Tafsir of Yusuf 12:66

(He said, "I will never send him with you" — after I have witnessed from you what has brought tears to the eyes — "until you give me a covenant by Allah") that is, until you give me that which I may rely upon by His decree. Al-Muwthaq (the covenant) is a noun of place or instrument derived from the verb, meaning the object of reliance. He, peace be upon him, intended for them to swear to him by Allah the Exalted. Making an oath by Him, glory be to Him, a "covenant" is because it is that through which covenants are confirmed and made firm. Allah the Exalted has permitted this, so it is a permission from His Exalted Highness.

("That you will surely bring him to me") This is the response to an implied oath, for the meaning is: until you swear by Allah and say, "By Allah, we will surely bring him to you." In Majma’ al-Bayan, it is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he, peace be upon him, asked them to swear by Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the Seal of the Prophets and Master of the Messengers. The apparent state is that this report is not authentic. Al-Imadi mentioned that he, peace be upon him, said to them: "Say, 'By Allah, the Lord of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, we will surely bring him to you.'"

("Unless you are surrounded") meaning, unless you are overcome and are thus unable to do so, or unless you all perish. Both interpretations are narrated from Mujahid. Its origin is from the surrounding (encirclement) of the enemy, and it is used to signify destruction because one who is surrounded by the enemy has, in most cases, perished.

As for the exception, it is said to be "empty" (disconnected from the positive statement) from the most general of states. The estimation is: "You will surely bring him to me in every state, except the state of being surrounded." This has been refuted on the grounds that the source (the masdar) from "that" (an) and the verb cannot occupy the position of a state (hal) like a literal source (masdar sarih). Thus, one may say, "I came to you running" (rakdan), but not "I came to you that you run" (an tarkud), even if it is interpreted as such, because the state, in their view, is an indefinite noun, while "that" (an) with what it governs is a definite noun in the rank of a pronoun. It has been answered that the intent is not the "state" in the technical sense, but the linguistic state, and this leads to the interpretation that the interpreted source is in the position of an adverbial of time (zarf). This is debated.

In al-Bahr, it is stated that if one were to estimate the "that" and the verb to be in the position of a source functioning as an adverbial of time—meaning "You will surely bring him to me at all times, except the time of being surrounded"—it would not be permissible according to Ibn al-Anbari, as he forbids the interpreted source from acting as an adverbial of time, requiring a literal source instead. Thus, one may say, "We went out at the cock's crow," but not "We went out that the cock crows." However, it is permissible according to Ibn Jinni, who allows for such, as in the statement of Abu Dhu’ayb al-Hudhali: "By Allah, no mother of a single child is more distressed than I that her small one be humiliated."

It is also said to be from the most general of causes, based on interpreting the speech as a negation to which it leads—that is: "You will surely bring him to me, and you shall not be prevented from bringing him, except by being surrounded," similar to their saying: "I adjure you to do [it]," meaning: "I ask for nothing but your doing."

The apparent preference is to consider the interpretation on the first view as well, for the exception therein is "empty," as you have known, and this does not occur in a positive statement unless it is valid and the intent of generality is apparent, such as: "I read except on Friday," because reading is possible on every day other than Friday. Here, it is not valid, because it is not possible for the brothers of Yusuf, peace be upon him, to bring their brother at every time and in every state except the time of being surrounded, as it is obvious that they would not bring him while he is on the road or in Egypt. Unless it is said that it is of that category and that the generality and comprehensiveness therein are conventional—that is: "in every state in which bringing him is conceivable."

Master Abu al-Sa’ud countered the permissibility of the first interpretation without qualification by saying: "You know that since 'bringing' is not an action that is extended and comprehensive of states by way of concomitance—as in your saying: 'I will certainly accompany you unless you grant me my right'—and since his intent, peace be upon him, was not to provide a substitute for the excepted state—as when you say: 'Pray unless you are in a state of ritual impurity'—but rather merely the realization and occurrence of it without obstruction, as in your saying: 'I will perform Hajj this year unless I am prevented,' for your intent is merely to inform that nothing but the state of being prevented will stop the Hajj, not to inform of its concomitance with those states by way of substitution... the meaning leads to the aforementioned interpretation."

One of the scholars investigated this with three points: First, if the intent of his saying "You will surely bring him to me" was to inform merely of the realization and occurrence of the bringing without obstruction, there would be no need for the aforementioned interpretation—that is, the interpretation by negation—as is not hidden from the contemplative. Thus, his speech indicates the opposite of his intent. Second, if we concede that the speaker’s intent in saying "I will perform Hajj, etc." is not to inform of the concomitance of Hajj with states other than being prevented, we do not concede that his intent is not to inform of the absence of what is other than the state of prevention. At most, there is a necessity between them, and that does not entail the need for interpretation by negation. Third, if he meant by his saying "the consideration of states, etc." that the bringing of him did not involve the consideration of states as is apparent, then this is denied. And if he meant that the consideration of states with it entails the aspect of their not preventing it, then this is conceded, but the need for the aforementioned interpretation does not follow from it either.

And it is as you see, so reflect. Then they answered him, peace be upon him, to what he desired. ("So when they gave him their covenant")—their pledge from Allah the Exalted, just as he, peace be upon him, desired—("he said")—manifesting his reliance upon Allah the Exalted and urging them to observe their oath by Him, the Almighty and Majestic—("Allah is over what we say")—during the request for the covenant and its provision from both sides. The preference for the future tense is to conjure the image, which leads to their confirmation and their preservation of remembering and observing Him—("a Trustee")—meaning an Observer, a Watcher, for one who is entrusted with a matter watches over it and preserves it. It is said: The meaning is that He, Glory be to Him, will reward for that.