Tafsir of Yusuf 12:88-90

Surah Yusuf (12:88-90)

When they entered upon him...

It is agreed upon by the exegetes that there is an omission here. The implied meaning is: When Jacob said to his sons, {Go and search diligently for news of Joseph and his brother} (Yusuf 12:87), they obeyed their father's command. They returned to Egypt and entered upon Joseph (peace be upon him), saying to him: {Indeed, affliction has touched us and our families}.

If one asks: If Jacob commanded them to search for news of Joseph and his brother, why did they deviate to complaining and asking for the full measure of the grain?

We reply: Because those who are searching for something employ all means to achieve their goal. Confessing inability, straitened circumstances, poor condition, lack of wealth, and intense need soften the heart. So they said: We will test him by mentioning these matters. If his heart softens towards us, we will mention our main purpose to him; otherwise, we will remain silent. For this reason, they presented this incident first and said: {Indeed, affliction has touched us and our families}—meaning poverty, need, many dependents, and scarcity of food—and they referred to their family left behind. {And we have brought meager goods}.

There are several discussions regarding this phrase:

• Izjā’ (الإزجاء) linguistically means to push something little by little. Similarly, Tazjiyah (التزجية) is used. Allah Almighty says: {Do you not see that Allah drives the clouds} (An-Nur 24:43). To zajjā someone with speech means to push them away. And so-and-so yuzjī al-‘aysh (يزجي العيش) means he pushes the time along through stratagem.

They described the goods as muzjāh either due to their scarcity, their poor quality, or both. The exegetes mentioned all these possibilities:

1. Al-Hasan said: The muzjāh goods were few in quantity.
2. Others said they were of poor quality, and they differed regarding the nature of that poor quality:
   • Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said they were bad dirhams (coins) that were not accepted in exchange for food.
   • It was said they were the poor quality of the sack (gharāra), the rope, and worn-out belongings.
   • It was said they were the goods of the Bedouins: wool and ghee.
   • It was said they were green beans (al-ḥabbah al-khaḍrā’).
   • It was said they were dried curd (al-aqṭ).
   • It was said they were sandals and leather (al-aḍum).
   • It was said they were roasted barley gruel (sawīq al-maql).
   • It was said they were goat's wool.
   • It was said that the dirhams of Egypt had the image of Joseph engraved on them, and the dirhams they brought did not have Joseph's image, so people did not accept them.

There are several interpretations:

1. Al-Zajjāj said: It comes from the saying, "So-and-so yuzjī al-‘aysh," meaning he pushes the time along with little. The meaning is: We brought meager goods with which we push away the time, and they are not beneficial. Under this interpretation, the implied meaning is: "meager goods with which we sustain the days."
2. Abu Ubayd said: Poor dirhams are called muzjāh because they are rejected, pushed away, and not accepted by those who spend them. He said it comes from al-azjā’ (الأزجاء), which, among the Arabs, means the market and pushing away.
3. It means: meager goods, meaning delayed, pushed away from being spent; such goods are only spent by one who is compelled and in need of them due to the absence of better quality goods.
4. Al-Kalbī said: Muzjāh is a foreign (non-Arabic) language. It was said to be from the Coptic language. Abu Bakr al-Anbārī objected, saying that a word of known Arabic derivation and inflection should not be attributed to the Copts.

Hamzah and Al-Kisā’ī recited it as muzjāh (مزجاة) with imālah (inclination towards 'y'), because its origin is a yā’. The rest recited it with tafkhīm (full pronunciation) and naṣb (accusative case).

The summary of the discussion on the goods being muzjāh is that it was due to their scarcity, poor quality, or both. After describing their dire situation and their meager goods, they said: {So give us full measure}. This meant they sought leniency, either by accepting the deficient amount as the full amount, or by accepting the poor quality item as the good one.

Then they said: {And be charitable to us}. This meant leniency regarding the difference between the two prices, and that he should price the poor goods as he prices the good ones.

People differed on whether this was a request for charity:

• Sufyan ibn Uyaynah said that charity was permissible for the Prophets before Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) based on this verse, implying they were asking for the excess amount as charity.
• The majority refuted this, saying that the status of Prophets and the sons of Prophets is incompatible with asking for charity, as they are too proud to submit to creation and are overwhelmingly devoted to Allah Almighty, seeking help from Him alone rather than others.
• It is narrated from Al-Hasan and Mujāhid that they disliked a person saying in his supplication, "O Allah, give charity to me," because Allah does not give charity; only one seeking reward gives charity. Rather, one should say, "O Allah, give to me," or "Be gracious." Thus, taṣaddaq (to give charity) means giving charity, and the muṣaddiq (charitable giver) is the giver. Al-Layth permitted calling the asker a mutasaddiq, but the majority disallowed it.

It is narrated that when they said, {Indeed, affliction has touched us and our families} and showed humility, Joseph’s eyes filled with tears. At that point, {he said: Do you know what you did to Joseph and his brother?}

It is also said that they presented Jacob’s letter to him, which read: "From Jacob, Israel, son of Isaac, the slaughtered of Allah, son of Abraham, the friend of Allah, to the esteemed one of Egypt. After this: Affliction is appointed for our household. My grandfather had his hands and feet bound and was thrown into the fire to be burned, but Allah saved him and made it cool and safe for him. My father had the knife placed on his neck to be slaughtered, but Allah redeemed him. As for me, I had a son who was the dearest of my children to me, and his brothers took him to the wilderness, then came to me with his shirt stained with blood, saying, 'The wolf has eaten him.' My eyes went blind from weeping for him. Then I had another son, his brother from the same mother, with whom I found solace, and they took him to you, then returned saying he was stolen and that you held him captive. We are a household that does not steal, nor does one who steals come from us. If you do not return him to me, I will invoke a curse upon you that will reach the seventh of your offspring." When Joseph (peace be upon him) read the letter, he could not restrain himself, his composure broke, and he recognized them as Joseph.

Then the Almighty recounted what Joseph (peace be upon him) said in this situation: {Do you know what you did to Joseph and his brother?}

It is said that when he read his father Jacob’s letter, his joints trembled, his skin shivered, his heart softened, his weeping increased, and he openly declared that he was Joseph. It is also said that when he saw his brothers humble themselves and describe their dire situation and lack of resourcefulness, compassion overcame him, and he then revealed that he was Joseph.

His statement {Do you know what you did to Joseph?} is an interrogative that conveys the gravity of the event. It means: How great was what you committed against Joseph, and how ugly was what you undertook? It is like saying to a sinner: Do you know whom you disobeyed? Or do you know whom you opposed?

Know that this verse confirms the saying of Allah Almighty: {And We inspired to him: You will surely inform them of this affair of theirs while they do not perceive} (Yusuf 12:15).

As for {and his brother}, it refers to what they did to him by causing him distress by separating him from his full brother. Also, they used to harm him, and part of that harm was their saying concerning him: {Indeed, if he has stolen, a brother of his has stolen before} (Yusuf 12:77).

As for {when you were ignorant}, it serves as an excuse, as if he were saying: You only undertook that ugly, reprehensible act while you were in the ignorance of youth or the ignorance of delusion, meaning, but now you are not like that. This is similar to what is said in interpreting Allah’s saying: {What has deceived you concerning your noble Lord?} (Al-Infitar 82:6). It is said that Allah mentioned this specific description to serve as a response, as if the servant were to say, "My Lord, Your generosity deceived me." Similarly here, this statement was mentioned to remove shame from them and lighten the matter for them.

Then his brothers said: {Are you truly Joseph? He said: I am Joseph.}

Ibn Kathir recited {Inna-ka} (إنك) as a declarative statement. Nāfi‘ recited {A-a-n-n-a-ka la-anta Yūsuf} (أأنك لأنت يوسف) with a non-elongated alif (hamza) and a yā’. Abu Amr recited {Ā-in-naka} (آينك) with an elongated alif, which is a narration from Qālūn via Nāfi‘. The rest recited {A-a-n-n-a-ka} (أئنك) with two hamzas. All these forms are interrogative. Ubayy recited {A-wa anta Yūsuf} (أوأنت يوسف). Thus, from these recitations, some readers used the interrogative form, and some used the declarative form.

Regarding the interrogative readers: They said that when Joseph said to them, {Do you know...} and smiled, they saw his incisors, which were like strung pearls, resembling Joseph. So they asked him interrogatively: {Are you truly Joseph?} The fact that he replied, {I am Joseph}, supports the interrogative reading, as he was answering what they asked about.

As for those who read it as a declarative statement, their evidence is what is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him): Joseph's brothers did not recognize him until he removed the crown from his head. There was a mark on his forehead, which Jacob, Isaac, and Ishāq also possessed, like a mole. When the crown was removed, they recognized him by that mark and said: {Indeed, you are Joseph} (إنك لأنت يوسف). It is also possible that Ibn Kathir intended the interrogative form and omitted the interrogative particle.

His statement {I am Joseph} has two points of discussion:

The lām is the lām al-ibtida’ (the lām of emphasis), and anta (you) is the subject, and Yūsuf is the predicate. The entire clause is the predicate of inna.

He explicitly stated his name to magnify the injustice his brothers inflicted upon him and the reward Allah compensated him with: victory and triumph. It is as if he said: I am the one whom you wronged in the greatest manner, and Allah Almighty has elevated me to the highest positions. I am that helpless one whom you intended to kill and throw into the well, and now I am as you see me. For this reason, he said: {And this is my brother}, even though they knew him, because his purpose was to say: This one was also oppressed just as I was, and then Allah Almighty bestowed favor upon him, as you see.

His statement {Allah has conferred favor upon us}: Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said this refers to every honor in this world and the Hereafter. Others said it refers to reuniting us after separation.

His statement {Indeed, whoever fears Allah and is patient} means: whoever fears Allah's prohibitions and is patient with the harm inflicted by people. {Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good}. The meaning is: whoever fears Allah and is patient, Allah does not let their reward be lost. He used the term al-muḥsinīn (those who do good) in place of the pronoun because it encompasses the pious ones (al-muttaqīn).

This involves two issues:

Know that Joseph (peace be upon him) described himself in this noble station as being pious (muttāqī). If he had proceeded to say what the Ḥashawiyyah (a specific group) say regarding Zulaikha, this statement would have been a lie from him. Mentioning a lie in such a context—where a disbeliever is convinced and a sinner repents—is not appropriate for the wise.

Al-Wāḥidī narrated from Ibn Kathīr, via the route of Qunbul, the recitation {Innahu man yattaqī} (إنه من يتقى) with the yā’ affirmed in both instances. The justification for this is to treat man (whoever) as equivalent to alladhī (the one who), thus not requiring the jazm (jussive mood). Under this view, {and is patient} (wa yaṣbir) could be in the nominative case (raf‘), but the raf‘ is omitted for the sake of brevity, similar to the shortening in words like ‘aḍud (upper arm) and sham‘ (wax). The rest recite it by omitting the yā’ in both instances.