Tafsir of Yusuf 12:90

This is an interrogative sentence for confirmation (tashīl), and thus it is emphasized with inna and the particle al-lām, because confirmation demands certainty which is incompatible with a true inquiry. Perhaps they uttered it out of astonishment and wonder. Ibn Kathīr, Qatādah, and Ibn Muḥayṣin read it as “innaka” without the interrogative hamzah. In al-Baḥr, it is stated: "The apparent meaning is that it is intended as such, and it is far-fetched to interpret it as purely a statement of fact." Some have stated that if the speakers are the same, there is a conflict between interrogation and assertion, which is the apparent case. However, if one posits that some asked while others asserted, and the act is attributed to the whole group, it is possible, though still remote.

"Anta" (you) in both readings is a subject (mubtada’) and "Yūsuf" is its predicate (khabar), and the sentence occupies the place of the nominative as the predicate of inna. It is not permissible for anta to be an emphatic for the pronoun which is the noun of inna due to the intervention of the lām. Ubayy read it as: "A-innaka aw anta Yūsuf?" Ibn Jinnī, in his book al-Muḥtasab, explained this by positing an elided predicate for inna, estimating it as: "Are you other than Joseph, or are you Joseph?" Zamakhsharī did the same, though he estimated it as: "Are you Joseph, or are you Joseph?" He then said: "This is the speech of one astonished and bewildered by what he hears, so he repeats his request for certainty." In al-Kashf, it is said: "What he estimated is preferable due to the scarcity of elision and the strength of the indication toward the elided part, even if the first (interpretation) follows the convention of interrogation more closely." Perhaps the most appropriate estimation is: "Are you [the one we know], or are you Joseph?"—denying his identity as the one they were addressing, as if to say: "Are you the known Aziz of Egypt, or are you Joseph?" They regarded as unlikely that the Aziz could be Joseph, or that Joseph could be the Aziz. This also involves less elision, maintains a distinction between the conjoined and the element to which it is conjoined, provides a strong indication of the elided element, follows the rule of interrogation, and adds the benefit of suggesting the distance between the two states.

If it is said: "That other interpretation is more in line with the famous account due to the strength of the indication that he is indeed he," it is answered that for the indication to be sufficient, it suffices that the interrogation is not being used in its literal sense. Furthermore, the fact that there is no contradiction between him being their known interlocutor and him being Joseph is highly indicative, with the added benefit of mentioning the cause of their skepticism—a discourse upon which the marks of precision shine.

There is disagreement regarding the specific cause of their recognition of him, upon him be peace. It is said: They recognized him by his features and qualities, as he had brought them near him, whereas he had not done so before. It is said: He used to speak to them from behind a veil, and when he wished to make himself known, he raised it, so they recognized him. It is said: He smiled, and they recognized him by his front teeth, which were like strung pearls, and the light of his smile illuminated his surroundings. It is said: He raised the crown from his head, and they looked at a mark on his forehead that Jacob, Isaac, and Sarah had possessed—resembling a white mole—and they recognized him by that. To all this is added their knowledge that what he addressed them with could not emanate from anyone but a Ḥanīf (monotheist) Muslim of the lineage of Abraham, not from the rulers of Egypt. Some have claimed that they only said that based on assumption and did not know him until he informed them himself: "I am Joseph." However, the reliable account is what preceded it.

This was a response to their query, to which he added: "And this is my brother"—meaning from both parents—to emphasize his identity. Some of the meticulous scholars stated: They asked him in astonishment about him being Joseph, confirming it yet imagining, due to the intensity of their wonder, that he was not him. So he answered them with that which confirms it, emphasized; for this reason, he, peace be upon him, did not say "Yes" or "I am he," but repeated the explicit name. "And this is my brother" is equivalent to "I am Joseph," leaving no doubt. Furthermore, it includes what he builds upon it by saying: "Allah has been gracious to us."

Al-Ṭībī allowed that this follows the "wise style" (al-uslūb al-ḥakīm): as if, when they asked him in astonishment, "Are you Joseph?", he answered, "Do not ask about that, for it is apparent. But ask what Allah has done for me in terms of favor and empowerment." And likewise regarding his brother. It is not, however, devoid of the former, as is not hidden. In Irshād al-‘Aql al-Salīm, it is stated that the addition to the answer provides emphasis and elevates the status of the brother, and completes what was indicated by his saying: "Did you come to know what you did with Joseph and his brother," as is implied by "Allah has been gracious to us," etc. It is as if he said: "Did you come to know what you did to us in terms of separation and humiliation? I am Joseph, and this is my brother; Allah the Exalted has been gracious to us with salvation from what we were afflicted with, reunion after separation, honor after humiliation, and intimacy after loneliness." It is not far-fetched that this also contains an indication in response to their request to return Benjamin, meaning "He is my brother, not your brother, so there is no basis for your request."

The sentence "Allah has been gracious to us," etc., according to Abū al-Baqā’, is a new beginning (musta’nafah). It is also said: It is a circumstantial clause (ḥāl) related to "Joseph" and "my brother." This is challenged on the grounds that it is far-fetched, as there would be no governing agent (‘āmil) for the circumstantial clause in that case. It is not correct for it to be "this" (hādhā), because it is a singular referent, while "upon us" (‘alaynā) refers to both of them.

"Indeed, whoever fears [Allah]"—that is, the matter is that whoever practices piety in all his states, or guards his soul from that which necessitates the wrath of Allah and His punishment—"and is patient"—under trials and tribulations, or the hardship of acts of obedience, or against sins which the soul finds pleasurable—"then indeed Allah does not let the reward of the doers of good be lost." The noun is placed in the position of the pronoun to alert that those described by piety and patience are described by goodness (iḥsān). The sentence is the justification for the grace bestowed. Abū Ḥayyān chose not to specialize piety and patience. Mujāhid said: It means whoever fears Allah in refraining from sin and is patient in prison. Al-Nakha’ī said: Whoever fears [committing] adultery and is patient in celibacy. It is said: Whoever fears sins and is patient under the harm of people. Zamakhsharī said: It means whoever fears Allah the Exalted and is patient against sins and upon acts of obedience. This was critiqued by the author of al-Farā’id on the grounds that it treats "whoever fears" metaphorically, while there is no obstacle to treating it literally, and departing from that to the metaphorical without necessity is not permitted. Therefore, it is appropriate to say: Whoever fears is one who guards against abandoning what he was commanded and committing what he was forbidden, and is patient in hardships; this is by his choice, and that is without his choice, so he is a doer of good. Mentioning patience after piety is mentioning the specific after the general. It is permissible that this is to desire steadfastness in piety, as if it were said: "Whoever fears and remains steadfast upon piety."

The first view is a leaning toward what Abū Ḥayyān mentioned. Al-Ṭībī critiqued this by saying that this sentence is a justification for what preceded it, and an insinuation toward his brothers that they did not fear the punishment of the Exalted, nor were they patient in His obedience, nor in refraining from sin when they did what they did. Thus, the meaning of piety would be fear, and patience would be patience in obedience and refraining from sin. This was countered by the claim that the insinuation is achieved in the other interpretation as well, as if he interpreted it as such so it would not repeat with patience. There is a critique regarding that.

Qunbul read it as "man yattaqiya" with the retention of the yā’. It is said: It is jussive (majzūm) by the elision of the yā’ which is the radical letter of the word, and this yā’ is for elongation. It is said: It is jussive by the elision of the implied vowel, and they have judged this as a dialect. It is said: It is in the nominative (marfū’) and "man" is relative, and the jussive is conjoined to it based on an assumption, as if he imagined that "man" was conditional and "yattaqi" was jussive. It is said: "yasbir" is nominative like "yattaqi," except that the rā’ was made quiescent due to the succession of vowels, even though this occurred in two words, just as it was made quiescent in "ya’murukum" and "yush’irukum" and their likes, or for a pause, and the continuous reading was treated as a pause. The best of these views, as in al-Baḥr, is that yattaqi is jussive according to a dialect, even if it is rare. Abū ‘Alī’s statement that it is not to be accepted because it only appears in poetry is not to be heeded, because other leading grammarians reported it as a dialect in both verse and prose.