Tafsir of Yusuf 12:68

The sentence is said to be the answer to "when" (lamma). The combination of the past and future tenses is for the realization of the necessary comparison between the answer to "when" and its conditioned clause; for the lack of availment by the action is only realized upon the occurrence of the feared event, not at the time of entry. What is realized at that time is what the aforementioned combination signifies—that the entry would not avail in the future. The intent is not to state the causality of the entry for the lack of availment, as in His saying: “But when there came to them a messenger, it did not increase them except in aversion,” for the coming of the messenger there is a cause for their increased aversion. Rather, it is to state its lack of causality for availment, despite it being expected at first glance, since it occurred exactly as the Prophet, peace be upon him, had instructed them. It is like your saying: "He swore to give my right when the term arrived, but when it arrived, he did not give me anything." The intent is to state the lack of causality of the arrival of the term for the giving, despite it being hoped for by the oath, not to state its causality for the non-giving. Thus, the text states the lack of the intended goal resulting from the customary plan, despite it being hoped for, not the result of its non-occurrence from it.

It is also permissible that the intent is to state that—based on what the Prophet, peace be upon him, mentioned in the midst of his counsel, that his planning would not avail them against Allah, the Exalted, in anything—as if it were said: "When they did what he counselled them to do, it did not benefit them at all, and the matter occurred just as the Prophet, peace be upon him, had said, and they encountered what they encountered." Thus, it is in the category of the occurrence of what was expected.

Abu Hayyan adopted the view that the answer is what has been mentioned. He said that it contains an argument for those who claim that lamma (when) is a particle of necessity for necessity, not a temporal adverb meaning "at the time of," for if it were the latter, it would not be permissible for it to be governed by what comes after the negative ma. Perhaps those who hold it to be an adverb believe one of two things: first, that "He sheltered" (awa) is the answer to the first lamma, and the second is like your saying: "When I came to you and spoke to you, you answered me." It is appropriate that their entry to Joseph, peace be upon him, followed their entry from the gates. Second, that it is omitted, meaning: "they complied" or "they fulfilled their father's need." Ibn Atiyyah also followed this latter view. It is not hidden that upon this, and upon what preceded it, the difficulty of directing the matter of sequence is lifted. What the author of the qila (it is said) pointed to in his second view is what is required by the apparent speech of many commentators, where they mentioned that this is from Allah, may He be exalted, a confirmation of what Jacob, peace be upon him, pointed to in his saying: “And I do not avail you against Allah in anything.”

The statement regarding the failure of the plan to achieve its purpose was objected to on the grounds that the purpose was only to ward off the affliction of the evil eye, and this was achieved by their entering separately. This objection also applies to what was mentioned in the final view, as is evident. The response is that the intent behind "warding off the evil eye" is that no harm whatsoever should touch them. The evil eye was singled out only because it was the most apparent concern. It is said that what afflicted them was indeed from the evil eye, so the purpose did not result from the plan, and what the Prophet, peace be upon him, desired from his plan was missed. This has been countered as being an affectation. It is suggested that the intent is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, feared for them the evil of the eye, but another evil befell them that had not crossed his mind, so the warding off of what he feared did not benefit them in anything. In that case, it is claimed that their entry from where their father ordered them was beneficial in that it warded off the eye from them; however, when what befell them—the accusation of theft, the resulting public disgrace with their brother upon finding the cup in his saddlebag, and the doubling of the tragedy for their father—occurred, that entry was no longer considered a benefit. Thus, it is as if their entry did not benefit them at all.

It was also objected to the guidance of combining the past and future tenses that it is well-known that the purpose is to indicate continuity, as has been indicated more than once, and its apparent meaning does not indicate this. It is said: If the purpose here is that, the speech admits two possibilities: the negation of the continuity of availment and the continuity of its negation. There is contemplation in this—so contemplate well.

This—and what we indicated regarding the addition of min (from) in the accusative—is one of two views mentioned by Al-Razi regarding the verse. The second is the possibility of it being extra in the nominative; in that case, there is no pronoun of entry in the speech, as is clear. It is said: If, in this view, the nominative of kana (was) is considered a pronoun of the matter, it is not far-fetched, meaning: "The matter was not such that it would avail them against Allah, the Exalted, in anything."

(Except for a need)—an interrupted exception, meaning: "but a need (in the soul of Jacob, he fulfilled it)," meaning: he manifested it and counseled them to do it to ward off danger, without believing that the plan had any influence in changing the decree. The "need" refers to his affection, peace be upon him, and his caution lest they be afflicted. Al-Raghib mentioned that a "need" (hajah) for a thing is the poverty toward it along with a love for it; its plurals are hajat, hajat, hawa'ij, and haj. He then mentioned the verse. Some denied that hawa'ij could be a plural for it, but they are refuted by its occurrence in classical Arabic. The mention of his name, peace be upon him, contains an indication of kindness, affection, and compassion, because the Prophet, peace be upon him, was well-known for his sorrow, tenderness, and gentleness. It is permissible that the pronoun in qadaha (he fulfilled it) refers to the "entry," meaning that this entry fulfilled a need in the soul of Jacob, peace be upon him, which was his desire that their entry be from separate gates. The meaning is: "That entry did not avail them anything from the side of Allah, the Exalted, but it fulfilled a need existing in the soul of Jacob, because it happened according to his desire." The exception is also interrupted, and the sentence qadaha is an adjective for hajah.

It is also allowed that it is the predicate of illa, since it is in the sense of lakin (but), which can have a subject and a predicate. When it is interpreted as such, its predicate may be estimated or explicitly stated, as Al-Qutb and others narrated from Ibn al-Hajib. The issue is that no one among the experts of Arabic has claimed that illa in the sense of lakin functions [grammatically] as lakin. Al-Tibi allowed the exception to be connected, as in the category of "There is no fault in them except their swords." The meaning would be: "What their father counseled them to do did not avail them in anything, except for the affection that was in his soul." By necessity, the affection of a father, despite the decree of Allah, is like dust; therefore, it did not avail them at all.

(And indeed, he was a possessor of knowledge)—great—(of what We taught him)—meaning: by Our teaching him through revelation and by establishing proofs, since he did not believe that caution would ward off the decree, such that his error in judgment would be made clear upon the failure of the result, or since he was certain that it would not avail them anything against Allah, the Exalted. Thus, the situation was as he stated. The lam is for causality, and ma is the infinitive, and the accusative pronoun refers to Jacob, peace be upon him. It is permissible that ma is the relative noun, and the pronoun refers to it, and the lam is connected to "knowledge," the intended meaning being "preservation"—i.e., he was a possessor of preservation and monitoring of what We taught him. It is said: the meaning is that he was a possessor of knowledge of the benefits of what We taught him. The fine excitement is an indication of him, peace be upon him, acting according to what he learned. What was pointed to first is more appropriate. The reading of Al-A'mash (mimma—from what We taught him) supports the causality. In the emphasis of the sentence with inna and the lam, and the indefiniteness of "knowledge" and its causation by the teaching ascribed to the pronoun of majesty, there is an indication of the greatness of Jacob's standing and the loftiness of his rank of knowledge and its grandeur, which is not hidden.

(But most of the people do not know) the secret of the decree, and they claim that caution avails against it. It is said: the intent is "they do not know" the necessity of caution, even though it does not avail against the decree in any way. This has been countered by the fact that the context of stating the failure of the goal to follow the initial steps forbids this. It is said: the intent is "they do not know" that Jacob, peace be upon him, was of such standing in knowledge. The "most of the people" then refers to the polytheists, for they do not know how Allah, the Exalted, guided His saints to the sciences that benefit them in this world and the hereafter. This is far from what we are discussing.

Making the object "the secret of the decree" is the view held by more than one of the verifiers. Some of the later scholars, clinging to the skirts of the Sufis—may Allah, the Exalted, sanctify their secrets—have striven to explain its meaning and verify the nullification of caution. They said: We have a decree, a power, a secret of the power, and a secret of the secret of the power. The explanation is that the existing possibilities, even if they are temporal regarding their actual existence, are eternal regarding their knowledge-based existence. In this regard, they are called the "preparedness of things," "the high letters," and "the fixed essences." Then, those fixed essences are relative forms and shadows of the essential attributes of the Presence of the Necessary Exalted. Just as the Necessary Exalted and His essential attributes are sanctified from accepting change eternally and forever, likewise, the fixed essences, which are their shadows and forms, are forbidden from changing from the judgments that are upon them in their own nature.

So, the Qada (Decree) is the universal judgment upon the essences of beings with flowing states and incidental judgments from eternity to eternity. The Qadar (Power/Destiny) is the detailing of this universal judgment by specifying the bringing into existence of the essences and showing them at times and eras that their preparedness requires to occur, and attaching every state of their states to a specific time and a specific cause. The secret of the Qadar is that it is impossible for an essence of the essences to appear except according to what its preparedness requires. The secret of the secret of the Qadar is that those preparednesses are eternal, not created by the act of a creator, because those essences are shadows of essential attributes sanctified from creation and reaction. There is no doubt that the universal judgment upon beings follows His, the Exalted's, knowledge of their fixed essences, and His, the Exalted's, knowledge of those essences follows those very essences themselves, for eternal knowledge has no effect on the known by establishing a matter for it that is not already fixed, nor by negating a matter from it that is fixed. Rather, His, the Exalted's, knowledge of a certain matter is only in a way that it is in its own nature in that way. As for the essences, you have known that they are shadows of eternal matters sanctified from the impurities of change; thus, they were eternal. Allah, the Exalted, knew them as they were, decreed and judged as He knew, and brought into existence as He decreed and judged. Thus, Qadar follows Qada, which follows knowledge, which follows the known, which follows that of which it is a shadow. To Him, the Exalted, all affairs return. Therefore, it is impossible for anything to appear contrary to what He knew; hence, caution is void.

However, one is commanded to use it out of regard for causes, for abandoning them leads to the failure of the order of this realm. Hence, it was reported that one of the prophets, peace be upon them, ceased to use the causes of obtaining food and said: "I will not strive in seeking anything after Allah, the Exalted, is the guarantor of my provision, nor will I eat or drink unless He, the Exalted, is the one who feeds and gives me drink." He remained for days like that until his soul almost perished from what he endured. The Exalted revealed to him: "O such and such, if you remained like that until the Day of Resurrection and did not use any cause, I would not have provided for you. Do you wish to render My causes void?"

Some verifiers said: The reason for the necessity of caution is that many matters are decreed conditionally, and their attainment is tied to the voluntary actions of humans by arranging their causes and warding off their obstacles. It is possible that the protection from the disliked is among those things tied to a voluntary act, which is caution. This does not forbid what we have said, as is evident.

The Great Sheikh—may his secret be sanctified—mentioned that Qadar is a rank between the Essence and the manifestations. Whoever knows it from Allah, the Exalted, knows it, and whoever is ignorant of it from Him, the Exalted, is ignorant. Allah, may His majesty be glorified, does not know, so Qadar also cannot be known. Its knowledge is folded away so that [the servant] does not share with the Truth in knowing the realities of things through the way of encompassing them. For if he knew any known thing by way of encompassing it from all its aspects, as the Truth knows it, the knowledge of the Truth would not be distinguished from the knowledge of the servant regarding that thing. It does not bind us that there is equality in what is known of it, for the speech is about what is known in that manner. The servant is ignorant of the manner in which knowledge absolutely attaches to its object; thus, it is not correct for participation to occur with the Truth in the knowledge of any known thing. Among the pieces of information is the knowledge of knowledge. There is no aspect of the pieces of information except that Qadar has a judgment in it that none knows except Him, the Exalted. If Qadar were known, it would have been known, and if its judgments were known, the servant would have been independent in the knowledge of everything and would not have needed the Exalted in anything, and he would have had absolute self-sufficiency. The secret of Qadar is the very control of the Truth over the creatures, and this secret is not revealed to them until the Truth is their sight.

The prohibition against seeking the knowledge of Qadar has been reported, and in some traditions, it is mentioned that Ezra, peace be upon him, was very inquisitive about it until the Truth, the Exalted, said to him: "O Ezra, if you ask about it, I will erase your name from the registry of prophecy." Close to this is the questioning about the causes of things in their hidden states, for the actions of the Truth should not be given causes. There is no cause necessitating the formation of anything except the very existence of the Essence and the acceptance of the very possible for the appearance of existence. Eternity does not accept questioning about causes, and questioning about that does not issue except from one who is ignorant of Allah, the Exalted. Understand that, and Allah, the Exalted, takes charge of your guidance.