Tafsir of Yusuf 12:75

"They said" — meaning the brothers — "His recompense is [he] in whose [saddlebag] it is found" — meaning the one from whom the measuring bowl is taken in his saddlebag — "and his enslavement."

The addition of the omitted word (i.e., 'the enslavement of') is necessary because a source-noun (masdar) cannot function as a predicate for an entity, and because the very person in whose saddlebag it was found is not, in reality, a 'recompense.' They chose the phrasing 'the one in whose saddlebag it was found' rather than 'the thief,' even though that is what is intended. This is because the concepts of seizing and enslavement were a established law among them and part of the tradition of their father, peace be upon him, but only applicable to a thief—not to someone who merely happens to have someone else's property found in his possession. Their choice of wording indicates the perfection of their self-restraint, as if their very souls would not consent, nor their tongues assist them, in explicitly labeling one of their own as a thief by any means. It is as if, to emphasize that implication, they turned away from saying "the one from whom it was stolen" to "the one in whose saddlebag it was found."

"So he is his recompense" — meaning, his seizure is his recompense. This serves to confirm the previous decree by reasserting it, similar to the saying, "The guest's right is to be honored; that is his right." It is not a mere repetition; the purpose of the first clause is to establish the decree, and the purpose of the second is to establish its validity and preserve its significance. It is as if they said: "This is what has been settled and verified for the one considering the matter, without any doubt."

It is said that the fa (so) is mentioned there to signify that it follows from what preceded it by way of claim; otherwise, the apparent form would be to omit it due to the emphasis. From this, we know that an emphatic clause may sometimes be conjoined for a subtle reason, even if the scholars of rhetoric do not mention it.

It is permissible that man (the one) is a conjunctive noun acting as an inchoative (subject), and this clause is its predicate (news), with the fa present because the subject contains the meaning of a condition. Furthermore, the clause composed of the subject and its predicate is the predicate of "his recompense." It is also possible that man is a conditional noun acting as an inchoative, with "it is found in his saddlebag" being the condition, and "so he is his recompense" being the apodosis, where the fa acts as a linker. In this case, the condition and its apodosis also form the predicate, as in the possibility of the conjunctive noun.

An objection to this is that the clause acting as a predicate for the subject would lack a referent back to it, because the pronoun mentioned belongs to a different noun. The response is that the overt noun—the second mention of 'recompense'—was made to stand in place of a pronoun; for as linkage is achieved through a pronoun, it is also achieved through an overt noun. The underlying meaning is "His recompense is he in whose saddlebag it is found; so he is [him]," meaning he is the recompense. In this shift, there is what was previously established regarding the removal of ambiguity and the increase in gravity—especially in a position like this—so it is as if it were a necessity. Al-Zajjaj declared that the explicit mention here is better than the hidden, justifying it with some of what has been mentioned, and he cited the verse: "I do not see that anything precedes death; death distresses both the wealthy and the poor."

By this, the objection raised in al-Bahr against this construction—that placing an overt noun in the place of a pronoun only conveys eloquence if the context is one of glorification, as Sibawayh said, and therefore the sublime text should not be interpreted in that manner—is repelled.

It is also possible that "his recompense" is the predicate of an omitted subject, the estimation being: "That which is asked about, its recompense is..." In this case, it is a narration of the inquirer's statement, and "the one in whose..." acts as a clarification and a commencement of the verdict. This is as one who asks for a legal opinion regarding the recompense for hunting in a state of ihram might say: "The recompense for hunting in the state of ihram," and then says: "And whoever kills it among you intentionally, then the recompense is the like of what he killed of livestock." Thus, the statement of the jurist, "the recompense for hunting in the state of ihram," acts as a placeholder for "what you have inquired about" or "what you have asked concerning," and what follows is the clarification of the ruling and an explanation of the answer. The estimation is not "what I am mentioning is the recompense for hunting," because the context of the answer and the question acts as a substitute for that. Yes, if a scholar begins by putting forth a problem, then that estimation is appropriate.

Abu Hayyan criticized this by saying that there is not much benefit in informing about what is asked about in such a way, as it is already known that this is what is being asked about from their statement: "What is his recompense?" The same applies to the example provided. The response is that one could say: the benefit of this is to inform the inquirer that the jurist has fully grasped his question, so that he may accept the verdict and not hesitate, fearing that the jurist might have been inattentive to the essence of the question. This is a profound benefit.

Some have claimed that the clause of the predicate and the omitted subject conveys the meaning of an interrogative of denial, as if the respondent denies that the thing asked about is that [suggested penalty] due to the obviousness of the answer, then returns to answer. And this is as you can see.

"Thus" — meaning, in such a way, like that most complete recompense — "We reward the wrongdoers" — through theft. The apparent meaning is that this is a continuation of the brothers' speech; it is an emphasis upon the previously mentioned judgment after an emphasis, and a declaration of the vileness of theft. They did this with confidence in their own complete innocence of it, while they were heedless of what was being done to them. It is also said that this is the speech of the companions of Yusuf, peace be upon him; and it is said that it is his own speech, meaning: "Like the recompense you mentioned, We reward the thieves."