limit oneself to what is within the scope of the addition [of the mercy]. Consider this. It may also be an exception from the "soul" or from the hidden pronoun in "inciter" (ammarah) that refers to it—that is: "Every soul is an inciter to evil, except that which Allah has had mercy upon and protected from that, like my soul." Or it could be from the elided object of "inciter"—that is: "An inciter of its owner, except one whom Allah has had mercy upon." In this, 'ma' refers to rational beings, which is contrary to the apparent meaning. One should look at the difference between this and the disconnection of the exception.

"Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful." [He is] immense in forgiveness, so He forgives what afflicts the souls according to the requirements of their natures, and He is exhaustive in mercy, so He protects them from acting upon those requirements. The use of the noun in the place of the pronoun, while invoking the attribute of Lordship (Rububiyyah), is to nurture the foundations of forgiveness and mercy. Perhaps the reason the first attribute (Forgiveness) precedes the second (Mercy) is that clearing away [the obstacle of sin] precedes adorning [with grace].

Al-Jubba’i went—and Abu Hayyan supported this—to the view that the phrase "That is so he may know" up to this point is the speech of the Aziz’s wife. The meaning is: "That admission and confession of the truth is so that Yusuf may know that I did not betray him and did not lie about him in his absence. And I do not acquit my soul from betrayal, even while I said what I said and did to him what I did, for every soul is an inciter to evil, except a soul whom Allah has shown mercy through protection, like the soul of Yusuf, peace be upon him. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving to whoever asks for forgiveness for his sin and confesses it, and Merciful to him."

The author of Al-Kashf countered this, saying that its only basis is the imagined formal connection, which is not substantial. And how would she be able to say "And I do not acquit my own soul" after it had become clear as the white on a piebald horse that she was the one who initiated it and to whom the burden and the blame returned?

Some people defended it by saying that the causal meaning (ta'lil) is apparent therein. However, if this is taken as being the speech of Yusuf, peace be upon him, it is not apparent, because the Aziz's knowledge that he was not guilty of what he was accused of only necessitates a general inspection, not specifically demanding it [as a condition] before leaving the prison when summoned by the King. The apparent [meaning] on that assumption is to attribute it to him [Yusuf]. The response is that the intent is for his knowledge to appear in the most perfect way, and that requires specificity. It supports the desire for the appearance of knowledge that the foundation of the knowledge was already obtained by the Aziz before the witness from her family testified. There is a view on this: one could say that in the steadfastness and the prioritizing of the inspection before leaving, there is a preservation of the rights of the Aziz, as he did not leave his status before the falsity of what caused his imprisonment was revealed, even though the King summoned him. It follows from this that [the Aziz] knows he never betrayed him in any way whatsoever regarding his household; for it is evident that if he, peace be upon him, did not hasten to what might be imagined as a breach of what he had promised—despite the strength of the motive and the abundance of incentives—he is all the more worthy and deserving of not hastening to anything else. Thus, the reason for the steadfastness, along with what followed of the story, is the intent to ensure the knowledge that he, peace be upon him, had committed no betrayal whatsoever. This knowledge results from what was mentioned, not from the inspection even after leaving, as is evident.

Or one may say: the intent is to act upon the requirement of the knowledge of what was mentioned, based on the assumption that he [the Aziz] was already aware of it before that, but he did not act upon the requirements of his knowledge—otherwise, he would not have imprisoned him. Thus, he [Yusuf] compensates for his [the Aziz's] negligence by refraining from denouncing his affair, or by praising him so that he may gain favor with the King and be exalted by the people; thus, the trees of his invitation [to Allah] may bear fruit and its rivers may flow into the valleys of hearts. There is no doubt that this is something that follows from prioritizing the inspection as he did. This is not something unbecoming of his status, peace be upon him; rather, the Prophets, peace be upon them, often do such things in the beginnings of their affairs. Our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would give the disbeliever—if he were a master of his people—what he gave him to promote his [the Prophet's] cause. If his saying to his fellow survivor, peace be upon him, "Mention me to your lord" is interpreted in this manner, as Abu Hayyan did, the two sides of the speech are perfectly harmonized, as is the case if one interprets the former according to the apparent meaning of the words and the supporting narrations.

It is also said here: this was so the Aziz would not view his affair with disdain before the King, as a means to ensure the fulfillment of what he sought, and this is of the nature of striving to remove an obstacle. However, this is something that does not befit the grandeur of his station, peace be upon him. Perhaps the prayer for forgiveness in the aforementioned report is an allusion to what has been mentioned. It is said that he, peace be upon him, was not rebuked for this as he was for the first, because it is of a lesser degree, even though the flood had reached the peak. It is not hidden that his return to what would necessitate the slightest rebuke regarding his rank, after what had transpired, is highly improbable. From here, it is said: it is better that what preceded be left as it is, and this be interpreted as him, peace be upon him, wanting to pave the way for the call to Allah, compensating for what he did before and following the "lesser of the two" in view of his station. Others have suggested other reasons for the ta'lil.

Ibn Jarir narrated from Ibn Jurayj that this is a case of taqdim (placing before) and ta'khir (placing after) in the Quran, and he held that it is connected to his saying: "Ask him: 'What is the case of the women who cut their hands?'" etc. What is apparent in this is not hidden. So contemplate everything we have mentioned so that you may have clear insight into your affair.

In the narration of Al-Bazzi from Ibn Kathir and Qalun from Naf'i, it is stated that they recited bi-l-su' (the evil) by changing the hamza into a waw and assimilating it.