Tafsir of Yusuf 12:85

(They said) i.e., his brothers, and it is said others among his followers, peace be upon him. (By Allah, you will not cease) (i.e., you will not stop and will not cease) (remembering Joseph) with grief for him. The particle of negation was elided, as in the poet's saying: "So I said, by the oath of Allah, I will not cease sitting, even if they cut off my head and my limbs in your presence." Because if an oath does not have a marker of affirmation with it, it is on the negation. The marker of affirmation is the lām and the nūn of emphasis; both are necessary for the response of an affirmative oath. Thus, if they are not mentioned, it indicates that it is negated, because the negated [action] is not accompanied by them. If the intended meaning here had been affirmation, it would have been said la-tafta'anna. The necessity of the lām and the nūn is the position of the Basrans. The Kufans and al-Farra' said: It is permissible to be content with one of them. The elision occurs when the verb is in the present tense, such as the reading of Ibn Kathir (By the Day of Resurrection) and his saying: "I will hate every man who decorates speech but does not act."

Derived from this is a jurisprudential issue: If one says, "By Allah, I will stand," he breaks his oath if he stands, but if he does not stand, he does not. There is no difference between whether the speaker is knowledgeable in Arabic or not, according to the legal opinion issued by Khayr al-Din al-Ramli. He mentioned that swearing by divorce is similar. So, if one says, "By the triple divorce, you will stand now," she is divorced if she stands, and not divorced if she does not. This issue is important, and there is no harm in investigating the truth regarding it, even if it leads to deviating from what we are currently addressing. We say: Many have stated that if the commoners drop the lām and the nūn in the response of a positive, future oath—if one of them says, for example, "By Allah, I stand"—he does not break his oath by not standing, and therefore there is no expiation for him. Al-Maqdisi challenged this, arguing that expiation should be binding upon them because they have conventionally used swearing in this manner. This is supported by what is in al-Zahiriyyah: that if one makes the ha' silent or gives it a nasb (fatha) in "By Allah" (bi-Allahi), it is an oath, even though the Arabs did not speak it otherwise than with the genitive case (jarr). He also said: It should be considered an oath even if it is devoid of the lām and the nūn. This is indicated by his statement in al-Walwaljiyyah: "By Allah, I will do..." or "There is no god but Allah, I will do such and such" is not an oath unless one intends it. Al-Khayr al-Ramli objected to this by saying that what was transmitted does not support his claim. As for the first, it is because a change in inflection (i'rab) does not prevent the intended meaning, so making it silent, giving it a damma, or giving it a fatha does not cause harm, since it is established that a grammatical error (lahn) does not prevent the [oath's] formation. As for the second, it is because it is not among the disputed matters, for it is affirmation and negation, not an oath. He has transmitted what we mentioned from the school of thought, and transmitted material must be followed.

One may consider this: Firstly, because a grammatical error, as in al-Misbah and elsewhere, is an error in Arabic. Secondly, because what is in al-Walwaljiyyah is among the disputed matters, for he brought the imperfect verb stripped of the lām and the nūn and made it an oath upon intention. If it were on the negation, it would have been necessary to say that with intention, it is an oath to not perform the action, as is not hidden. Intention was only stipulated for this because it is not conventionally recognized.

The learned al-Halabi said: The investigation of al-Maqdisi is valid, and the saying that it contradicts the transmitted texts is answered by the fact that the transmission in the school of thought was based on the custom of the early period of Islam before the language changed. As for now, they do not bring the lām and the nūn in the affirmative oath at all, and they differentiate between affirmation and negation by the presence or absence of "no" (la). Their convention on this is nothing but like the convention of the Persians and others in their oaths and otherwise. This is supported by what was mentioned by the scholar Qasim and others: that the speech of every person contracting, swearing, or making a conditional statement is interpreted according to his custom and habit, whether or not it agrees with the speech of the Arabs. Similar is in al-Fath. Grammarians have differentiated between bala (nay/yes) and na'am (yes) in response: that bala is not for affirming what is after a negation, and na'am is for confirmation. So if it is said, "Zayd did not stand," and you say, "Bala," the meaning is: "He did indeed stand." And if "Na'am," it means: "He did not stand." It is transmitted in the commentary on al-Manar from al-Tahqiq that what is considered in the rulings of the Sharia is the custom, such that each of them may be placed in the position of the other. Similar is in al-Talwih. The statement of al-Muhit—that swearing in Arabic is to say in the affirmative "By Allah, I will surely do"—to the end of what he said—is an explanation of the ruling based on the rules of Arabic and the custom and habit of the Arabs, free from grammatical errors. People's speech today, except for the rare, is outside those rules; it is a conventional language for them like other non-Arab languages which their speakers utilize as they utilize. They are not to be treated by other than their own languages and their intent, unless one of them commits to using the correct inflections or intends the literal meaning; then he should be held to it. Hence, al-Sa'ihani said: Our oaths now do not depend on emphasis; we have placed them with a new placement, agreed upon them with a modern convention, and recognized them with a famous recognition. Thus, we must be treated according to this. What they said—that if the particle fa connecting the response of the condition is dropped, it is an immediate execution, not a suspension, such that if one says, "If you enter the house, you are divorced," she is divorced immediately—is also based on the rules of Arabic, and it is contrary to current convention. Therefore, it should be based on custom, and thus it would be a suspension. This is what is narrated from Abu Yusuf.

In al-Bahr, it is stated that the disagreement is based on the permissibility of dropping it as a choice or not. The people of Kufa permitted it, and upon this Abu Yusuf based his derivation. The people of Basra forbade it, and upon this the school of thought is derived. In the commentary on Nazm al-Kanz by al-Maqdisi, it is stated that the view of Abu Yusuf should be preferred due to the frequency of dropping the fa in eloquent speech, and due to their saying: "Commoners are not held accountable for grammatical errors in their saying 'You are one' (with the nasb)," which no one has said. This is so. Furthermore, what was mentioned is only regarding the oath, contrary to suspension (ta'liq). Although it is called an oath and yamin by the jurists, it is not called a "qasam" (oath), for qasam is specific to the oath by Allah the Almighty, as stated clearly by al-Quhistani. Thus, the stipulation of the lām and nūn in the affirmative does not apply to it, neither for the jurists nor for the linguists. Among this is: "The forbidden [prohibited woman] is binding upon me," and "By divorce, I will not do such and such." For in custom, this is intended as: "If I do such and such, she is divorced," so it must be enforced upon them, as stated in al-Fath and elsewhere. Al-Halabi said: By this, the misconception of some learned men is repelled, that in the speaker's saying, "By divorce, I will come today," if he comes in the day, the divorce occurs, and if not, it does not, because of [the absence of] the lām and the nūn. You are aware that the grammarians only stipulated that in the response of an affirmative oath, not in the response of a condition. How can it be permissible for a sensible person, let alone a learned one, to say that "If Zayd stands, I stand"—with the meaning that if Zayd [does not stand], I will not stand—that "I will come" is not the response to the condition, but rather it is the condition itself? Because the meaning is: "If I do not come today, you are divorced." This misconception has occurred to many muftis, such as al-Khayr al-Ramli and others. Sayyid Ahmad al-Hamawi said in his Tadhkirah al-Kubra: A question was presented to me, its form being a man who was angered by his wife's child and said, "By the triple divorce, I will complain about you to the Naqib in the morning." When he woke up, he left it and did not complain, and a period of time passed. In this situation, does the divorce occur to him or not? The answer: (1) If he left off the complaint and a period of time passed after his swearing, the divorce does not occur, because the action mentioned occurred in the response to an oath, and it is affirmative, so it is estimated as negated since it was not emphasized. Then he said: I answered, after praising Allah Almighty, that the legal opinion issued by this responder—that the divorce does not occur, with the reasoning he mentioned—is indicative of his excessive ignorance, folly, and his frequent recklessness in religion and his transgression. Because that [ruling] is for the verb when it occurs as a response to an oath by Allah Almighty, such as "You cease not," not in response to an oath in the sense of suspension involving the hardship of divorce, emancipation, and the like. Therefore, if the swearer wakes up and does not complain, the triple divorce occurs to him, and his wife is separated from him by a major separation. This is excellent, and may Allah Almighty reward the one who said: "It is part of the religion to unveil the covering from every liar, and from every innovator who brings wonders. If it were not for believing men, the temples of the religion of Allah would have been demolished from every side."

(And you cease not) This is one of the incomplete kana verbs, as we have indicated. It is said of it: fata'a like daraba, and afta'a like akrama. Ibn Malik claimed that it has the meaning of "to be still" and "to calm down," and thus it would be a complete verb. Based on this, Mujahid's interpretation of "you cease not" came as "you do not calm down from your love for him." Al-Zamakhshari interpreted it as him, may mercy be upon him, making futuw (ceasing) and futur (calming down) two brothers, i.e., correlated, not that it is in its meaning. For that which is in the meaning of "calmed down" and "settled" is fatha with the tha (three-dotted), as in al-Sahah, from "I calmed the pot," meaning when its boiling subsided, and of a man, when his anger subsided. Hence, Abu Hayyan declared Ibn Malik to be in error regarding what he claimed and asserted that it was a distortion. It was challenged by stating that the matter is not as he said, for Ibn Malik transmitted it from al-Farra', and al-Saraqusti stated it clearly. It is not impossible for two roots to agree in meaning, and this is frequent. Ibn Malik compiled this in a book he named What is Different in Spelling and Agreed in Meaning, and the author of al-Qamus transmitted it from him. He inferred from the verse the permissibility of swearing based on the predominance of conjecture. It is said: They knew this from him, but they treated him as one who denied, so they emphasized it with an oath, i.e., "We swear by Allah, you will not cease remembering Joseph," grieving for him, until you become haradan (ill, nearing death). It is said that harad is one whom worry or illness has wasted away, rendering him emaciated and thin. Originally, it is an infinitive from harada, so he is harid with a kasra under the ra'. And ahradani occurred as in his saying: "I am a man whose love has persisted, so it wasted me away until I was worn out, and until sickness thinned me." Because it is like this originally, it is not made feminine, nor dualized, nor pluralized, because the infinitive is applied to the small and the large. Ibn Ishaq said: Harad is the corrupt one who has no intellect. It was read as haradan with a fatha on the ha' and a kasra on the ra'.

Al-Hasan al-Basri read hurudan with two dhammas, and similarly from the adjectives are rajul junub (a man in a state of major ritual impurity) and ghurub. (Or you become of the destroyed) i.e., the dead. And "or" (aw), it is said: it is possible that it is in the meaning of "rather," or in the meaning of "and." So, it is not objected that the right [place] for this is to be placed before "until you become haradan." If it is for alternation, it is to prevent emptiness, and the placement is in the order of existence, as was said regarding His saying: "Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him," or because it is more frequent in occurrence.