Tafsir of Yusuf 12:80

(That is, they despaired of Joseph, peace be upon him, and of him complying with their request and fulfilling their desire). Istaf'ala is used here in the sense of fa'ala, like sakhara and istaskhara (to mock), and ‘ajiba and ista‘jaba (to wonder), as stated in al-Bahr. Many have said that the sin and the ta are additions for emphasis, meaning they despaired a complete despair, because the desired objective was sought with great intensity. Perhaps this degree of despair was reached by them due to what they witnessed of his seeking refuge in Allah—the Exalted—from what they requested, which indicated that it was in the utmost degrees of abhorrence to him, and that it was something he must guard against and seek refuge in Allah from, as well as his labeling of it as oppression in his words: "Indeed, we would then be among the wrongdoers."

In some traditions, it is mentioned that when they saw the measuring cup emerge from his saddlebag—having already issued the fatwa they had issued—they remembered their covenant with their father. Reuben, among them, flared with anger; nothing could withstand his rage. His hair stood on end until it protruded from his clothes, and he said, "O King, you shall surely release our brother, or I shall let out a cry that will leave no pregnant woman in Egypt but that she will miscarry." Joseph, peace be upon him, said to a young son of his, "Arise toward this man and touch him, or take his hand." It was the case that whenever a son of Jacob, peace be upon him, touched him, his anger would subside. When the child did so, his anger calmed. He said to his brothers, "Which of you touched me?" They replied, "None of us touched you." He said, "A son from the family of Jacob, peace be upon him, has touched me." Then he said to his brothers, "How many markets are there in Egypt?" They said, "Ten." He said, "You suffice me with the markets, and I shall suffice you with the King," or "You suffice me with the King, and I shall suffice you with the markets." When Joseph, peace be upon him, sensed this, he stood up to him, took him by the collar, threw him to the ground, and said, "You, O company of Hebrews, claim that no one is stronger than you!" Upon that, they became submissive and said, "O Chief, behold..." and so on. It is possible in this context that the achievement of total despair came from the combination of both matters.

Some permitted the pronoun in "of him" (minhu) to refer to Benjamin, but this is refuted by the fact that they did not despair of him, evidenced by their elder brother remaining behind for his sake. Abu Rabi'ah narrated from al-Bazzi from Ibn Kathir that he recited ista'yasu from aysa, meaning ya'isa (to despair). The evidence of the heart regarding what is in al-Bahr is the non-conversion of the ya of aysa into an alif due to its voweling and the fatha preceding it. The summary of the meaning is: when their hope was completely severed, "they went off privately"—meaning they isolated themselves from others and withdrew from the people. Al-Zajjaj’s statement that they isolated themselves from one another is subject to scrutiny. "For consultation"—meaning whispering and counseling one another regarding what they should say to their father, peace be upon him. It is singular in form, though the context indicates plurality, because it serves as a state of the plural pronoun. It is a verbal noun (masdar) by origin, like al-tanaji, applied to those who are consulting one another for emphasis, or interpreted as a derivative. A verbal noun, even if it is a verbal noun by origin, includes both the few and the many, or because it follows the pattern of the verbal noun, for fa'il is among the patterns of verbal nouns, meaning mufa'il (a reciprocal actor), such as jalis (meaning majalis - sitting together) and ‘ashir (meaning mu‘ashir - socializing together), i.e., each whispering to the other. Thus, they are mutanajin (whispering together), and its plural is anjiyah. Labid said: "And I witnessed the anjiyah (counseling assemblies) of the Caliphate, where my heels and the ranks of kings were witnesses." Al-Jawhari cited the verse: "If the people were anjiyah (in private assembly) and became agitated like the agitation of ropes..."

"Their eldest said"—meaning their leader. Mujahid said this, while Qatadah said it refers to the eldest in age, Reuben. Wahb and al-Kalbi said it refers to the eldest in wisdom, Judah. From Muhammad ibn Ishaq, it is Levi. "Do you not know"—it is as if they had agreed upon returning collectively, but he did not consent to it, so he said, rebuking them: "Do you not know that your father has taken a covenant from you by Allah—a firm pledge, which is their swearing by Allah, the Almighty. It is ascribed to Him, the Exalted, because it is by His permission; thus, it is as if it issued from Him, the Exalted, or it is from His side, the Exalted, so the min (from) is for origination—"and before"—meaning before this, and the prepositional phrase relates to His, the Exalted’s, saying: "what you neglected regarding Joseph"—meaning you fell short in his matter and did not uphold your father’s covenant concerning him, and you have said what you have said. The ma is extra, and the clause describes the state. This, according to what has been said, is the best and safest of the interpretations of the verse.

It has been permitted that ma is a masdariyyah (source-originating particle), and the location of the verbal noun is in the accusative case as a conjunction to the object of "know," meaning: "Do you not know of your father’s taking a covenant from you, and your previous negligence in the matter of Joseph, peace be upon him?" Two objections were raised against this: the separation between the conjunction and the conjoined by an adverb, and the precedence of the dependent of the conjunctive clause over the conjunctive particle. There is disagreement among grammarians regarding the permissibility of both, but the correct view is that it is permissible, especially with an adverb that allows for flexibility. It is said that it is permissible to conjoin it to the noun of anna, and in this case, a predicate is needed because the first predicate cannot serve as a predicate for it. It is "regarding Joseph" or "before," in the sense of: "Do you not know that your previous negligence occurred in the matter of Joseph, peace be upon him," or "that your existing negligence was, or came to be, in the matter of Joseph, peace be upon him, from before."

It was objected that the requirement of the situation is to inform of the occurrence of that negligence; it is not that their previous negligence occurred in the matter of Joseph, as is the import of the first, nor that their current negligence in his matter occurred from before, as is the import of the second.

Furthermore, there is what Abu al-Baqa’ mentioned, and Abu Hayyan followed him, that limitations (ghayat) do not occur as predicates, nor as conjunctive clauses, nor as descriptions, nor as states. Sibawayh explicitly stated this, whether they are genitive or not. We say: "Saturday is a blessed day, and the travel is after it," but you do not say: "and the travel is after." Al-Durr al-Masun responded to this by saying that it is only forbidden due to the lack of benefit, owing to the lack of knowledge regarding the omitted possessor (mudaf ilayh). Therefore, it should be permissible if the possessor is known and indicated, as in the noble verse. This was countered by the fact that the permissibility of omitting the possessor in limitations is conditional upon the existence of evidence defining that omitted entity, as al-Radi stated, which proves that the prohibition is not caused by what was mentioned. Al-Shihab said that what they mentioned is not unanimously agreed upon. Imam al-Marzuqi said in his commentary on al-Hamasa that they do occur as descriptions, predicates, conjunctive clauses, and states. He transmitted this parsing from al-Rummani and others and cited evidence for it from the speech of the Arabs. Furthermore, there is a difference of opinion regarding their being definite by annexation, considering the estimation of the mudaf ilayh as a definite entity determined by the preceding discourse. The well-known view is that they are definite, while some say they are indefinite and that the estimation is "from before a thing," as in the commentary of al-Tashil. The excellent author of al-Durr followed a good path, which is: if the possessor is known and indicated by being specific and definite, the predication is correct because the benefit is attained. If it is not determined, because the evidence of generality exists rather than specificity, and "from before a thing" is estimated, then predication is not correct, for "there is nothing but it is before something," so there is no benefit in the predication. In that case, it is definite and indefinite, and there is no contradiction between his speech and that of al-Radi, despite the fact that al-Radi’s speech is not universally agreed upon. This is, as he said, a precious investigation.

It is said that the place of the masdar is the nominative as an initial, and the predicate is "from before," and it carries the previous investigation. It is said that ma is relative (mawsulah), and its place in the syntax is what was mentioned of the nominative or accusative, and the clause "you neglected" is its conjunctive clause, and the return pronoun is omitted. Negligence (tafrit) is in the sense of bringing forward—from al-fart—not in the sense of falling short, meaning "what you brought forward of the crime." It was objected to this that His, the Exalted’s, statement "from before" would be a repetition; for if it is made a predicate, the speech is useless, and if it is made to relate to the conjunctive clause, then the repetition requires the precedence of the dependent of the conjunctive clause over the relative particle, which is not permissible. It is said that ma is an indefinite noun described, and its place is what was mentioned, and it has what it has.

"I will never leave the land"—it is inferred from what he mentioned and what he reminded them of. Bariha is a complete verb, and when it is so, it is used to mean "departed" and "appeared," as in their saying: "The secret has been revealed (bariha al-khafa’)." It is implied here with the meaning of "parted," so "the land" is in the accusative as the object. It cannot be an incomplete verb because "the land" cannot correctly be a predicate for the speaker here, nor is it in the accusative as an adverbial, nor by the removal of a preposition. He means by it the land of Egypt, i.e., I will never depart from the land of Egypt, acting upon the requirement of the covenant, "until my father permits me"—in leaving to return to him—"or Allah decides for me"—by departing from it in a way that does not lead to breaking the covenant, or by the salvation of my brother through some means.

He said in al-Bahr: He limited this with two limitations: a specific one, which is his father’s permission, and a general one, which is Allah the Exalted’s judgment for him. It is as if, after limiting it with the first, he returned and delegated the matter to the One to whom judgment belongs, may His Majesty be exalted. He desired His, the Exalted’s, judgment in whatever would be an excuse for him, even if it were death. It is apparent that the more beloved of the two limitations to him is the first, which is why he put "to me" (li) first in it and delayed it in the second; let this be understood. "And He is the best of the judges," for He, the Exalted, judges only with truth and justice.