Tafsir of Yusuf 12:4

{When Joseph said}: This is a substitute (badal) for "the best of stories" (aḥsan al-qaṣaṣ). It is a badal ishtimal (substitution of inclusion), because the time includes the story, which is the narrated event; thus, when the time is narrated, the event is narrated. Alternatively, it is based on the implied verb "Remember" (udhkur).

"Joseph" (Yūsuf) is a Hebrew name. It is said to be Arabic, but this is incorrect, for if it were Arabic, it would be diptote (munṣarif) because it would lack any cause for being diptote other than being a proper noun. If you ask: "What do you say about those who recite Yūsuf with a kasra on the sīn, or Yūsuf with a fatḥa? Does their recitation allow us to say it is Arabic, as it follows the pattern of the imperfect verb (muḍāriʿ)—active or passive—derived from āsafa (to grieve), and is thus prevented from being diptote due to being a proper noun and having a verbal pattern?" I say: No, because the famous recitation serves as evidence that the word is foreign; it cannot be Arabic at one time and foreign at another. Similar to Yūsuf is Yūnus, for which these three pronunciations are narrated, yet it is not said to be Arabic simply because in two of its forms it matches the pattern of the imperfect verb derived from ānasa and ūnasa.

Regarding the Prophet (peace be upon him): "If it is asked, 'Who is the noble one?' say: 'The noble one, son of the noble one, son of the noble one, son of the noble one: Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.'"

{O my father} (yā abati): It is recited with the three vowels (on the tāʾ). If you ask: "What is this tāʾ?" I say: It is a feminine tāʾ that serves as a substitute for the possessive yāʾ. The proof that it is a feminine tāʾ is that it turns into a hāʾ when pausing. If you ask: "How is it permissible to attach a feminine tāʾ to a masculine noun?" I say: Just as it is permissible to say ḥamāma dhakar (a male pigeon) and shāh dhakar (a male sheep), or rajul rabʿa (a man of medium stature), or ghulām yafaʿa (a youth approaching puberty). If you ask: "Why was it permissible to substitute the feminine tāʾ for the possessive yāʾ?" I say: Because femininity and possession are similar in that each is an addition appended to the end of a noun. If you ask: "What is this kasra?" I say: It is the kasra that was before the yāʾ in your saying yā abī (O my father), which has slid onto the tāʾ, because the feminine tāʾ requires the letter before it to be fatḥa. If you ask: "Why did the kasra not drop away due to the fatḥa required by the tāʾ, leaving the tāʾ quiescent?" I say: That is impossible for it, because it is a noun, and nouns are inherently vocalized due to their primary role in inflection (iʿrāb). The yāʾ was allowed to be quiescent—despite its origin being vocalized—only for ease of pronunciation, as it is a soft letter. The tāʾ, however, is a consonant, like the kāf of the pronoun, so it must be vocalized.

If you ask: "Combining the tāʾ and this kasra resembles combining the substitute and the thing substituted, because it is in the position of the yāʾ; just as you cannot say yā ghulāmī (O my servant) and yā ghulāma together, you cannot say yā abati?" I say: The yāʾ and the kasra before it are two distinct things. The tāʾ is a substitute for only one of them—the yāʾ—while the kasra is not being replaced. Thus, the substitute and the thing substituted are not combined, unless one combines the tāʾ and the yāʾ together, which is not the case. Do you not see their saying yā abatā (O my father), where the alif is a substitute for the tāʾ? How is it permissible to combine it with the tāʾ without it being considered a combination of substitute and substituted? The kasra is even further removed from that. If you ask: "The kasra in yā ghulāmi indicates possession because it is a companion and neighbor to the yāʾ. If it indicates the same in yā abati, then the substituted tāʾ is redundant; its existence is like its non-existence." I say: Rather, its state with the tāʾ is like its state with the yāʾ when you say yā abī.

If you ask: "What is the reasoning of those who recite it with fatḥa or ḍamma on the tāʾ?" I say: As for the one who recites with fatḥa, he has deleted the alif from yā abatā and kept the fatḥa before it, just as one who deletes the yāʾ in yā ghulāmi (to yā ghulāma). It is also possible to say he vocalized it with the vowel of the bāʾ which it replaced in yā abī. As for the one who recites with ḍamma, he viewed it as a noun ending in a feminine tāʾ and treated it like other feminine nouns ending in tāʾ, saying yā abatu as one says yā thabatu, without considering it a substitute for the possessive yāʾ.

{I saw}: It is recited with the vocalization of the yāʾ. {Eleven}: With a quiescent ʿayn to lighten the sequence of vowels in what is treated as a single noun. The same applies up to nineteen, except for twelve, to avoid the meeting of two quiescent letters. {I saw} refers to a dream (ruʾyā), not vision (ruʾya), because what he mentioned is known to be a dream; for if the sun, moon, and stars were prostrating to Joseph in a waking state, it would have been a great sign for Jacob (peace be upon him) and would not have been hidden from him or the people.

If you ask: "What are the names of those stars?" I say: Jabir narrated that a Jew came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and asked: "O Muhammad, tell me about the stars Joseph saw." The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) remained silent, then Gabriel (peace be upon him) descended and informed him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Jew: "If I tell you, will you embrace Islam?" He said: "Yes." He said: "They are Ḥarayān, al-Ṭāriq, al-Dhayyāl, Qābis, ʿAmūdān, al-Falīq, al-Muṣbiḥ, al-Farūj, al-Fargh, Waththāb, and Dhū al-Katifayn. Joseph saw them, and the sun and moon descended from the sky and prostrated to him." The Jew said: "Yes, by God, those are indeed their names."

It is said: The sun and moon are his parents. It is said: His father and his aunt. The stars are his brothers. Wahb narrated that when Joseph was seven, he saw eleven long staffs planted in the earth like a circle, and a small staff jumped upon them until it uprooted and overcame them. He described this to his father, who said: "Beware of mentioning this to your brothers." Then, when he was twelve, he saw the sun, the moon, and the stars prostrating to him. He told his father, who said: "Do not tell them, lest they plot against you." It is said there were forty years between Joseph's dream and his brothers coming to him; others say eighty.

If you ask: "Why did he delay the sun and moon?" I say: He delayed them to connect them to the stars by way of specification, clarifying their superiority and their unique distinction over the other celestial bodies, just as Gabriel and Michael are mentioned after the angels, then connected to them for that reason. It is also possible that the wāw means "with," i.e., "I saw the stars with the sun and the moon."

If you ask: "What is the meaning of the repetition of 'I saw'?" I say: It is not a repetition; rather, it is a new statement in response to an implied question. It is as if Jacob (peace be upon him) asked him when he said, "O my father, I saw eleven stars," "How did you see them?"—inquiring about the state of the vision—so he replied, "I saw them prostrating to me."

If you ask: "Why were they treated as rational beings in 'I saw them prostrating to me'?" I say: Because when he described them with something specific to rational beings—namely, prostration—he applied their rules to them, as if they were rational. This is common in their speech: when a thing is associated with another in some respects, it is given some of its attributes to manifest the effect of that association and proximity.