12. Sūrat Yūsuf

111 verses. It is widely reported that it was revealed in the Meccan period, at a late stage. It takes its name from the figure at the centre of the story told from beginning to end: يُوسُف.

And the place of the sūra within the Qurʾān is a formal one: this is the one place in the Qurʾān where a single story is told from its beginning to its end, without interruption, within a single sūra. This is not an interpretation but a countable datum: the story of Moses (Mūsā) is spread across al-Qaṣaṣ, Ṭāhā, al-Shuʿarāʾ, al-Nāziʿāt and many other sūras; so are the stories of Abraham (Ibrāhīm), Noah (Nūḥ), Lot (Lūṭ) and Shuʿayb. The story of Joseph (Yūsuf), by contrast, is only in this sūra, and here it is told unbroken.

The sūra gives a name to what it is telling, and that name occurs in the third verse: aḥsanu'l-qaṣaṣ.

The concrete sense of the root: to follow a track. Qaṣṣa'l-athara — he followed the trail. This root was treated in al-Qaṣaṣ on the occasion of that sūra's name, and it was analysed at al-Naml 27/76 (yaquṣṣu) and at al-Kahf 18/64 (fa'rtaddā ʿalā āthārihimā qaṣaṣā). I do not repeat it here. The summary recorded there:

The common core of the root is the following of a trail. From this comes qiṣṣa: the telling of an event by following its trail in order. In al-Kahf the word is used outright in the sense of "to go back retracing one's steps".

And what belongs here is this — I give it as my own reading, and its ground is the form of the sūra: the meaning of the root contains order and continuity. A trail cannot be followed by skipping; one passes from one footprint to the next. This is the one sūra built in accordance with the logic of the word itself: the event is told from the dream to the fulfilment of the dream without being cut anywhere.

What can be verified from the text is this: the only large interruption in the sūra is the closing section after the story ends (102-111). Within the story itself there is no other prophet's story, no scene of destruction, no tableau of the hereafter. In the other narrative sūras such interruptions are the rule — in al-Shuʿarāʾ seven stories are ranged one after another, and the same in al-Aʿrāf.

And the sūra ties this form to a ground: la-qad kāna fī Yūsufa wa-ikhwatihi āyātun li's-sāʾilīn (7) — "there are signs for those who ask."

Worth recording: the target of the story is sāʾilīn — those who ask. That is, the narrative is positioned as the answer to a curiosity.

Three times across the sūra the very same construction occurs, and all three stand at three separate thresholds of the story:

This is a countable repetition within the sūra, and in all three verses the words of the construction are the same. The one thing that changes is the inflection of the verb: yuʿallimuka (He will teach you) → li-nuʿallimahu (that We might teach him) → ʿallamtanī (You taught me).

That is, the construction occurs three times in three tenses: future, ongoing, past. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the moods of the three verbs.

The root أ-و-ل: to arrive at the origin of a thing, at the place it returns to. Āla ilayhi — it returned to it, it arrived at it. Awwal — the first point, the one returned to. From this comes taʾwīl: to carry a thing to where it arrives, to show its end.

The word was the key to the story of Moses and the servant given knowledge in al-Kahf (dhālika taʾwīlu mā lam tasṭiʿ ʿalayhi ṣabrā, 18/82) — and there too its meaning was the same: to show where the event one sees arrives.

أَحَادِيث — the plural of ḥadīth: what comes to pass, what is recounted; a report. The root was treated at al-Jāthiya 45/6, al-Wāqiʿa 56/81 and al-Kahf 18/6, in the context of the Book being called "speech".

The whole construction: "to know where events arrive". And it must be recorded that this is wider than the interpretation of dreams — indeed in the sūra Joseph interprets dreams twice (41, 47-49), but with the same capacity he also sets up a seven-year agricultural policy (47-49). That is, the construction is not confined to "dream interpretation".

The sūra opens with taʾwīl and taʿbīr and ends with ʿibra — and the last two words are from the same root: ع-ب-ر.

This is the strongest textual datum of the sūra, and it is not an interpretation: the two words are one root. The detailed analysis of the root was carried out at al-Ḥashr 59/2, al-Nāziʿāt 79/25-26 and al-Muʾminūn 23/21-22; at verse 111 I shall rely on that.

Alif-Lām-Rā · tilka āyātu'l-kitābi'l-mubīn · innā anzalnāhu qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan laʿallakum taʿqilūn

"Alif-Lām-Rā. These are the verses of the clear Book. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qurʾān, that you may reason."

The note on the disconnected letters has been entered many times in the index; I do not repeat it here.

The same opening recurs in several sūras of the Qurʾān and was tabulated at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/2: tilka āyātu'l-kitābi'l-ḥakīm (Yūnus 10/1), tilka āyātu'l-kitābi'l-mubīn (here and al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/2), tilka āyātu'l-kitābi'l-ḥakīm (Luqmān 31/2). I rely on that treatment.

ٱلْمُبِين — root ب-ي-ن, an active participle of Form IV. It must be recorded that the pattern can be read in Arabic as both transitive and intransitive: mubīn means both "that which is clear" and "that which makes clear". The root has been treated in many places in the index.

I record this as an observation, and it has a particular place in this sūra: the story to be told is built from beginning to end on things hidden and then brought to light — the dream that is kept back (5), the brother who is concealed (58), the word that is hidden (77), and at last al-ʾāna ḥaṣḥaṣa'l-ḥaqq (51). The sūra opens as a "clear Book" and proceeds through scenes of coming to light.

This sentence is word for word the same at al-Zukhruf 43/3, and it was treated at al-Zukhruf 43/3; there all the places where the Qurʾān describes itself as "Arabic" were listed (Ṭāhā 20/113, al-Zumar 39/28, Fuṣṣilat 41/3, al-Shūrā 42/7, al-Aḥqāf 46/12, al-Raʿd 13/37). The same link was made at al-Shūrā 42/7 as well. I do not repeat it here.

The only thing that belongs here is the context, and I give it as my own reading: that "so that you may reason" should stand at the head of a narrative sūra is worth recording. The story is offered not as a tale to pass the time pleasantly with, but as material to reason upon — and the sūra will repeat this in its final verse: ʿibratun li-ūli'l-albāb (111).

Naḥnu naquṣṣu ʿalayka aḥsana'l-qaṣaṣi bimā awḥaynā ilayka hādhā'l-qurʾāna wa-in kunta min qablihi la-mina'l-ghāfilīn

"By revealing this Qurʾān to you, We recount to you the finest of accounts. Before it you were indeed among those unaware."

The construction is an iḍāfa (a genitive construction), and in Arabic such a structure can be resolved in two ways. Both readings are transmitted in the classical commentaries:

Both readings are found in the classical commentaries; I do not impose a preference.

This is worth recording and is verifiable from the text: the same root occurs twice in the verse — once as a verb (naquṣṣu), once as a noun (al-qaṣaṣ). In Arabic this is an emphasis close to the mafʿūl muṭlaq (the cognate accusative), and it feeds both readings: the verb carries the act of recounting, the noun the thing recounted.

And a third note must be entered: the pattern aḥsan is an elative (ism al-tafḍīl) — "finer / finest". With what the comparison is made, the verse does not say. In the classical commentaries it is said that the comparison is with "the other stories in the Qurʾān" or with "the tales people tell". Both are transmitted; there is no decisive record.

A point of word order must be recorded: the sentence does not say "We recount to you" — it says "we recount to you by revealing this to you".

بِمَآ the bāʾ here is explained by the lexicographers as either cause or means. That is, the way of the recounting is named: revelation.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the preposition: the verse places the source of the story inside the sentence. And this will turn into a proof at the end of the sūra: dhālika min anbāʾi'l-ghaybi nūḥīhi ilayka wa-mā kunta ladayhim (102).

The إِن here is the in mukhaffafa — that is, the lightened form of inna, not a negation. Its mark is the لَ in the following clause (the lām al-fāriqa, the lām of distinction). The sense: "you were indeed, before it, among those unaware."

This is a grammatical detail, but it carries the meaning: if the sentence is read as a negation ("you were not unaware"), the sense is reversed. The lām prevents this.

غَٰفِلِين — root غ-ف-ل: to be unaware of something, to have one's attention turned elsewhere. The root was treated at al-Anbiyāʾ 21/1 (wa-hum fī ghaflatin muʿriḍūn).

And the choice of the word is worth recording: the verse does not say "you did not know", it says "you were unaware". Heedlessness is not a lack of knowledge but attention being elsewhere. This distinction comes from the same place as the proof treated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/44-46: wa-mā kunta bi-jānibi'l-gharbiyy — a proof built upon the source of knowledge.

Idh qāla Yūsufu li-abīhi yā abati innī raʾaytu aḥada ʿashara kawkaban wa'sh-shamsa wa'l-qamara raʾaytuhum lī sājidīn

"When Joseph said to his father: 'My dear father! I saw eleven stars, and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me.'"

In the sentence raʾaytu occurs twice, with no connective between them. The second raʾaytu is a repetition of the first; in Arabic this is called takrīr and conveys emphasis.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the sentence is built in two stages — first what was seen (eleven stars, the sun, the moon), then how it was seen (prostrating). That is, the object of the dream and the state of the dream are reported separately.

And the most conspicuous point of language here is this: sājidīn is the sound masculine plural, the form used in Arabic for rational beings. For stars, the sun and the moon one would normally expect sājidāt or a feminine singular.

This point was recorded in a table at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/4 — there, in the discussion of the bending of necks (aʿnāq), this verse was cited as evidence. I rely on that treatment. What was recorded there:

Where the Qurʾān has something perform the act of bending or prostration, it can use the language of rational beings for it. This is an overlap verifiable from the text.

And a further note on the dream itself: what is seen in the dream are persons — indeed at the end of the sūra, when the dream is fulfilled, those who prostrate are persons (100). That is, the pattern accords with the interpretation of the dream. I give this as my own reading; its ground is the comparison of verses 4 and 100.

كَوْكَب — a bright star, a planet. The word was treated at al-Infiṭār 82/2 (wa-idhā'l-kawākibu'ntatharat) and this verse was cited there as well. I rely on that treatment.

يَٰٓأَبَتِ — "my dear father". The تِ at the end is a tāʾ used in Arabic for the vocative, and it conveys affection (the original being yā abī). The Qurʾān uses this address in several places, and in every one of them it is a conversation between father and son: Abraham to his father (Maryam 19/42-45), the young woman of Midian to her father (al-Qaṣaṣ 28/26), and in this sūra twice, Joseph to his father (4, 100).

Qāla yā bunayya lā taqṣuṣ ruʾyāka ʿalā ikhwatika fa-yakīdū laka kaydā inna'sh-shayṭāna li'l-insāni ʿaduwwun mubīn

"He said: 'My dear son! Do not recount your dream to your brothers, or they will contrive a scheme against you. Satan is indeed a manifest enemy to man.'"

And one of the finest points of word order in the sūra is here: in the third verse God said "We recount to you" (naḥnu naquṣṣu ʿalayka). In the fifth verse the father lays down a prohibition with the very same verb: "do not recount" (lā taqṣuṣ).

This is a countable repetition within the sūra: the same root, two verses apart, in two opposite directions.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the closeness of the two verses: the sūra says that recounting is not always right with its own key word. The place where a thing is to be told and the place where it is not are divided by the same verb.

The ground of the command is in the verse itself: fa-yakīdū laka kaydā.

And the form of the ground is worth recording: the father does not say that the brothers are evil. He states a possibility, and puts the verb into a condition-and-consequence pattern (fa + subjunctive imperfect: "and then they will contrive").

كَيْد — root ك-ي-د: to move towards an outcome secretly and by indirect means; a contrivance. The root was treated in detail at al-Qalam 68/44-47 and al-Ṭāriq 86/15-16. What was recorded there:

In Arabic kayd is not necessarily evil. The Qurʾān shows this plainly: the plan laid in this sūra is called kayd and is ascribed to God (kadhālika kidnā li-Yūsuf, 76).

In the sūra the root kayd occurs in five separate places, and each time a different hand is at work:

This is a weave verifiable within the sūra. And I add this as my own reading: the word carries no moral verdict in the sūra — it names a method. What is decisive is who lays it and for what.

The word order of the sentence must be recorded: li'l-insāni has been brought forward. In Arabic bringing forward an element of the predicate conveys takhṣīṣ (particularisation).

And the generality is worth recording: the sentence does not say "an enemy to your brothers" — it says li'l-insān, that is, to the human kind. The father is naming not a person but a working.

I record this as an observation: at the end of the sūra Joseph will arrive at the same place and will attach what happened not to persons but to that same place: min baʿdi an nazagha'sh-shayṭānu baynī wa-bayna ikhwatī (100). The same diagnosis stands at the two ends of the sūra — one from the father's mouth, one from the son's.

Wa-kadhālika yajtabīka rabbuka wa-yuʿallimuka min taʾwīli'l-aḥādīthi wa-yutimmu niʿmatahu ʿalayka wa-ʿalā āli Yaʿqūba kamā atammahā ʿalā abawayka min qablu Ibrāhīma wa-Isḥāq

"'And thus will your Lord choose you, and teach you the interpretation of events, and complete His favour upon you and upon the family of Jacob, as He completed it before upon your forefathers Abraham and Isaac.'"

This verse was cited at al-Fatḥ 48/2 (wa-yutimma niʿmatahu ʿalayk), and the following note was entered there:

"Your Lord will choose you… and will complete His favour upon you and upon the family of Jacob" (Yūsuf 12/6) — at the beginning of the story, the sentence that announces its end.

And this is the most remarkable feature of the sūra as narrative technique. I record it as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the verses:

The sūra states the outcome plainly in the sixth verse. That is, the reader goes through the scenes of the casting into the well, the sale into slavery, the slander and the prison knowing the outcome. The tension has been taken away from the question "what will happen?" and given to the question "how will it happen?"

And this accords with the sūra's own key construction: taʾwīlu'l-aḥādīth — knowing where events arrive. The sūra gives the reader exactly this at the beginning of the story: the place that will be arrived at.

The concrete sense of the root: to gather a thing, to collect it, to bring it together. Jibāya — the collection of a tax. Form VIII (ijtibāʾ): to choose and gather to oneself, to set apart.

The lexicographers record the difference between this word and iṣṭifāʾ (selection) thus: ijtibāʾ also includes drawing the chosen thing near to oneself — not merely setting apart, but setting apart and gathering.

The مِن at the head of the construction must be recorded, and the lexicographers explain it as partitive (tabʿīḍ): "a portion of the interpretation of events".

I give this as my own reading, and its ground is the preposition: the promise is not an unbounded knowledge — it is a share. And the same particle stands in Joseph's own mouth in the hundred and first verse: wa-ʿallamtanī min taʾwīli'l-aḥādīth. That is, in the form the promise was given, in that same form thanks are given for it.

And a link with the axis of al-Kahf can be made here: al-Kahf treated the limit of knowledge across four stories (wa-lam tuḥiṭ bihi khubrā, 18/68). Sūrat Yūsuf sets the same limit with a single particle that states the measure of what is given.

La-qad kāna fī Yūsufa wa-ikhwatihi āyātun li's-sāʾilīn

"Assuredly, in Joseph and his brothers there are signs for those who ask."

The word was tabulated at al-Ḥujurāt 49/10, and this very verse was cited there as an example:

إِخْوَة (ikhwa) — brotherhood of descent (of lineage). Yūsuf 12/7: in Joseph and his brothers there are lessons — wa-ikhwatihi.

I rely on that treatment. The distinction recorded there was this: ikhwa weighs towards brotherhood of blood, ikhwān towards companionship or brotherhood in religion.

That the word comes in the plural is worth recording: āyāt, not the singular āya.

I give this as an observation about the structure: it is not said that a single lesson is to be drawn from the story. It is reported that there are many signs — and this accords with the length of the sūra and the density of its detail.

لِّلسَّآئِلِين — "for those who ask". Root س-أ-ل.

And the determining of the addressee must be recorded, and I give it as my own reading: the signs are not for everyone but for the one who asks. That is, the yield of the story is tied to the question the reader brings. This accords with the final verse of the sūra: there too the lesson will be reserved for ūlū'l-albāb, those possessed of understanding (111).

Idh qālū la-Yūsufu wa-akhūhu aḥabbu ilā abīnā minnā wa-naḥnu ʿuṣbatun inna abānā la-fī ḍalālin mubīn · Uqtulū Yūsufa awi'ṭraḥūhu arḍan yakhlu lakum wajhu abīkum wa-takūnū min baʿdihi qawman ṣāliḥīn · Qāla qāʾilun minhum lā taqtulū Yūsufa wa-alqūhu fī ghayābati'l-jubbi yaltaqiṭhu baʿḍu's-sayyārati in kuntum fāʿilīn

"When they said: 'Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than we are, though we are a band. Our father is truly in manifest error. — Kill Joseph, or cast him away in some land, so that your father's face may be free for you; and after that you will be a righteous people.' One of them said: 'Do not kill Joseph; drop him into the bottom of the well, and some caravan will pick him up — if you must act.'"

The brothers' sentence was treated in al-Falaq in the section on envy. What was recorded there:

"When they said: Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than we are, though we are a band" (Yūsuf 12/8). Here the word for envy does not occur, but the structure is the same: a favour (the father's love) is with the other, and this becomes unbearable through the comparison "we are more and we are stronger". The outcome is the well.

I rely on that treatment and add a note on word order here.

عُصْبَة — root ع-ص-ب: to bind a thing tightly, to tie it. ʿAṣaba — he bound, he tied. ʿAṣab — sinew, tendon. From this comes ʿuṣba: a group bound together, standing by one another.

And the choice of the word is worth recording: the brothers describe themselves not by number but by bond. Naḥnu ʿuṣba — "we are an interlocking". And this gives the logic of the objection: the strength is there, while the love is with the other.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the sense of "binding" in the root of the word: the sentence does not claim that the love is undeserved — it disputes the measure of its distribution. And the measure proposed is strength and number.

The word was cited in al-Ḍuḥā where the uses of the root ḍalāl in the Qurʾān were listed, and precisely this distinction was recorded there: ḍalāl here is not an imputation of unbelief but means "a mistaken assessment, a going astray". I rely on that treatment. The same root will occur again in verse 95, from the same mouths: innaka la-fī ḍalālika'l-qadīm.

And the difference among the three proposals is worth recording: the first two aim at the outcome, the third settles the means. The third proposal removes the killing and puts a possibility in its place: yaltaqiṭhu baʿḍu's-sayyāra — "some caravan will pick him up".

The image in the idiom must be recorded: yakhlu — root خ-ل-و: to become empty, to be left alone. The sentence does not say "let your father love you": it says "let your father's face be left empty for you".

I record this as an observation: what is wanted is not love — it is the absence of a rival. And this must be read together with the second half of the ninth verse: wa-takūnū min baʿdihi qawman ṣāliḥīn — "and after that you will be a righteous people."

The construction of the sentence is worth noting, and I give this as my own reading: while the wrong is being planned, the setting right afterwards is folded into the plan as well. That is, the act presents itself as a passing stage.

غَيَٰبَة — root غ-ي-ب: to become invisible, to disappear. The word was analysed at al-Infiṭār 82/16 and this very verse was cited as an example:

The concrete origin of the word rests on an image: الغَابَة (ghāba) — dense forest; whoever enters it becomes invisible. From the same root comes ghayāba — the bottom of the well in the story of Joseph: "Drop him into the bottom of the well." (Yūsuf 12/10, 15). The depth that is not seen.

The same verse was cited at al-Muzzammil 73/5 as well (alqūhu fī ghayābati'l-jubb). I rely on that treatment.

جُبّ — an open well, not lined with stone. The lexicographers record the difference between biʾr and jubb thus: biʾr is the general word for a well, jubb the one whose mouth is unlined.

And the work this word does in the sūra is worth recording: the well is the first place in the sūra that stands for invisibility — the prison will be the second. The story advances twice by an emergence from an enclosed place.

Qālū yā abānā mā laka lā taʾmannā ʿalā Yūsufa wa-innā lahu la-nāṣiḥūn · Arsilhu maʿanā ghadan yartaʿ wa-yalʿab wa-innā lahu la-ḥāfiẓūn · Qāla innī la-yaḥzununī an tadhhabū bihi wa-akhāfu an yaʾkulahu'dh-dhiʾbu wa-antum ʿanhu ghāfilūn · Qālū la-in akalahu'dh-dhiʾbu wa-naḥnu ʿuṣbatun innā idhan la-khāsirūn

"They said: 'Our father! Why do you not trust us with Joseph? We wish him nothing but good. Send him with us tomorrow, that he may roam and play; we will certainly keep him safe.' He said: 'It grieves me that you should take him away; and I fear a wolf may eat him while you are heedless of him.' They said: 'If a wolf were to eat him while we are a band, then we should indeed be losers.'"

The scene runs on speech alone, and in four verses there are four separate moves. I record this as an observation, and its ground is the order of the verses:

And it is striking: of the two grounds the father gives, only one is answered. The father said "I shall grieve" and "I fear a wolf may eat him"; the brothers answered only the wolf. The grief was left unanswered. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the comparison of verses 13 and 14.

The verb is lā taʾmanunā, and in the orthography of the muṣḥaf the two nūns are written joined. The reciters differ over the pronunciation of this word — two pronunciations, called ishmām and ikhtilās, are transmitted. The difference lies in the utterance and does not change the meaning; for that reason I do not go into its detail.

Root أ-م-ن. And the return of this word within the sūra must be recorded: the same root will come back in verse 64 in the father's mouth: hal āmanukum ʿalayhi illā kamā amintukum ʿalā akhīhi min qabl — "Shall I entrust him to you as I entrusted his brother to you before?"

The two verses may be set side by side:

This is a link verifiable within the sūra.

The root ر-ت-ع: an animal grazing freely in the pasture; from this, to move about at ease in plenty. ل-ع-ب: to play.

And the content of the request is worth recording: not a task — roaming and play. I give this as an observation: the invitation is made with the most harmless-looking thing.

ٱلذِّئْب — wolf. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only in this sūra (13, 14, 17).

And there is a detail worth recording: the first to mention the wolf is the father (13). The brothers will use the pretext afterwards (17). That is, the excuse is borrowed from the one who voiced the fear. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the order of verses 13 and 17.

"When they took him away and agreed to drop him into the bottom of the well, We revealed to him: 'You will surely inform them of this affair of theirs when they are not aware.' And they came to their father in the evening, weeping."

There is a grammatical event in the verse, and the lexicographers dwell on it: the conditional clause opening with fa-lammā (when…) is given no apodosis.

In Arabic this is called ḥadhf jawāb al-lammā (the omission of the answer to lammā), and the lexicographers record that it is done to leave the horror of the scene to the reader. That is, the part "when they dropped him into the well… this and this happened" is not in the text.

I record this as an observation about the structure, and I add that the technique is used once more in the sūra: the same gap is there in the scene of the drawing out of the well (19-20) — how long Joseph stayed in the well, what he felt, what he said, is never told.

And the second structural note of the story is here: to the child dropped into the well a piece of news is given, and the content of that news belongs to the future: la-tunabbiʾannahum bi-amrihim hādhā — "you will surely inform them of this affair of theirs."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is verses 89-90: the promise is fulfilled to the letter at the end of the sūra — hal ʿalimtum mā faʿaltum bi-Yūsufa wa-akhīhi idh antum jāhilūn (89). That is, the sentence in the fifteenth verse comes due in the eighty-ninth.

وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ — "while they are not aware."

Over this last piece of the sentence the lexicographers differ: which is the moment at which they will not be aware — that moment (as they drop him into the well they do not know that the news has been given), or the future moment (as they are being informed they do not know that he is Joseph)? Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

The second reading accords with the end of the sūra — in verse 58 it will be said fa-ʿarafahum wa-hum lahu munkirūn. I record this as an indication, not as a preference.

عِشَاء — the darkness of evening; the time after the sun has set. Root ع-ش-و: weakness of the eye's seeing, half-light. From the same root comes aʿshā — night-blind.

I record this as an observation: the naming of the time is not idle. The hour at which faces are hardest to read has been chosen. And this accords with the sense of "the weakening of sight" in the root of the word.

يَبْكُون — a circumstantial clause: in a state of weeping. And that tears are not evidence will be seen in the next verse, together with the shirt.

"They said: 'Our father! We went off racing, and we left Joseph by our belongings, and the wolf ate him. But you will not believe us, even though we speak the truth.'"

Root س-ب-ق, Form VIII: to race. When the verb was analysed at al-Nāziʿāt 79/1-5 (fa's-sābiqāti sabqā), this very verse was cited:

سَابَقَ — he raced. "They raced" (at Yūsuf 12/17 nastabiqu — we were racing).

I rely on that treatment.

And the same verb will occur once more in the sūra: wa'stabaqa'l-bāb (25) — "they raced for the door." In both scenes there is a race; in one a losing is told, in the other an escape. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

The work of the sentence must be recorded, and I give this as my own reading: immediately after the news is delivered, a sentence about the credibility of the news is added. That is, the speaking party voices the listener's doubt itself.

And this is a common behavioural pattern of lying: naming the doubt in advance makes the doubt look unjust. By adding the clause "even though we speak the truth" the sentence draws the listener onto the defensive.

I give this as a reading; the verse does not make this connection explicitly, but the place of the sentence in the verse (immediately after the news) lends itself to it.

بِمُؤْمِنٍ لَّنَا — note: āmana bi- means "to believe in something", while āmana li- means "to credit someone, to believe his word". The li here shows that the object of the belief is a report.

Wa-jāʾū ʿalā qamīṣihi bi-damin kadhib · Qāla bal sawwalat lakum anfusukum amrā · Fa-ṣabrun jamīl · Wa'llāhu'l-mustaʿānu ʿalā mā taṣifūn

"And they brought false blood upon his shirt. He said: 'No; your souls have made an affair seem fair to you. So what remains for me is a beautiful patience. And it is God whose help is sought against what you describe.'"

And this is one of the finest points of word order in the sūra.

The adjective has not been given to the place where it belongs. It is not the blood that is false — the blood is real blood; what is false is the claim the blood carries. The expected expression would be "a false report" or "a forged proof". The verse loads the adjective directly onto the blood.

In Arabic this is a usage the lexicographers dwell on, and it is explained in two ways:

Both explanations are transmitted by the lexicographers, and they do not exclude one another.

And I record the following as my own reading, its ground being the word order of the verse: because the expression identifies the proof itself with the lie, the real matter in the scene is not the falsity of the proof but that a proof has been manufactured. The blood is real, the shirt is real; what has been staged is the bringing of the two together.

And the course of the shirt through the sūra must be recorded — for it occurs three times, and each time it carries a verdict:

This is a countable weave within the sūra. And I add as my own reading: the same object serves three separate functions in three scenes — lie, proof and glad tidings. The object does not change; the knowledge it carries changes.

The root س-و-ل: to make a thing look easy and attractive; to adorn the desire of the soul.

This construction was tabulated at Muḥammad 47/25 (ash-shayṭānu sawwala lahum), and precisely these two verses were cited there as examples:

I rely on that treatment.

And two notes must be added. The first is an observation about the structure: the father's answer does not begin by denying the report. It begins with bal (no, rather) and names the cause directly. That is, he does not say "you are lying"; he says "your own souls have made this affair seem fair to you".

The second is a comparison: in Sūrat Muḥammad the one who adorns is Satan; here the one who adorns is the soul. The Qurʾān gives the same verb to two different agents, and both occur in this sūra — Satan in verse 5, the soul in verse 18. The two do not contradict: in verse 100 Joseph too will attach the same event to Satan.

The construction was treated in detail at al-Maʿārij 70/5 (fa'ṣbir ṣabran jamīlā). What was recorded there:

The original sense of the root ص-ب-ر is to hold, to restrain, to confine… Patience is active: to hold the soul back, not to let it go where it wants to go. There are four words that take the adjective jamīl, and all four are a response given in the face of a hurt: ṣabr (al-Maʿārij 70/5), ṣafḥ (al-Ḥijr 15/85), hajr (al-Muzzammil 73/10), sarāḥ (al-Aḥzāb 33/28). The most widespread explanation in the classical sources is this: patience with no complaint in it.

I rely on that treatment. This verse (12/18, 12/83) also appeared in the table at al-Muzzammil 73/10.

And in the al-Maʿārij section the indication that limits this explanation was taken from precisely this sūra; here I complete it:

This is a limit verifiable from the text, and it comes from the mouth of the same person. Ṣabr jamīl is not the absence of pain; it is where the pain is carried.

And a last note, as my own reading: the sentence does not come as fa'ṣbir (be patient — an imperative) but as fa-ṣabrun jamīl (a nominal sentence).

In Arabic a nominal sentence conveys thubūt (settledness, continuity); a verbal sentence conveys tajaddud (renewal). The structure here is not a command but a statement of a state: "the matter now is a beautiful patience."

In al-Maʿārij the same construction was in the imperative (fa'ṣbir). That is the difference between the two places: in one it is asked for, in the other it is stated.

Wa-jāʾat sayyāratun fa-arsalū wāridahum fa-adlā dalwahu qāla yā bushrā hādhā ghulām · Wa-asarrūhu biḍāʿatan wa'llāhu ʿalīmun bimā yaʿmalūn · Wa-sharawhu bi-thamanin bakhsin darāhima maʿdūdatin wa-kānū fīhi mina'z-zāhidīn

"A caravan came; they sent their water-drawer, and he let down his bucket. 'Good news! A boy!' he said. They hid him away as merchandise. And God knew what they were doing. And they sold him for a paltry price, a few counted dirhams; they set no value on him."

The time spent in the well, Joseph's condition, any detail at all of the moment of rescue — none of it is given. The scene opens directly with the letting down of the bucket.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the gap between verses 15 and 19: the narrative shows the event not from inside the well but from outside. And the first thing it shows is an instrument for drawing water: dalw — a bucket.

وَارِد — root و-ر-د: to come to water. Wird — a turn at drinking; mawrid — the place where water is taken. It is an occupational name used for the man of the caravan "who goes ahead to find water". This is a detail worth recording for social history: in desert caravans finding water is a distinct office.

يَٰبُشْرَىٰ — "good news!". Root ب-ش-ر: the outer surface of the skin (bashara); the trace a piece of news leaves on the face. The word will come back in verse 96: fa-lammā an jāʾa'l-bashīr. The same root at the beginning and at the end of the sūra — one as he comes out of the well, the other as the shirt arrives.

The root was analysed at al-Muṭaffifīn 83/1 in the treatment of the question of measure, and precisely this verse was cited there:

بخس — root ب-خ-س: to take a thing by driving down its value, to give less than its due. Its best-known use in the Qurʾān is in the story of Joseph: "And they sold him for a paltry price, a few counted dirhams." (Yūsuf 12/20). Thamanin bakhsin — a price driven down. The difference between bakhs and taṭfīf is this: bakhs is a reduction made in the price, taṭfīf a reduction made in the quantity. Both arrive at the same place, but they enter from different sides.

I rely on that treatment. The verb also occurs in what Shuʿayb says to Midian: wa-lā tabkhasu'n-nāsa ashyāʾahum (al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/183; al-Aʿrāf 7/85; Hūd 11/85) — and those verses were tabulated in al-Muṭaffifīn.

And what belongs here is this, which I give as my own reading: the word the Qurʾān uses for cheating in measure is used here for the price of a human being. That is, bakhs applied to goods is a commercial offence; applied to a person it becomes one of the heaviest scenes of the story. The same word, in two domains.

مَعْدُودَة — root ع-د-د: to count. In Arabic the qualifier maʿdūd conveys not abundance but fewness: few enough to be counted.

The same pattern does this work in several places in the Qurʾān: ayyāman maʿdūdāt (al-Baqara 2/80, 2/184) — "counted days", that is, few days.

And it must be recorded that three words lie one upon another here:

Three separate reductions, in a single sentence. This is an accumulation verifiable from the text.

The root ز-ه-د: to have no desire for a thing, to find it little, to remain indifferent to it. The word zuhd comes from here too, and its original sense is "little" and "not to want".

The use of the word here is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading: in the later religious literature zuhd is a praiseworthy quality. In this, its single use in the Qurʾān, the word is used of those who do not know the worth of what is in their hands. That is, the root by itself conveys no value — what is decisive is what it is that is not desired.

Over whom the sentence وَكَانُوا۟ فِيهِ مِنَ ٱلزَّٰهِدِين belongs to, the lexicographers differ: are the sellers the brothers, or the people of the caravan? The verb (sharawhu) fits either side; in Arabic sharā can mean both to sell and to buy. I transmit the disagreement; I do not impose a preference.

"The man in Egypt who bought him said to his wife: 'Treat him well; perhaps he will be of use to us, or we may take him as a son.' Thus did We establish Joseph in that land — and that We might teach him the interpretation of events. God prevails in His affair; but most people do not know."

The construction (taʾwīlu'l-aḥādīth) occurs here for the second time, and I tabulated it in the section on the structure of the sūra. Its place here is worth recording, and I give this as my own reading:

The promise was given in the sixth verse — but Joseph was then in his father's house. Now the way of the promise's fulfilment is told, and that way is this: the well, the sale, and another man's house. That is, the text ties the fulfilment of the promise not to a good turn of events but to the very opposite.

وَلِنُعَلِّمَهُۥ — the وَ and the لِ at its head must be recorded. The lām al-taʿlīl, the lām of purpose: "that We might teach". And there is a ḥadhf (an ellipsis) in the grammar of the sentence: "thus We established him [and We did it for this:] that We might teach him. The lexicographers explain this structure as a listing of causes of which some are left unsaid.

The root م-ك-ن: to have a place, to become firm. The root was analysed at al-Muʾminūn 23/13 (fī qarārin makīn), and the use in this very sūra was cited there: innaka'l-yawma ladaynā makīnun amīn (12/54). The same link was made at al-Mursalāt 77/20-23 as well. I rely on that treatment.

And it must be recorded that the verb occurs twice in the sūra, both times in exactly the same words:

This is a countable repetition within the sūra: the same sentence, at the two extremes. And I add as my own reading: the word for "establishing" is used both for the lowest position and for the highest. The text counts the two as two moments of the same verb.

Over this sentence the lexicographers differ: to whom does the pronoun in amrihi belong?

Both readings are found in the classical commentaries; I do not impose a preference.

أَكْرِمِى مَثْوَىٰهُ — "make his lodging honourable". The root ث-و-ي: to halt in a place, to reside. And the word will come back in verse 23 in Joseph's mouth: innahu rabbī aḥsana mathwāya — "my master treated me well". The same root, two verses apart, about the same person.

"When he reached his full strength We gave him judgement and knowledge. Thus do We reward those who do good."

أَشُدّ — root ش-د-د: strength, firmness. Ashudd — the age at which the powers of body and mind are complete. The lexicographers differ over the singular of the word (whether shadd or shidda); since the disagreement does not change the meaning, I do not go into its detail.

حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا — two indefinite words.

Their coming indefinite is worth recording, and the lexicographers explain it as taʿẓīm (magnification): "a judgement and a knowledge" — that is, not a determined quantity but a share superior in kind.

حُكْم — root ح-ك-م: to make a thing firm, to put it in its proper place; from this, to judge. The root was treated at Luqmān 31/12-13 (wa-la-qad ātaynā Luqmāna'l-ḥikma).

And the order of the two words must be recorded: first ḥukm, then ʿilm. I give this as an observation; the sentence names the capacity to decide before knowledge.

وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلْمُحْسِنِين — and the pattern occurs three times in the sūra: 22, 56 (lā nuḍīʿu ajra'l-muḥsinīn) and 90 (the same expression, in Joseph's mouth). This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and it will be treated at verse 90.

Wa-rāwadat'hu'llatī huwa fī baytihā ʿan nafsihi wa-ghallaqati'l-abwāba wa-qālat hayta lak · Qāla maʿādha'llāhi innahu rabbī aḥsana mathwāya innahu lā yufliḥu'ẓ-ẓālimūn

"The woman in whose house he was pressed him against his will; she bolted the doors and said, 'Come, you!' He said: 'God forbid! He is my master; he treated me well. Wrongdoers do not prosper.'"

In this section, per the method (Method), I proceed only with the wording the Qurʾān gives. In the classical commentaries and in the story collections a great many details are told around this scene; most of them come from the Isrāʾīliyyāt and have no counterpart in the Qurʾān. The woman's name, the state of the room, additional speeches in the scene — none of this is in the Qurʾān, and none of it will be used in this commentary.

The root is ر-و-د, and this construction was analysed in detail at al-Qamar 54/37 (wa-la-qad rāwadūhu ʿan ḍayfihi). What was recorded there:

Root: ر-و-د. Its concrete sense: to go back and forth in search of a thing, to range about. Rād — the scout who seeks pasture. Rāʾid — the one sent out on behalf of a people to look for a place. Irāda — to want; to turn towards a thing. The verb is on the pattern of Form III (mufāʿala): rāwada. This form conveys continuity and mutual pressing: not to want once, but to want repeatedly, insistently. And the key to the pattern is the particle: عَنْ. Rāwada fulānan ʿan shayʾin — to try to get someone away from a thing, to press him in order to detach him from it.

I rely on that treatment, and I wish to gather the three layers of meaning in the root here, because the fineness of the word determines this whole scene:

And at al-Najm 53/29-30 the irāda form of the same root was treated: irāda carries the idea of searching in its root. I rely on that treatment.

The distribution of the verb through the sūra must be recorded — it occurs four times, and in two separate domains:

The sixty-first verse is worth recording: the same verb, with the same particle, is used of an entirely different matter — the effort to persuade the father to send his son. That is, the word carries no moral verdict in the sūra: it names a form of insistence. I record this as my own reading; its ground is that the two uses stand in the same pattern.

And the point of word order is here: the verse does not name the woman, nor describe her by an attribute. Allatī huwa fī baytihā — "the woman in whose house he was".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the mode of description chosen: the woman is described by reference to Joseph's position. And this places the real matter of the scene inside the sentence: the matter is the person in whose house he is. Indeed Joseph's answer will press on exactly this point: innahu rabbī aḥsana mathwāya.

غَلَّقَتِ ٱلْأَبْوَٰبَ — Form II (taktīr, not taqlīl): he shut the doors fast and one by one. The simple pattern would have been aghlaqa. The doubled pattern conveys both multiplicity (there is more than one door) and force.

هَيْتَ لَكَ — in Arabic a noun-verb: "come, now". Differences are transmitted in the reading of the word (hīta, haytu and the like); since they do not change the meaning, I do not go into their detail.

The word was analysed at al-Falaq 113/1 and this very verse was cited as an example:

maʿādh (معاذ): a place of refuge, a shelter. Maʿādha'llāh — "I take refuge in God", the English "God forbid". It occurs in the Qurʾān from Joseph's mouth: "Maʿādha'llāh!" (Yūsuf 12/23).

I rely on that treatment. The pattern is a mafʿūl muṭlaq whose verb has been elided: aʿūdhu maʿādha'llāh — "I take refuge in God with a taking of refuge".

And the same expression will occur once more in the sūra: in verse 79, when it is proposed that Joseph take another in place of his brother. In both places what is refused is complicity in a wrong. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

The word rabbī in this sentence was treated as a note on language in al-Fātiḥa:

The word "Rabb", used alone and without a genitive, is used only of God. Of a human being it can be used only in a genitive construction — in the story of Joseph the word occurs when he says to his prison companion "mention me to your master" (Yūsuf 12/42), but always in annexation to something.

I rely on that treatment.

And the lexicographers differ over whom the sentence refers to:

Both readings are found in the classical commentaries; I do not impose a preference.

This is worth recording and is verifiable from the text: in the twenty-first verse the master of the house had said akrimī mathwāhu. In the twenty-third verse Joseph says aḥsana mathwāya — the same word, two verses apart. This overlap is an indication supporting the first reading. I record it as an indication, not as a preference.

Wa-la-qad hammat bihi wa-hamma bihā lawlā an raʾā burhāna rabbih · Kadhālika li-naṣrifa ʿanhu's-sūʾa wa'l-faḥshāʾ · Innahu min ʿibādina'l-mukhlaṣīn

"And she certainly desired him; and he would have desired her had he not seen the proof of his Lord. Thus — that We might turn evil and indecency away from him. He was indeed one of Our chosen servants."

This verse is one of the most debated in the Qurʾān, and the debate arises from grammar. Per the method (Method) I impose no preference here; I transmit the readings found in the classical commentaries together with their grounds, and I keep clear of imputations unworthy of the prophets.

In Arabic lawlā (had it not been that…) is a conditional particle and requires two elements: a protasis and an apodosis. The protasis is plainly present in the verse (an raʾā burhāna rabbih). The apodosis is not written — it has been elided. The whole disagreement arises from this: where is the apodosis to be placed?

All four readings are found in the classical commentaries. I impose none of them as a preference.

And in the midst of the disagreement there are three things the text itself says decisively — and these are independent of the readings:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the last two clauses of the verse: even while telling the scene, the verse delivers the verdict itself. That is, the text does not leave the reader free to pass judgement — it says that sūʾ and faḥshāʾ were turned away and that the person is mukhlaṣ. These two clauses determine the bounds within which the disagreement must remain.

The word was analysed at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/75 (hātū burhānakum):

بُرْهَان — decisive proof. The lexicographers define the word as the proof that binds the other party and ends the dispute.

I rely on that treatment. The word also occurred in al-Anbiyāʾ, al-Naml and Sabaʾ.

And what the proof was, the verse does not say. There are many reports on this in the classical commentaries; some of them come from the Isrāʾīliyyāt and have no counterpart in the Qurʾān. I do not transmit them.

The one thing the text says must be recorded: burhāna rabbihi — the proof is annexed to his Lord. That is, what held him back is tied not to the person's own will but to a proof shown to him.

And here there is a variant reading that changes the meaning, so I record it:

Both pronunciations are transmitted among the reciters. The concept of ikhlāṣ was treated in detail at al-Zumar 39/1-3 (mukhliṣan lahu'd-dīn); I rely on that treatment.

And the difference is meaningful: on the first reading the protection stands as a gift, on the second as an attainment. The context of the verse (li-naṣrifa ʿanhu — "that We might turn it away") is nearer the first reading; I record this as an indication, not as a preference.

Wa'stabaqa'l-bāba wa-qaddat qamīṣahu min duburin wa-alfayā sayyidahā lada'l-bāb · Qālat mā jazāʾu man arāda bi-ahlika sūʾan illā an yusjana aw ʿadhābun alīm · Qāla hiya rāwadatnī ʿan nafsī wa-shahida shāhidun min ahlihā · In kāna qamīṣuhu qudda min qubulin fa-ṣadaqat wa-huwa mina'l-kādhibīn · Wa-in kāna qamīṣuhu qudda min duburin fa-kadhabat wa-huwa mina'ṣ-ṣādiqīn · Fa-lammā raʾā qamīṣahu qudda min duburin qāla innahu min kaydikunna inna kaydakunna ʿaẓīm · Yūsufu aʿriḍ ʿan hādhā wa'staghfirī li-dhanbik innaki kunti mina'l-khāṭiʾīn

"They both raced for the door; she tore his shirt from behind. At the door they came upon her lord. She said: 'What is the recompense of one who intends evil against your household but that he be imprisoned, or a painful punishment?' He said: 'It was she who tried to get me against my will.' A witness of her own household bore witness: 'If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has spoken the truth and he is one of the liars. But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she has lied and he is one of the truthful.' When her lord saw that the shirt was torn from behind he said: 'This is of your scheming; your scheming is indeed great. Joseph, turn away from this. And you, ask forgiveness for your sin; you are indeed one of those at fault.'"

And this scene is one of the clearest pieces of reasoning from material evidence in the Qurʾān. What the witness says is not a testimony but a rule of inference:

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the wording of the verse: the witness does not say that he saw the event. He reasons backwards from a trace — and this is exactly the work of the root qaṣaṣ: to follow a trail.

And a link with the sūra as a whole can be made; I give it as my own reading: in this same sūra a shirt had been a false proof (18); here the same object becomes a true proof. The difference is that in one case the proof was manufactured, in the other it was read.

Who the witness was, the verse does not say. There are differing reports on this in the classical commentaries; these are details the Qurʾān does not give, and I do not transmit them.

The single attribute the text does give is worth recording: min ahlihā — from the woman's own side. I give this as my own reading: the proof comes from the opposing party — and this is a position that increases the weight of the proof.

The concrete sense of the root: to split a thing lengthwise, to divide it in two along its length. The lexicographers distinguish it from the verb qaṭʿ (to cut across). The word does not occur in the Qurʾān outside this sūra, and here it occurs four times (25, 26, 27, 28).

And the voice of the verb must be recorded: in verse 25 it is active (qaddat — she tore), in verses 26-28 passive (qudda — was torn). That is, the narrative gives the event once with its agent; then three times without an agent — because those in the scene do not know the agent, they see only the trace.

This is a countable datum of word order and is worth noting for the narrative technique.

The scope of the sentence needs attention, because it is often read as a generalisation.

The word order says this: the address is feminine plural (kaydakunna), and the speaker is a master of a house who has just learned of the affair. The sentence is transmitted not as God's verdict but as one person's words.

I give this as a note and rely on the relevant clause of Method: the Qurʾān passes no wholesale verdict on a group; what it describes are attributes. Indeed in this same sūra another group of women will speak the truth, saying ḥāsha li'llāhi mā ʿalimnā ʿalayhi min sūʾ (51).

And it must be recorded for comparison: the same root (kayd) is ascribed to God in verse 76 and carries no negative sense there. In the sūra the word names not a party but a method — I tabulated this at verse 5.

And the close of the scene is worth recording: the proof has come out, the verdict has been given — and the outcome is that the affair is shut.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the wording of the verse: aʿriḍ ʿan hādhā — "turn away from this, let it be". That is, the truth's coming out does not bring about a change in the outcome. Indeed in verse 35, despite the proofs having been seen, the decision to imprison will be taken: thumma badā lahum min baʿdi mā raʾawu'l-āyāti la-yasjununnahu ḥattā ḥīn.

This is a tension verifiable within the sūra: there is proof, and the verdict does not follow the proof.

Wa-qāla niswatun fi'l-madīnati'mraʾatu'l-ʿazīzi turāwidu fatāhā ʿan nafsihi qad shaghafahā ḥubbā innā la-narāhā fī ḍalālin mubīn · Fa-lammā samiʿat bi-makrihinna arsalat ilayhinna wa-aʿtadat lahunna muttakaʾan wa-ātat kulla wāḥidatin minhunna sikkīnan wa-qālati'khruj ʿalayhinn · Fa-lammā raʾaynahu akbarnahu wa-qaṭṭaʿna aydiyahunna wa-qulna ḥāsha li'llāhi mā hādhā basharan in hādhā illā malakun karīm

"Some women in the city said: 'The vizier's wife is trying to get her young man against his will; love for him has pierced her to the heart. We see her in manifest error.' When she heard of their talk she sent for them, prepared for them a banquet with cushions, gave each of them a knife, and said: 'Come out before them!' When the women saw him they were overwhelmed by him, and they cut their hands, and said: 'God preserve us! This is no human being; this is none but a noble angel.'"

The root ش-غ-ف: شَغَاف (shaghāf) — the fine membrane that envelops the heart, the pericardium. The verb: to reach this membrane, to penetrate to the innermost casing of the heart.

The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here. And its image is worth recording: love is described as having penetrated not the inside of the heart but the membrane that envelops it. The lexicographers explain this as "to reach the deepest point".

حُبًّا — in the accusative as tamyīz (specification): "with respect to love". In Arabic tamyīz is the element that resolves the indefiniteness in a sentence. That is, "it pierced her in this respect: love."

And the point of word order is here: what the women said is called makr in the next clause of the verse — fa-lammā samiʿat bi-makrihinna.

The root م-ك-ر: to move towards an outcome secretly, by indirect means. The root was treated in detail at Fāṭir 35/43 (wa-lā yaḥīqu'l-makru's-sayyiʾu illā bi-ahlih). I do not repeat it here.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the choice of the word: what was said is, on the face of it, a reproach. The text calls it "makr" — that is, it names the speech according to the purpose of the speaker.

And what the mistress of the house does is counted out step by step in the verse. I record this as an observation, and its ground is the order of the verbs:

The third step is worth recording: the knives are handed out first, the coming out follows. That is, the scene is set up in advance so as to produce the outcome. And this is the woman's method of defending her own position: to put those who reproach her into the same position.

مُتَّكَأ — root و-ك-أ: to recline. Ittikāʾ — to lean upon. The word describes a seating arrangement of cushions to lean upon, and the hospitality that goes with it. The lexicographers record that the word means both "the place to recline" and "the food served there".

This sentence was treated at al-Mujādala 58/2 as an example of grammar:

The best-known instance of the same structure in the Qurʾān: "This is no human being" — مَا هَٰذَا بَشَرًا (Yūsuf 12/31). The same pattern, the same function: to declare decisively that a thing is not something.

I rely on that treatment. The pattern is mā operating like laysa (the Ḥijāzī dialect): the predicate comes in the accusative — basharan. This is a negation that conveys certainty.

And the clause immediately following does the same work from the other side: in hādhā illā malakun karīm — the in … illā pattern of restriction (ḥaṣr). This pattern was analysed in detail at al-Najm 53/4.

That is, two sentences together: one thing is denied, and something is put in its place. Both are patterns of certainty.

And this must be recorded, as my own reading: the women's words are not a praise but a defence — indeed the mistress of the house will use them so: fa-dhālikunna'lladhī lumtunnanī fīh (32). The scene had been staged to show that the reproach was unjust, and it attains its end.

حَٰشَ لِلَّهِ — in Arabic an expression of tanzīh (holding at a remove): "God forbid, this cannot be." The expression occurs twice in the sūra: here (31) and in verse 51 — and in the second place these same women will say of Joseph mā ʿalimnā ʿalayhi min sūʾ. The same expression in both places, about the same person.

And a detail of orthography here was mentioned at al-ʿAlaq 96/15-16:

Yūsuf 12/32: wa-la-yakūnan mina'ṣ-ṣāghirīn (وَلَيَكُونًا مِّنَ ٱلصَّٰغِرِينَ)

The light nūn of emphasis at the end of the verb is written in the muṣḥaf with an alif (as though it were tanwīn). This is an orthography seen in only two places in the Qurʾān, and it was recorded in al-ʿAlaq together with the other instance. I rely on that treatment.

And the content of the threat must be recorded: two things — prison and humiliation (aṣ-ṣāghirīn). In the next verse Joseph will ask for the first of them himself.

Qāla rabbi's-sijnu aḥabbu ilayya mimmā yadʿūnanī ilayh · Wa-illā taṣrif ʿannī kaydahunna aṣbu ilayhinna wa-akun mina'l-jāhilīn · Fa'stajāba lahu rabbuhu fa-ṣarafa ʿanhu kaydahunna innahu huwa's-samīʿu'l-ʿalīm

"He said: 'My Lord! Prison is dearer to me than what they call me to. If You do not turn their scheming away from me, I shall incline to them and be among the ignorant.' His Lord answered him and turned their scheming away from him. He is indeed the Hearing, the Knowing."

And this is one of the most remarkable verbal weaves of the sūra: the pattern aḥabb (dearer) occurs twice in the sūra, and both times it names a preference:

This is a countable repetition within the sūra.

And the comparison is worth recording; I give it as my own reading: in the eighth verse aḥabb was the measure of how much love another shows one — and it bred an enmity. In the thirty-third verse the same pattern reports a person's own choice, and a prison is accepted. The same word in two different offices: one a claim of entitlement, the other a preference.

And the point of word order is this, and it must be recorded: the sentence does not say "prison is good". It compares two things and does not name the other side of the comparison: mimmā yadʿūnanī ilayh — "what they call me to".

I give this as an observation: the text avoids naming the proposal. This is the general bearing of the sūra in this section — nowhere across the scene is the act named outright; veiled expressions are used, such as sūʾ, faḥshāʾ and mā yadʿūnanī ilayh.

And the heaviest sentence of the prayer is here. Aṣbu — root ص-ب-و: to incline, to be carried away by a childish craving. From the same root comes ṣabī — a child.

The construction of the sentence must be recorded: the man does not trust his own strength. He builds a conditional: "if You do not turn it away, I shall incline."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the conditional particle (illā = in lā): the sentence is not a declaration of resistance but an admission of incapacity. And this comes from the same place as the sentence wa-mā ubarriʾu nafsī in verse 53. The two sentences may be compared:

That both sentences stand in the same sūra is a datum of the text.

وَأَكُن مِّنَ ٱلْجَٰهِلِين — jahl here conveys not ignorance but conduct. The same sense was treated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/52-55 (lā nabtaghi'l-jāhilīn): in Arabic the opposite of jahl may be not only ʿilm but also ḥilm (measured self-command). I rely on that treatment.

And the thirty-fourth verse is worth recording: it is said plainly that the prayer was answered — and the content of the answer is the exact counterpart of what was asked: fa-ṣarafa ʿanhu kaydahunna.

I give this as an observation about the structure: the request in verse 33 (taṣrif ʿannī kaydahunna) and the response in verse 34 (ṣarafa ʿanhu kaydahunna) are built with the same words. That is, the text shows the answering by repeating the same wording.

And a tension must be recorded, as my own reading: what comes immediately after the prayer is answered is the prison (35). The text does not tie the answering of a prayer to an improvement of circumstances — what was asked for was "the turning away of the scheming", and that came to pass; the prison is an outcome lying outside the request.

"Then, after they had seen the proofs, it seemed good to them to imprison him for a time."

The root ب-د-و: to come out into the open, to appear. The subject of the verb is not stated: "[something] appeared to them". In Arabic this is a usage that leaves the agent indeterminate.

And the word order of the sentence must be recorded, because it lodges the contradiction inside the sentence:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the adverbial clause: the verse says that the decision was taken despite the proofs. That is, the decision does not arise from a lack of knowledge.

And this is the continuation of the command aʿriḍ ʿan hādhā ("let this be") in verse 29: shutting the affair was not enough, and its source was removed as well.

حَتَّىٰ حِينٍ — "for a time". Indefinite and unspecified: how long is not said.

This indefiniteness accords with the axis of al-Kahf — there too, in all four stories, the duration was unknown. The same here: the length of the stay in prison is not measured in the text. Indeed in verse 42 only biḍʿa sinīn will be said: "a few years".

"Two young men entered the prison with him. One said: 'I see myself in a dream pressing wine.' The other said: 'I see myself carrying bread on my head, and the birds eating from it. Tell us its interpretation; we see that you are one of those who do good.'"

The inflection of the verb must be recorded: arānī — imperfect (present/general tense), and both the subject and the object of the verb are the same person.

In Arabic it is not normally permissible for the subject and object of a verb to be the same pronoun (one says ḍarabtu nafsī, not ḍarabtunī); but the verbs of the heart (raʾā, ʿalima, ẓanna) fall outside this rule. The lexicographers record this separately.

And the tense's being imperfect is worth noting; I give this as my own reading: the dream is told not in the past ("I saw") but in the present — as though it were still being seen. Joseph's telling in the fourth verse, by contrast, was in the perfect: innī raʾaytu.

This is a countable difference within the sūra.

The root ع-ص-ر: to press, to squeeze the juice out. ʿAṣr — pressing; iʿṣār — a whirlwind (which squeezes the air). The word will come back in the forty-ninth verse of the sūra: wa-fīhi yaʿṣirūn.

And the lexicographers record that the word khamr is used here in the sense of "grapes" — in Arabic it is common to name a thing by the state it will reach (this is called tasmiya bi-mā yaʾūlu ilayh). This is the same logic as the sūra's key construction: taʾwīl too means "the place a thing arrives at".

I record this as an observation about the language: the word does the same work as the logic of the dream itself — what is seen is named by the name of the state it will reach.

نَبِّئْنَا بِتَأْوِيلِهِۦ — and the request comes with the key word of the sūra: taʾwīl.

إِنَّا نَرَىٰكَ مِنَ ٱلْمُحْسِنِين — the ground of the request rests on an observation: "we see that you are one of those who do good". And the same pattern (narāka mina'l-muḥsinīn) will be repeated word for word in verse 78, in the mouths of the brothers. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.

"He said: 'Before any food comes to you as your provision, I shall tell you the interpretation of it. This is of what my Lord has taught me. I have left the religion of a people who do not believe in God and who deny the hereafter; I have followed the religion of my fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not for us to associate anything with God. This is of God's bounty upon us and upon mankind; but most people are not thankful.'"

And this is one of the most remarkable points of word order in the sūra; it deserves treatment in detail.

The question has been asked (36) and the answer will come in verse 41. The four verses in between (37-40) are not an interpretation of dreams — they are an exposition of divine oneness.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the verses. Three separate things are done, and their order is meaningful:

One — the source of the capacity is stated first. Dhālikumā mimmā ʿallamanī rabbī. That is, those who ask are invited to attach the knowledge of what is to come not to a person but to the source that taught that person. Before the interpretation is given, where the interpretation comes from is stated.

Two — the position is declared at the moment interest arises. The two young men had said "we see that you are one of those who do good". That interest, before it is answered at all, is turned into a declaration of belonging.

Three — the call is made before any debt arises. This is the finest point, and its ground is the first clause of verse 37: the interpretation has not yet been given. That is, the hearers are under no obligation. Had the order been reversed — first the interpretation, then the call — acceptance of the call could have become entangled with a debt of gratitude.

I give this as my own reading; the verse does not build this ground explicitly, but the order of the verses lends itself to it.

And the measure of the assurance given is worth recording: the promise is not "I shall interpret" — it is "I shall interpret before your food comes". That is, a commitment as to time is given.

The lexicographers record that this sentence is understood in two ways: (1) the interpretation of the dreams, (2) telling in advance what the coming food will be. The second reading rests on the prominence of the word ṭaʿām in the sentence. I transmit the disagreement; I do not impose a preference.

The lexicographers dwell on the concrete sense of the root: malla — to cook a thing by burying it in hot ashes; another sense of malla is to dictate (akin to imlāʾ). From this comes milla: the road followed, the order kept to — especially in the sense of the way a community holds to.

The lexicographers record the difference between milla and dīn thus: dīn is ascribed to a person (dīnī), whereas milla is ascribed to a prophet or to a community (millatu Ibrāhīm). The Qurʾān preserves this distinction.

And two verbs must be recorded: taraktu (I left) and ittabaʿtu (I followed). That is, the declaration consists of two steps: to go out from one road and to enter another. And that is the order too: first the leaving, then the following.

The pattern must be recorded: mā kāna lanā an… — in Arabic "it is not for us", that is, it conveys impossibility and unfittingness. Not a simple negation (lā nushriku).

مِن شَىْء — a redundant min, generalising the negation: "anything at all".

And the plural is worth noting: lanā — "for us". That is, the speaker speaks not in his own name but in the name of a line that takes in the three names he has mentioned.

Yā ṣāḥibayi's-sijni a-arbābun mutafarriqūna khayrun ami'llāhu'l-wāḥidu'l-qahhār · Mā taʿbudūna min dūnihi illā asmāʾan sammaytumūhā antum wa-ābāʾukum mā anzala'llāhu bihā min sulṭān · Ini'l-ḥukmu illā li'llāh · Amara allā taʿbudū illā iyyāh · Dhālika'd-dīnu'l-qayyimu wa-lākinna akthara'n-nāsi lā yaʿlamūn

"'My two companions of the prison! Are separate lords better, or God, the One, the Overpowering? What you serve besides Him are nothing but names you and your fathers have given; God has sent down no authority for them. Judgement belongs to God alone. He has commanded that you serve none but Him. That is the upright religion; but most people do not know.'"

The proof in this verse was treated in another form at al-Zumar 39/29, and the two verses may be compared directly. What was recorded in al-Zumar:

The example is taken from the life of that day: a slave who has more than one owner, and a slave who has a single owner. مُتَشَٰكِسُون — root ش-ك-س: quarrelsome, ill-tempered, at odds… The verse does not argue the theoretical falsity of plurality — it shows its practical outcome. A man with more than one owner cannot know whose bidding to follow; each wants a different thing, and he can satisfy none of them fully. That is, the matter is taken out of the realm of a dispute about belief and made a question of direction.

I rely on that treatment, and I set the two verses side by side:

The same proof, in two different forms. This is an overlap verifiable between the two sūras.

And the difference is worth recording; I give it as my own reading: in al-Zumar the matter was set out through the condition of a slave — that is, the hearer put himself in the slave's place. In Yūsuf there is no parable, because the hearers are already in that condition: two young men in prison, under someone's orders. The scene leaves no need for a parable.

مُتَفَرِّقُون — root ف-ر-ق, Form V: to scatter, to break apart. The adjective is used of lords: separate from one another, scattered.

ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ — The two names come together, and this is a pattern in the Qurʾān. This pair of names was tabulated in al-Ikhlāṣ, al-Ḍuḥā and Ṣād 38/65-66:

What was recorded in Ṣād: in almost every place where the name occurs it comes together with al-Wāḥid (Yūsuf 12/39; al-Raʿd 13/16; Ṣād 38/65; al-Zumar 39/4; Ghāfir 40/16).

I rely on that treatment. In al-Ikhlāṣ too this verse was cited as an example in the discussion of why aḥad is said where "Allāhu wāḥid" could have been said.

And the work done by the two names coming together must be recorded: wāḥid conveys number, qahhār power. The question had begun with "how many" (mutafarriqūn); the answer gives both the number and the power. I give this as my own reading; its ground is that the question and the answer are built on the same plane.

This expression was analysed in detail at al-Najm 53/23 (in hiya illā asmāʾun sammaytumūhā antum wa-ābāʾukum), and it is essential to rely on that here. What was recorded there:

Root: س-م-و. The majority of the lexicographers attach the noun to this root: a name is what raises a thing up, what brings it out from among the rest and makes it visible. The verse does not say "you named them wrongly"; it says "you named them". Had it said "you gave them the wrong name", it would have implied that a right name might exist. The verse points at the act itself: the operation of naming does not prove that there is something there to be named. The human mind, on hearing a name, assumes that something corresponds to it… The verse cuts this automatic assumption. A name is a sign a human being has set down; the existence of the sign does not entail the existence of the thing signified. سُلْطَان — burhān or bayyina could have been said; sulṭān was said — and its root carries dominion. These names have no power that binds you.

I rely on that treatment, and I add two differences here, because the two verses are not identical:

The difference is worth recording, and I give it as my own reading: in al-Najm the subject of the sentence is the idols; in Yūsuf the subject is the act of service. That is, what is voided here is not only the name but the behaviour directed at the name.

And the same sentence will occur once more in the sūra, from another mouth: in the father's words in verse 67. The same pattern, the same words, in both places.

This is a countable repetition within the sūra. And I add as my own reading: the same sentence is used once in a context of belief and once in a context of precaution. In both it does the same work: it determines where the last word lies.

ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْقَيِّم — the root ق-و-م: standing straight, in balance. The root was treated at al-Kahf 18/1-8 (qayyiman) and at al-Baqara 2/255 (al-Qayyūm). I do not repeat it here.

"'My two companions of the prison! One of you will pour wine for his master; the other will be crucified, and the birds will eat from his head. The matter you asked about is decreed.' And to the one of them he thought would be saved he said: 'Mention me to your master.' But Satan made him forget to mention it to his master, and so he stayed in prison a few years more."

The answer is given with the ammā … wa-ammā pattern — in Arabic the particle of itemisation; each time it takes its answer with a fāʾ. The pattern was treated in its threefold form at al-Wāqiʿa 56/88-94. I do not repeat it here.

And two notes must be entered. The first is an observation about the structure: the interpretation keeps the order in which the dreams were told. The second is weightier: the second interpretation is bad, and it is spoken without softening.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the wording of the verse: fa-yuṣlabu fa-taʾkulu'ṭ-ṭayru min raʾsih. The text does not cover up the bad news. And it is the same mouth that four verses earlier expounded divine oneness. That is, one sees in the same scene that the call is not altered out of a concern to please the one addressed.

قُضِىَ ٱلْأَمْرُ ٱلَّذِى فِيهِ تَسْتَفْتِيَان — "the matter on which you sought a ruling is decreed."

تَسْتَفْتِيَان — root ف-ت-ي, Form X: to seek the resolution of a difficulty. Fatwā is from this root; and fatā (a young man) is the same root — the lexicographers attach it to the sense "of renewed strength". The two men in the scene were called fatayān (two young men) at the head of the passage; now they ask with a verb from that same root. This is an overlap that is a datum of the text.

The word rabbika in this sentence was cited as a note on language at al-Fātiḥa 1/1: rabb can be used of a human being only in a genitive construction. I rely on that treatment.

And there is a verbal weave in the verse, worth recording:

The same root (ذ-ك-ر) twice, once as a request and once as a loss.

And in this sentence there is a disagreement in the classical commentaries: who is it that forgot?

Both readings are transmitted in the classical commentaries; I do not impose a preference.

This is worth recording and, per the method (Method), must be said plainly: because the second reading implies a fault in a prophet, it is disputed in the classical commentaries too, and many exegetes take the first reading as the basis. I impose no preference; but I record that one must avoid turning the second reading into an imputation unworthy of the prophets.

And an indication supporting the first reading is in the text: in the same verse rabbika (your master) is already used of a human being. I record this as an indication, not as a preference.

بِضْعَ سِنِين — the root ب-ض-ع: to break a piece off something. Biḍʿ — in Arabic it is used for an indefinite number between three and nine. The word occurs once more in the Qurʾān: fī biḍʿi sinīn (al-Rūm 30/4) — treated at al-Rūm 30/1-5.

And it must be recorded that the indefiniteness continues: in verse 35 it was said ḥattā ḥīn (for a time); here biḍʿa sinīn (a few years). The duration is named twice, and twice it is not measured. This is a note that accords with the axis of al-Kahf.

"The king said: 'I see in a dream seven fat cows being eaten by seven lean ones; and seven green ears of grain and seven others dry. You notables! Give me a ruling on my dream, if you can interpret dreams.' They said: 'Confused dreams; and we are not versed in the interpretation of such dreams.'"

And the strongest verbal datum of the sūra begins here. Taʿburūn — root ع-ب-ر.

The root was analysed in detail at al-Ḥashr 59/2 (fa'ʿtabirū yā ūli'l-abṣār), and this very verse was cited there:

Root: ع-ب-ر. The concrete sense of the root is to pass from one side of a thing to the other. | Word | Meaning | What it crosses | |---|---|---| | عَبَرَ ٱلنَّهْرَ | He crossed the river | The water — from one bank to the other | | مَعْبَر (maʿbar) | Crossing, landing-place, bridge | The place where the crossing is made | | عَابِر سَبِيل | Traveller, passer-by | One who passes a place and goes on | | عَبْرَة (ʿabra) | A tear | The water that passes from the eye to the cheek | | تَعْبِير ٱلرُّءْيَا | Dream interpretation | To pass from the image to the meaning | | عِبَارَة (ʿibāra) | Expression, speech | What passes a meaning from mind to mind | | عِبْرَة (ʿibra) | Lesson | To pass from an event to oneself | "If you can interpret (تَعْبُرُونَ) dreams" (Yūsuf 12/43). The king relates the dream he saw and asks for an interpretation — that is, for a crossing from the image to the meaning.

I rely on that treatment. The root was also treated at al-Nāziʿāt 79/25-26 and al-Muʾminūn 23/21-22.

And in verse 111 the same root will come back in the form ʿibra; the sūra as a whole lies there. I shall complete this link at that point.

ضِغْث — the word was analysed at Ṣād 38/41-44:

ضِغْث — root ض-غ-ث. The lexicographers describe the word thus: a mixed bundle of grass, twigs or stalks, as much as one hand can grasp. A handful. In the root of the word there is a confusion and a being held together; from the same root comes aḍghāthu aḥlām — confused dreams (Yūsuf 12/44).

I rely on that treatment.

And the fit of the image to the scene is worth recording; I give it as my own reading: the word means a bundle of grass — and what is seen in the dream is ears of grain. The refusal itself is made with a word drawn from the same image as the material of the dream. I give this as an observation about the language; the verse does not make this connection.

And there is a change of word in the verse; it must be recorded:

The lexicographers record a difference between ruʾyā and ḥulm: ruʾyā is generally used of a meaningful vision, ḥulm of a confused and meaningless dream. The difference is not absolute, but in this verse the two are set against each other.

I record this as an observation: the king says "I saw"; the counsellors change the word in their answer. That is, the answer renames the subject of the question as well — something that cannot be known is declared meaningless.

وَمَا نَحْنُ بِتَأْوِيلِ ٱلْأَحْلَٰمِ بِعَٰلِمِين — and the admission is plain: they do not know.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the two clauses: first "confused dreams" (a verdict), then "we do not know" (an admission). Had the order been reversed the sentence would have been a mere declaration of incapacity; in this order, the incapacity is covered over with a verdict.

"The one of the two who had been saved remembered after a long while and said: 'I will tell you its interpretation; send me forth.' — 'Joseph! You man of truth! Give us a ruling on seven fat cows being eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears of grain and seven others dry, that I may return to the people and they may know.' He said: 'You will sow for seven years as you are used to. What you reap, leave in the ear, save a little that you eat. Then after that will come seven hard years, which will consume what you laid up for them — save a little that you keep in store. Then after that will come a year in which the people will be given abundant rain, and in which they will press.'"

ٱدَّكَرَ — root ذ-ك-ر, Form VIII. Its original form is idhdakara; the dhāl and the dāl have merged to give iddakara. This is a known rule of assimilation in Arabic.

أُمَّة — the word occurs in the Qurʾān in several senses, and here it means a stretch of time: "after a while". The same word could in another context have carried the sense of a community; the Qurʾān uses this word in the sense of time at Hūd 11/8 as well (ilā ummatin maʿdūda).

And the length of the forgetting is worth recording: in verse 42 it was said fa-ansāhu'sh-shayṭān; here baʿda umma. That is, the forgetting is not a mere moment but a long stretch.

صِدِّيق — root ص-د-ق, an intensive form (fiʿʿīl): one in whom truthfulness has become a settled disposition.

The word was treated at al-Ḥadīd 57/19 (wa'lladhīna āmanū bi'llāhi wa-rusulihi ulāʾika humu'ṣ-ṣiddīqūn), and those named with this attribute in the Qurʾān were listed there:

The Qurʾān uses this word of several persons: Abraham (Maryam 19/41), Idrīs (Maryam 19/56), Joseph (Yūsuf 12/46 — there as a form of address), and Mary (al-Māʾida 5/75).

I rely on that treatment.

And who makes the address is worth recording: the one who uses the word is the man who shared the prison with him and parted from him years before. That is, the attribute rests on an observation made long ago.

And this is one of the most concrete points of the sūra. What was asked for was an interpretation of a dream; the answer given consists of three parts, and only the first is an interpretation:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the text of verse 43: the dream the king saw contains fourteen elements (seven + seven cows, seven + seven ears). The year in the forty-ninth verse is not in the dream.

That is, the answer exceeds what was asked. And a link with the sūra's key construction can be made: taʾwīlu'l-aḥādīth — to know where events arrive. The dream ends in the seventh year; taʾwīl shows the fifteenth as well.

And the concreteness of the advice given is worth recording: to leave the crop in the ear.

This is information verifiable from the history of agriculture, and I transmit it as an observation: grain kept without being separated from the ear has the natural protection of its outer husk; it is more resistant to damp and to insects. This method has been used throughout history for long-term storage.

I give this as a piece of information; I am not dressing the verse in a modern one. What the verse states is a technique, and the ground of the technique is not written in the text.

دَأَبًا — root د-أ-ب: to do a thing continuously and with effort; a habitual practice. Ka-daʾbi āli Firʿawn (Āl ʿImrān 3/11) — "like the wont of Pharaoh's folk". The sense here: "after your custom of every year, without a break."

And I record the following as my own reading, its ground being the content of the three verses:

The answer is not a prophecy but a policy. It contains the following: production (seven years of sowing), a limit on consumption (illā qalīlan mimmā taʾkulūn), a method of storage (leaving it in the ear), and stock management (illā qalīlan mimmā tuḥṣinūn — setting aside seed grain).

That is, the knowledge is given already converted into a practice. And this lays the ground for the request in the next block (ijʿalnī ʿalā khazāʾini'l-arḍ, 55): the request for office comes after a plan has been set out.

يُغَاثُ ٱلنَّاسُ — root غ-و-ث (help) or غ-ي-ث (rain). The lexicographers record both derivations, and on either the meaning comes to the same place: the lifting of hardship. I transmit the disagreement; I do not impose a preference.

وَفِيهِ يَعْصِرُون — and the verb is the same as the verb of the dream in verse 36: aʿṣiru. The section that began in prison with the verb of pressing ends with the verb of pressing in the year of plenty. This is a countable overlap within the sūra.

"The king said: 'Bring him to me.' When the messenger came to him he said: 'Go back to your master and ask him: what was the matter with the women who cut their hands? My Lord surely knows their scheming.'"

And this is the most remarkable side of the scene: the order to leave the prison has come, and he has not left.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the sequence of the verse: the summons came (iʾtūnī bihi), the messenger arrived (fa-lammā jāʾahu'r-rasūl), and the answer was a sending back (irjiʿ ilā rabbik).

The content of the request must be recorded: not to come out — an inquiry. Fa'sʾalhu mā bālu'n-niswati'llātī qaṭṭaʿna aydiyahunn.

That is, what is wanted is to be cleared before coming out. I give this as my own reading; its ground is the content of the question: the question makes its subject not the event itself but the women's condition — that is, the reopening of the source of the accusation.

The construction was tabulated at Muḥammad 47/2 (wa-aṣlaḥa bālahum), and this very verse was cited there:

| Yūsuf 12/50 | mā bālu'n-niswati'llātī qaṭṭaʿna aydiyahunn | "What was the condition/matter of the women who cut their hands?" |

I rely on that treatment.

The root ب-و-ل: state, condition, what comes to mind. Bāl — state; and khaṭara bi-bālihi — it came into his mind. The construction is an interrogative pattern meaning "what was the matter?"

And the form of the question is worth recording: no one is accused. The question brings the affair back into view but contains no imputation. I give this as an observation; its ground is that the verb in the sentence is the women's own act (qaṭṭaʿna aydiyahunn) — that is, a known behaviour of theirs is recalled.

And the end of the sentence must be recorded: the request is directed to people, but the knowledge is ascribed to God.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two clauses stand side by side: an inquiry is asked for and at the same time it is said that the outcome is already known. That is, the legal clearing arises not from a need to be known but from one's standing among people.

"The king said: 'What was your business when you sought to get Joseph against his will?' They said: 'God forbid! We know no evil of him.' The vizier's wife said: 'Now the truth has come out. It was I who sought to get him against his will; and he is indeed one of the truthful.'"

The construction was analysed at al-Dhāriyāt 51/31-34 (fa-mā khaṭbukum ayyuha'l-mursalūn), and this verse was cited there:

The Qurʾān always uses this word inside a question: "You women, what is your business?" (Yūsuf 12/51); "Sāmirī, what is your business?" (Ṭāhā 20/95); "You two women, what is your business?" (al-Qaṣaṣ 28/23).

I rely on that treatment. The root خ-ط-ب: to address, to speak; and an important affair. Khuṭba is from the same root.

And this is one of the densest sentences in the sūra.

The root ح-ص-ص: a portion, a share; and to separate a thing out and bring it to light. Ḥiṣṣa — a share. The verb comes here in the form ḥaṣḥaṣa: a pattern built by repeating the two syllables of a root (in morphology this is called the rubāʿī muḍāʿaf, the reduplicated quadriliteral).

The lexicographers explain the word in two ways:

Both explanations are transmitted by the lexicographers and come to the same place: separation and becoming visible.

And the pattern itself is worth noting: a reduplicated root (ḥaṣ-ḥaṣa) generally conveys motion and force in Arabic. That is, the truth comes out not slowly but at once and decisively.

ٱلْـَٰٔنَ — "now". Bringing the adverb of time to the head of the sentence conveys emphasis. And this must be read together with the sūra's scale of time: the event took place in verses 25-29; the admission comes here. Between them lie the years of prison.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the distance between the verses: the sūra tells the coming out of the truth by delaying it. And this delay is repeated throughout the structure of the sūra — the dream is seen in verse 4 and fulfilled in verse 100.

And the form of the admission is worth recording: two sentences. The first is the admission of her own act (ana rāwadtuhu), the second the vindication of the other party (wa-innahu la-mina'ṣ-ṣādiqīn).

I give this as an observation about the structure: the admission does not end with accepting the guilt — the name of the one slandered is cleared as well. The two things are done separately.

"'This is so that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that God does not bring the scheming of the treacherous to success. I do not declare my own soul innocent; the soul is indeed a persistent commander of evil, save where my Lord shows mercy. My Lord is indeed forgiving, merciful.'"

This is one of the best-known disagreements of the sūra, and it must be given in a table. I do not impose a preference.

Both readings are found in the classical commentaries. I do not impose a preference.

This is worth recording and is verifiable from the text: the wording of the verse does not name the speaker. In verse 51 qālati'mraʾatu'l-ʿazīz was written plainly; in verse 52 there is no new qāla/qālat. This is the source of the disagreement.

And per the method (Method) a further note must be entered: neither reading requires an unfavourable verdict on a prophet. On the first reading the sentence is a declaration of humility; on the second it is the continuation of an admission. Both lie within the bounds of the text.

The construction was tabulated at al-Qiyāma 75/2 (the Qurʾān's descriptions of the nafs) and treated in detail at al-Shams 91/7-8. What was recorded there:

The direction of the inclination within a human being. In the story of Joseph: "The soul is a persistent commander of evil" (Yūsuf 12/53). Three states of the soul are often named in the tradition: ammāra (commanding evil — Yūsuf 12/53), lawwāma (self-reproaching — al-Qiyāma 75/2), muṭmaʾinna (at rest — al-Fajr 89/27). All three are expressions that occur in the Qurʾān; but the Qurʾān does not present them as a "system of stages". The systematising is the work of a later period.

I rely on that treatment and repeat the note here as well: in this commentary too the threefold scheme is not presented as a system belonging to the Qurʾān.

أَمَّارَة — the feminine of the faʿʿāl pattern: intensive. Not "commanding" but "commanding much". The pattern conveys continuity and intensity.

And a reading recorded at al-Shams 91/8 was linked to this place:

On one reading, fujūr is the direction the soul will incline in if left to itself; taqwā requires an intervention. Water runs downhill of itself; to raise it a pump is needed. This reading accords with Yūsuf 12/53.

And this is the most important part of the sentence, because it limits the verdict.

The lexicographers differ over what the exception refers back to:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And I record the following as my own reading, its ground being the presence of the exception: read without the exception, the sentence would be a verdict of destiny; read with it, it is a statement of an inclination. The verse chooses the second — and this accords with verse 24 of the sūra: there too the protection was tied to an intervention from outside (lawlā an raʾā burhāna rabbih).

"The king said: 'Bring him to me; I shall attach him to myself as my own counsellor.' And when he had spoken with him he said: 'From today you are with us a man of standing and trust.' Joseph said: 'Set me over the treasuries of the land; I am a good keeper and one who knows.'"

The construction was cited at al-Muʾminūn 23/13 and at al-Mursalāt 77/20-23:

مَكِين — root م-ك-ن: to have a place, to become firm. Makān is from the same root. Makīn — firm in place, strong in position. Innaka'l-yawma ladaynā makīnun amīn (Yūsuf 12/54) — the word that describes an official's standing in the language of the court.

I rely on that treatment.

And the coming together of the two attributes must be compared with the measure at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/22-28:

In all three constructions the second element conveys a trust or a competence. And the measure recorded in al-Qaṣaṣ holds here too: one conveys competence, the other trustworthiness, and neither suffices on its own. I rely on that treatment.

And this verse needs attention, because it holds two separate matters.

One — the request comes from the man himself. Ijʿalnī ʿalā khazāʾini'l-arḍ.

Two — the ground of the request is a declaration of competence: innī ḥafīẓun ʿalīm.

حَفِيظ — root ح-ف-ظ, an intensive form: one who guards, who keeps. عَلِيم — one who knows.

And the fitness of the two attributes to the work requested is worth recording; I give this as my own reading: the office requested is the management of treasuries, and this work requires exactly two things — to guard and to know the reckoning. That is, the declaration is the naming of the two qualities the work requires; it is not a general boast.

And its ground within the sūra is verses 47-49: the claim of competence rests on a concrete plan already set out. That is, the declaration does not stand in a void.

A further note must be entered: this verse can look as though it conflicts with the principle that a person should not praise himself. In the classical commentaries the distinction is made thus: what is blamed is declaring one's own soul pure (fa-lā tuzakkū anfusakum, al-Najm 53/32) — that is, a claim to moral superiority. What is here is a declaration of fitness for a task. I transmit this distinction as an explanation widespread in the classical commentaries; I do not ascribe it to any particular person.

The question of tazkiya was treated in detail at al-Jumuʿa 62/2 and al-Najm 53/32; I rely on that treatment.

"Thus did We establish Joseph in that land; he settled in it wherever he wished. We cause Our mercy to reach whom We will, and We do not let the reward of those who do good go to waste. And the reward of the hereafter is better for those who believe and who guard themselves."

The sentence (wa-kadhālika makkannā li-Yūsufa fi'l-arḍ) is word for word the same as in verse 21, and I tabulated it there. The difference between the two verses lies in what follows:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the wording of the two verses: the same verb (makkannā) is used twice; in the first the man has no room to move, in the second he is wherever he wishes. The text names both ends of "establishing" with the same word.

يَتَبَوَّأُ — root ب-و-أ, Form V: to take a place as one's own dwelling, to settle. Mubawwaʾ — a place of settlement.

And this sentence will be repeated word for word in verse 90 from Joseph's own mouth: fa-inna'llāha lā yuḍīʿu ajra'l-muḥsinīn.

This is a countable repetition within the sūra and will be treated at verse 90.

وَلَأَجْرُ ٱلْءَاخِرَةِ خَيْرٌ — and the block closes with a sentence that measures the position attained.

I record this as an observation about the structure: at this point in the sūra the worldly ascent is complete — and immediately a comparison is set beside it. The prayer in verse 101 will do the same work: with dominion in hand, what is asked for will be something else.

Wa-jāʾa ikhwatu Yūsufa fa-dakhalū ʿalayhi fa-ʿarafahum wa-hum lahu munkirūn · Wa-lammā jahhazahum bi-jahāzihim qāla'tūnī bi-akhin lakum min abīkum alā tarawna annī ūfi'l-kayla wa-ana khayru'l-munzilīn · Fa-in lam taʾtūnī bihi fa-lā kayla lakum ʿindī wa-lā taqrabūn · Qālū sa-nurāwidu ʿanhu abāhu wa-innā la-fāʿilūn · Wa-qāla li-fityānihi'jʿalū biḍāʿatahum fī riḥālihim laʿallahum yaʿrifūnahā idhā'nqalabū ilā ahlihim laʿallahum yarjiʿūn

"Joseph's brothers came and entered his presence. He knew them, and they did not know him. When he had furnished them with their provisions he said: 'Bring me a brother of yours from your father. Do you not see that I give full measure and am the best of hosts? If you do not bring him to me there is no measure for you with me, and do not come near me.' They said: 'We shall try to win his father round for him; we shall certainly do it.' And he said to his men: 'Put their trading-goods back into their saddlebags; when they return to their people they may perhaps notice it and come back.'"

And this sentence compresses the whole tension of the sūra into a single line.

The two verbs are not from the same root, but they are exact opposites:

And this is the point of word order, and it must be recorded: the two sides are described with two different grammatical structures. A verbal sentence conveys ḥudūth (occurrence at a moment), a nominal sentence thubūt (a settled state).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two structures: the recognition happened in an instant; the failure to recognise continues as a condition. The text builds the asymmetry of knowledge out of grammar.

And the semantic field of the two roots is worth recording:

• ع-ر-ف — to know; and ʿurf is from the same root: what is known, what is customary. The root conveys acquaintance and habituation.
• ن-ك-ر — not to know, to find strange; munkar is from the same root: what is found strange, what is not accepted.

That is, the two words are the roots of the maʿrūf / munkar pair in the Qurʾān's moral vocabulary. Here those same two roots are used in a scene of recognition. This is an overlap that is a datum of the text.

And the antithesis persists through the sūra: at 69 he makes himself known to his brother, at 89 he asks a question, at 90 the brothers ask (a-innaka la-anta Yūsuf). That is, the not-recognising is maintained across thirty-two verses.

The root ك-ي-ل: to measure by volume. The root was treated in detail at al-Muṭaffifīn 83/1 (alladhīna idha'ktālū ʿala'n-nāsi yastawfūn). I do not repeat it here.

And the recurrence of the word through this section is worth recording: 59, 60, 63, 65, 88. This whole section of the sūra runs on a question of measure — and the principle treated in al-Muṭaffifīn (to give full measure) is seen here in its applied form: annī ūfi'l-kayl.

I record this as an observation: the same word occurs in one sūra as a moral rule and here as an administrator's practice.

And verse 62 is worth recording: the returning of the trading-goods into the loads is given together with its purpose: laʿallahum yaʿrifūnahā … laʿallahum yarjiʿūn.

I give this as an observation about the structure: the text explains the aim of the measure from the man's own mouth. That is, the reader follows the coming scenes knowing the plan — a repetition of the technique of verse 6.

That the particle لَعَلَّ comes twice over is worth noting: a hope in two stages — first let them notice, then let them come back.

"They said: 'Our father! Measure has been withheld from us; send our brother with us and we shall get our measure. We will certainly keep him safe.' He said: 'Shall I entrust him to you as I entrusted his brother to you before? God is the best of keepers, and He is the most merciful of the merciful.' When they opened their loads they found their trading-goods returned to them… He said: 'I will not send him with you until you give me a solemn pledge before God that you will surely bring him back to me, unless you are encompassed.' When they had given their pledge he said: 'God is guarantor over what we say.'"

And verse 64 is the answer to verse 11, and I tabulated the two verses in the section on 11-14. Here its ground is seen:

The same root (أ-م-ن), the same matter, the same parties. This is a countable link within the sūra.

And the form of the answer must be recorded: it is in the form of a question, and it is comparative. The father does not say "no"; he recalls the previous experience.

فَٱللَّهُ خَيْرٌ حَٰفِظًا — a note on the variant readings: the word has been read in two forms, ḥāfiẓan (as tamyīz) and ḥifẓan (as a verbal noun). On both readings the meaning comes to the same place: the work of keeping is left to God.

And a link with the axis of al-Ḥujurāt can be made; but the real link is in verse 12: there the brothers had said wa-innā lahu la-ḥāfiẓūn; here they use the same word again (wa-innā lahu la-ḥāfiẓūn, 63). The father, however, turns the same root towards God: fa'llāhu khayrun ḥāfiẓā.

The same word three times, ascribed to two different places. This is a weave verifiable within the sūra.

The lexicographers record that the sentence is read in two ways:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

نَمِيرُ أَهْلَنَا — root م-ي-ر: to bring provisions to one's family. Mīra — food fetched from afar. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here and is a term of trade and provisioning.

The root و-ث-ق: to bind firmly, to trust. Wathīqa — a document; mīthāq — a compact. The root was treated at al-Aḥzāb 33/7-8 (mīthāqan ghalīẓā).

And the exception to the condition is worth recording: illā an yuḥāṭa bikum — "unless you are encompassed".

The root ح-و-ط: to surround on every side. This root was treated at al-Kahf 18/60-70 (wa-kayfa taṣbiru ʿalā mā lam tuḥiṭ bihi khubrā) as the key to that sūra.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the same root in the two sūras: in al-Kahf iḥāṭa conveyed the limit of knowledge; here the limit of power. The two sūras use the same root for two different limits — and the exception to the pledge given is exactly this: the case that passes out of one's hands.

"And he said: 'My sons! Do not enter by a single gate; enter by different gates. I cannot avail you anything against God. Judgement belongs to God alone; on Him I have relied, and let those who rely rely on Him alone.' When they entered as their father had commanded them, it availed them nothing against God; it only fulfilled a wish within Jacob's soul. And he was possessed of knowledge, because We had taught him; but most people do not know."

And these two verses are the Qurʾān's plainest text on this question. A precaution is taken, and in the same breath its limit is set.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the four elements: the precaution is taken and its ineffectiveness is stated at the same moment. That is, the text neither abolishes the precaution nor ascribes power to it.

And verse 68 confirms this: mā kāna yughnī ʿanhum mina'llāhi min shayʾ — the precaution did not change the outcome. Indeed the drinking-cup will still be found in their load.

إِلَّا حَاجَةً فِى نَفْسِ يَعْقُوبَ قَضَىٰهَا — "it only fulfilled a wish within Jacob's soul."

I give this as an observation about the structure, and it is worth recording: the verse does not say that the precaution served no purpose at all. It says that it did do something, and it names the place where it did it: fī nafsi Yaʿqūb — within him.

That is, the return on the precaution is not in the outer world but in the one who takes it. This is one of the finest notes in the sūra.

The sentence occurred in Joseph's mouth in verse 40, and I tabulated it there. Here its ground is seen: the same sentence in two different contexts — one of divine oneness, the other of precaution.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: it is said that he possessed knowledge and its source is added at once: li-mā ʿallamnāhu — "because We had taught him".

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the preposition (li): the sentence does not give the knowledge as an attribute — it gives it as the result of a teaching. And this lays the ground for the sentence wa-fawqa kulli dhī ʿilmin ʿalīm in verse 76.

مُّتَفَرِّقَة — and the word is worth recording: the same root (ف-ر-ق) occurred in verse 39 as arbābun mutafarriqūn. There the scattering was a defect; here it is a precaution. The same word in two different offices — this is a countable repetition within the sūra.

"When they entered Joseph's presence he drew his brother to himself and said: 'I am your brother; do not grieve at what they have been doing.' When he had furnished them with their provisions he put the drinking-cup into his brother's saddlebag. Then a crier called out: 'You of the caravan! You are thieves indeed.'"

The root أ-و-ي: to take refuge in a place, to give shelter. The root was treated at al-Kahf 18/9-12 (idh awa'l-fityatu ila'l-kahf).

And the same verb occurs twice in the sūra, and both times it is a moment of reunion:

This is a countable repetition within the sūra.

فَلَا تَبْتَئِسْ — root ب-أ-س, Form VIII: to fall into distress, to grieve. The root was treated in al-Ḥāqqa and al-Maʿārij (baʾs — force, hardship).

And the tense of the verb is worth recording: bimā kānū yaʿmalūn — perfect + imperfect (continuity): "the things they have been doing." That is, not something over and done with in the past, but an ongoing behaviour.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the sequence of the verse: he discloses his identity — but to one person only. The others still do not know. And immediately afterwards a plan is put into effect (70).

That is, the secret is opened in part, and this is necessary for the arrangement to work. The text does not make this connection explicitly; the order of the verses lends itself to it, and I give it as a reading.

ٱلسِّقَايَة — root س-ق-ي: to give water. Siqāya — a drinking-cup; and the place where water is distributed. The word occurs once more in the Qurʾān, in the context of the pilgrimage (siqāyata'l-ḥājj, al-Tawba 9/19), where it means "the office of giving water to the pilgrims".

The vessel will be named with another word in verse 72: ṣuwāʿa'l-malik. This word was cited at al-Zukhruf 43/53:

At Yūsuf 12/72 a royal vessel in Egypt is spoken of (ṣuwāʿa'l-malik)… The Qurʾān knows the objects of that culture and uses them.

I rely on that treatment.

And there is a fine point in the grammar of the sentence: the address is to the caravan (al-ʿīr — feminine), but the pronoun is masculine plural (innakum). In Arabic this is a usage close to iltifāt (a shift in the direction of address): the group is hailed and then the individuals are addressed.

عِير — a caravan carrying loads, camels in particular.

And the form of the accusation must be recorded: innakum la-sāriqūn — with emphasis, a categorical statement. Not a question but an imputation.

This is a place that needs attention and has been discussed in the classical commentaries: in fact no theft has occurred. The explanations transmitted are these:

I transmit the explanations; I do not impose a preference. And this must be recorded: the sūra itself names this act in verse 76 — kadhālika kidnā li-Yūsuf — and ascribes the act to God.

"They turned towards them and said: 'What have you lost?' They said: 'We have lost the king's cup; whoever brings it shall have a camel-load, and I am guarantor for that.' They said: 'By God, you know we did not come to spread corruption in this land, and we are not thieves.' They said: 'And what is the penalty for it, if you prove liars?' They said: 'Its penalty is that he in whose load it is found shall himself be the penalty for it. Thus do we requite the wrongdoers.'"

The word was analysed at al-Qalam 68/34-41 (sal hum ayyuhum bi-dhālika zaʿīm) and this verse was cited there:

The Qurʾān uses the second sense plainly in one place: in the story of Joseph, of the missing measure it is said "and I am guarantor for it" (wa-ana bihi zaʿīm) (Yūsuf 12/72).

I rely on that treatment. The root ز-ع-م: to give a pledge, to take on a responsibility; and to claim without foundation. The word has two ends: surety and empty claim. And the negative end of the same root was treated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/61-70 (alladhīna kuntum tazʿumūn).

I record this as an observation: the same root is in one place the name of an undertaking and in another the name of a groundless claim. The common core is to take something upon oneself; what is decisive is whether there is any ground behind it.

And the knot of the scene is here. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the verses:

That is, the verdict comes out of the brothers' own mouths. And the ground of this will be stated plainly in verse 76: mā kāna li-yaʾkhudha akhāhu fī dīni'l-malik — under the king's law there is no such detention.

That is, the plan operates not by that society's own law but by the rule the other party itself accepts. This is something the text says plainly (76) and is not an interpretation.

In Arabic an oath is made with three particles: wāw, bāʾ, tāʾ. The lexicographers record that the oath made with tāʾ is the least used and generally carries astonishment or strong emphasis.

And this particle occurs most often in this sūra: 73, 85, 91, 95. All four come from the mouths of the brothers or of those with them. This is a countable weave within the sūra.

مَا جِئْنَا لِنُفْسِدَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ — and the form of the defence is worth recording: first the intention is denied (mā jiʾnā li-nufsida), then the act (wa-mā kunnā sāriqīn). That is, the defence covers a wider ground than a single incident.

"He began with their bags before his brother's bag; then he brought it out of his brother's bag. Thus did We contrive for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother under the king's law — unless God so willed. We raise in degrees whom We will. And above every possessor of knowledge there is one who knows."

The word was treated at al-Inshiqāq 84/22-23 and at al-Ḥāqqa 69/12:

The concrete centre of the root is an object: وِعَاء — a vessel, a sack, something a thing is put into. At Yūsuf 12/76 the word is plainly a load-sack. "He began with their bags (awʿiyatihim) before his brother's bag (wiʿāʾi akhīhi)." (Yūsuf 12/76)

I rely on that treatment.

And the order of the search is worth recording: fa-badaʾa bi-awʿiyatihim qabla wiʿāʾi akhīh.

I record this as an observation: where the vessel is, is known. The others are nevertheless searched first — because going straight to the target would have broken the plan. Had the text not given this detail the scene would have been incomplete.

And this is one of the places where the Qurʾān ascribes the root kayd to God.

The question was treated at al-Ṭāriq 86/15-16 (wa-akīdu kaydā) and in al-Fīl. What was recorded there:

The general view is this: the word is used as the name of a requital. That is, the kayd ascribed to God is not an ill-intentioned trick; it is the requital that turns a snare back on the one who set it. At Yūsuf 12/76 kayd is ascribed to God and carries no negative sense there.

And the same note was entered at al-Qalam 68/44-47:

In Arabic kayd is not necessarily evil. The Qurʾān shows this plainly: in the story of Joseph the plan laid in order to detain his brother is called kayd, and this plan is one God taught.

I rely on that treatment.

And the particle li- must be recorded: kidnā li-Yūsuf — "for Joseph". In Arabic kāda ʿalā conveys a contrivance against, kāda li one in favour of. That is, the particle determines the direction of the word.

This must be compared with verse 5 of the sūra: there it was said fa-yakīdū laka kaydā — there too the particle li/laka is present, but the context conveys harm. The direction is therefore determined not by the particle alone but by the sentence as a whole. I give this as a note.

And here is one of the densest sentences of the sūra. The construction of the sentence must be recorded:

This is the difference in Arabic between dhū ʿilm and ʿalīm: the first conveys possessing a thing, the second possessing a quality. That is, the sentence builds a hierarchy out of grammar.

The lexicographers differ over whom the sentence means:

Both readings are found in the classical commentaries and they do not exclude one another; I do not impose a preference.

And the link with the axis of al-Kahf must be made here. I record this as my own reading:

Al-Kahf had treated the limit of knowledge across four stories — wa-lam tuḥiṭ bihi khubrā (18/68), qul rabbī aʿlamu bi-ʿiddatihim (18/22). Sūrat Yūsuf gathers the same matter into a single sentence and sets it in the middle of a sūra, immediately after a scene of contrivance.

And the place of its setting is meaningful: the sentence comes at the moment knowledge attains its success. The plan has worked, the brother has been detained. At precisely that point one is reminded that knowledge has something above it.

And at the end of the sūra the same man will say this with his own mouth: wa-ʿallamtanī min taʾwīli'l-aḥādīth (101) — "You taught me a portion of it."

"They said: 'If he has stolen, a brother of his stole before him.' Joseph kept this within himself and did not disclose it to them. Within himself he said: 'You are in a worse position. God knows best what you describe.' They said: 'O vizier! He has a very old father; take one of us in his place. We see that you are one of those who do good.' He said: 'God forbid that we should take any but the man with whom we found our property; we should then be wrongdoers.'"

The root س-ر-ر: to hide; and to gladden. Sirr is from the same root. That the verb here means "he kept it within himself" is plain.

And to what does the pronoun (hā) refer? The lexicographers differ: to the words spoken, or to the response given to those words? I transmit the disagreement; I do not impose a preference.

And the point of word order must be recorded: the verse writes both sides of the silence separately: fa-asarrahā (he kept it within) and wa-lam yubdihā lahum (he did not disclose it to them). The same thing twice, once with an affirmative and once with a negative sentence. In Arabic this conveys certainty and emphasis.

I give this as an observation: the text records what was not said as well. That is, the narrator gives the reader a sentence that is not heard in the scene — and this is a technique the sūra has used from the beginning (like the revelation in verse 15).

The grammatical point of this expression was treated at al-Falaq 113/2:

Sharr and khayr are used in Arabic both as nouns and as elatives (ism al-tafḍīl). Normally the afʿal pattern is required for comparison (akbar, aḥsan); these two words, however, convey comparison without changing pattern: "You are in a worse position" (Yūsuf 12/77).

I rely on that treatment.

مَّكَانًا — tamyīz: "in respect of position". The choice of the word is worth noting: it is not the persons themselves that are qualified but the place they stand in.

And for the first time the request is grounded on another person's condition.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the content of the plea: the brothers plead not for themselves but for the father. In the eighth verse that same father's love was the subject of a complaint. The same father is now a ground for mercy. This is a transformation verifiable within the sūra.

إِنَّا نَرَىٰكَ مِنَ ٱلْمُحْسِنِين — and the sentence is word for word the same as what the two young men in the prison said in verse 36.

This is a countable repetition within the sūra. And I add as my own reading: the same sentence is spoken of the man in his lowest and in his highest position. What does not change is the observation made about him.

And the expression comes for the second time after verse 23, and I tabulated it there.

In both places what is refused lies in the same place: a wrong. In the first a betrayal, in the second the holding of an innocent man. And in both the ground ends with the same root: lā yufliḥu'ẓ-ẓālimūn (23) — innā idhan la-ẓālimūn (79).

This is a weave verifiable within the sūra. And I add as my own reading: the same man refuses with the same two words both a proposal in his own favour and a proposal against it.

"When they despaired of him they withdrew to confer in private. The eldest of them said: 'Do you not know that your father took a pledge from you before God, and how before this you failed in your duty regarding Joseph? I shall not leave this land until my father gives me leave, or God judges for me. He is the best of judges. Return to your father and say: Our father! Your son has stolen. We bore witness only to what we knew; we were not keepers of the unseen. Ask the town we were in and the caravan we came with; we are telling the truth.'"

The construction was cited at al-Mujādala 58/7 in the treatment of the concept of najwā:

When Joseph's brothers could not decide, "they withdrew to confer among themselves" — خَلَصُوا۟ نَجِيًّا (Yūsuf 12/80). The verb is khalaṣū: they drew off, they separated. The verb of withdrawing is used together with the word najiyy.

I rely on that treatment.

نَجِيًّا — root ن-ج-و: to be saved; and to speak in secret. Najwā — speaking in a whisper. Although the word here is in the accusative as a ḥāl and comes in the singular, it points to a plural — in Arabic the faʿīl pattern is sometimes used like a collective noun.

And this may be compared with verse 15 of the sūra: there too they had come together and taken a decision (wa-ajmaʿū an yajʿalūhu fī ghayābati'l-jubb). Both are scenes of closed consultation.

And this sentence is one of the clearest expressions tied to the sūra's axis of knowledge.

The work of the sentence must be recorded: the brothers explain how the pledge they gave came to be broken — and the explanation is a declaration of a limit: "we were not keepers of the unseen."

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is verse 64: the father had said fa'llāhu khayrun ḥāfiẓā. Now the sons declare their own limit using the same root: mā kunnā li'l-ghaybi ḥāfiẓīn.

The same root three times, in three different positions. This is a countable weave within the sūra, and it shows a line of development: from claim to admission.

And here there is a figure of speech, one of the classic examples of the lexicographers: wa'sʾali'l-qarya — "ask the town". What is meant is the people of the town.

In Arabic this is called majāz mursal (metonymy), and in such usage there is a ḥadhf (an ellipsis): wa'sʾal ahla'l-qarya. The lexicographers count this verse the best-known example of the rule.

And this is worth recording: two things are named together in the same sentence — a settled place (the town) and a moving body (the caravan). That is, the testimony is grounded on two separate sources.

And in the eldest brother's words there is a measure worth recording: he resolves not to leave, and he sets two conditions — the father's leave or God's judgement.

I give this as an observation: the pledge given (mīthāq) keeps its weight. And the way out is sought not in breaking the pledge but in obtaining leave from the one to whom it was given.

"He said: 'No; your souls have made an affair seem fair to you. So what remains for me is a beautiful patience. It may be that God will bring them all to me. He is indeed the Knowing, the Wise.'"

And this is one of the most remarkable repetitions of the sūra: the first two clauses of the verse are word for word the same as verse 18.

This is a countable repetition within the sūra, and these two verses were tabulated together at Muḥammad 47/2.

And the difference between the two verses lies in what follows — it must be recorded:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the comparison of the two verses: at the first loss the answer ended with a plea for help; at the second with an expectation. And the scope of the expectation is worth noting: bihim jamīʿā — "all of them together".

That is, at the moment of the second loss the first loss too is taken into the expectation. The text does not say this outright; but the word jamīʿā contains it, because those lost are not two but three (Joseph, his brother, and the eldest brother who stayed behind). I give this as a reading.

عَسَىٰ — in Arabic a verb conveying hope and expectation. The word conveys no certainty. The same pattern was treated at al-Qaṣaṣ 28/22-28 (ʿasā rabbī an yahdiyanī sawāʾa's-sabīl).

"He turned away from them and said: 'Alas for Joseph!' His eyes went white with grief, and his heart was full."

The root أ-س-ف: intense grief; and anger. The word was treated at al-Zukhruf 43/54-56 (fa-lammā āsafūnā), and this verse was cited there:

The Qurʾān uses the word of Jacob: yā asafā ʿalā Yūsuf (Yūsuf 12/84) — there it means grief. And of Moses: ghaḍbāna asifā (al-Aʿrāf 7/150; Ṭāhā 20/86) — there it comes together with anger.

I rely on that treatment.

And the vocative pattern must be recorded: yā asafā — the final alif is a transformation of the first-person possessive yāʾ (yā asafī). In Arabic this is called nidāʾ al-nudba (the vocative of lament), and it is built as an address not to a person but to a feeling.

That is, the sentence calls out to the grief itself: "O my grief!" In Arabic this is one of the most concentrated ways of expressing pain.

ٱبْيَضَّتْ — root ب-ي-ض, Form IX (ifʿilāl). This form was dealt with at al-Zukhruf 43/17-18:

In Arabic Form IX (ifʿilāl) is used almost exclusively for colours and defects, and the lexicographers record that this form conveys a colour settling upon a person. The pattern conveys not a passing change but a colour that settles.

I rely on that treatment. In al-Zukhruf the same form was used for muswaddā (turning black); here it is ibyaḍḍat (turning white). The same pattern, two opposite colours.

And the cause is written plainly: mina'l-ḥuzn. That is, the verse ties a bodily change to a feeling.

I record this as an observation: the Qurʾān gives grief here not as an abstract state but as a visible trace. And this note was entered at al-Ḥadīd 57/22-23:

The Qurʾān records the grief of the prophets and does not blame it: Jacob's grief for Joseph (Yūsuf 12/84), and the words said to the Prophet, "do not grieve over them" (al-Naḥl 16/127) — which shows that the grief was there.

I rely on that treatment.

The root was analysed in detail at al-Qalam 68/44-47 (makẓūm) and tabulated with the difference of pattern at al-Zukhruf 43/17-18. It was also treated at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/18-20 (kāẓimīn). What was recorded there:

The concrete sense of the root: kaẓama'l-qirba — he filled the waterskin and tied its mouth. That is, a vessel filled up and stopped at the mouth. Its derivatives: كَظِيم (kaẓīm) — one who has buried his sorrow within; كَاظِم (kāẓim) — one who swallows his anger (al-kāẓimīna'l-ghayẓ, Āl ʿImrān 3/134); كِظَامَة (kiẓāma) — the tie that closes the mouth of a thing. And now the picture of the word is complete: a skin full to the brim with its mouth tied. The pressure inside is there; but it cannot get out. The difference of pattern (al-Zukhruf): makẓūm is a passive participle — suppressed, stopped from outside; kaẓīm is an intensive faʿīl — one who stops himself up from within. That is, the mouth of the one who is makẓūm is tied by another; the one who is kaẓīm ties his own mouth.

I rely on that treatment.

And what belongs here is this, which I give as my own reading, its ground being the contrast between the two halves of the verse:

The same verse records both the letting out and the holding in. And the two do not contradict: the kaẓīm pattern conveys that the mouth of an overflowing vessel is tied — that is, there is pressure inside. A sound has come out; but what came out is not everything that is within.

And this completes the note on ṣabr jamīl: a beautiful patience is not the absence of grief. Indeed the same man will say so himself two verses later: innamā ashkū baththī wa-ḥuznī ila'llāh (86).

"They said: 'By God, you will not cease remembering Joseph until you waste away or are among the perished.' He said: 'I lay my anguish and my grief before God alone; and I know from God what you do not know. My sons! Go and seek news of Joseph and his brother, and do not despair of God's relief. None despairs of God's relief but the people who deny.'"

The root ح-ر-ض: to melt away and be spent, to be worn out by illness. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here. The lexicographers describe the word as "to become neither dead nor alive".

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: taftaʾu is the imperfect of the verb fatiʾa, and the negative particle at its head has been elided (lā taftaʾu). In Arabic the dropping of the negative particle after an oath is a known usage. The sense: "you will not leave off remembering."

And this sentence has been used as evidence in two separate places in the index.

At al-Mujādala 58/1:

The most easily missed side of the verse is this: the one who complains is not criticised. Given that in religious discourse "complaint" is often treated as a weakness, this note matters. The Qurʾān says something similar from Jacob's mouth: "I complain of my anguish and my grief to God alone" (Yūsuf 12/86). That is, complaint has a forbidden form — the one directed at people and turned into a settling of scores; and a legitimate form — the one directed to its source.

And at al-Ghāshiya 88/12-16, by way of the word bathth:

بَثّ (bathth) — the sorrow that cannot be held within and spills out; "I lay my anguish and my grief before God alone" (Yūsuf 12/86). The root also describes the spreading out of something that has gathered within.

I rely on both.

The root ب-ث-ث: to spread, to scatter, to disperse. Bathathnā — We spread (al-Nisāʾ 4/1: wa-baththa minhumā rijālan kathīrā). From this comes bathth: the sorrow that cannot be held within and spreads out.

And the distinction between the two words is worth recording:

And the restrictive particle innamā must be recorded: "to God alone". What is restricted is not the existence of the complaint but its addressee.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle innamā: the sentence does not say "I do not complain". It says "I take my complaint not elsewhere but there". And this must be read together with the ṣabr jamīl of verses 18 and 83 — precisely this link was made at al-Maʿārij 70/5.

The root was analysed in detail at al-Wāqiʿa 56/88-94 (fa-rawḥun wa-rayḥān):

The branching of the root ر-و-ح: | Derivative | Meaning | |---|---| | Rīḥ | Wind | | Rūḥ | Life, spirit | | Rawḥ | Ease, relief, a breath of air | | Rayḥān | A sweet-smelling plant; and provision | | Rāḥa | Rest | The common core is generally given by the lexicographers as "moving air": the wind blows, the breath goes in and out, scent is carried on the air, and relief is the opening of what was constricted.

I rely on that treatment.

And what belongs here is this, which I give as my own reading: the word is not "help" or "mercy" — it is rawḥ. That is, what is awaited is described as a gap opening in a narrow place. And the image in the root (moving air) is the opposite of being stopped up.

This may be compared with the word kaẓīm in the preceding verse, and the comparison is a datum of the text:

Three verses apart, two opposite images. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the concrete senses of the two words.

Root ي-أ-س. This verse was used as evidence at al-Mumtaḥana 60/13:

The root ي-أ-س: to despair. The Qurʾān uses this root in a heavy context: "Do not despair of God's mercy; none despairs of God's mercy but the people who deny" (Yūsuf 12/87).

I rely on that treatment.

And the weight of the sentence must be recorded: despair is named together with denial. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the logic of the sentence: the sentence does not say "whoever despairs is an unbeliever". It says "despair is found only in those who deny" — that is, it makes a diagnosis, not a declaration of unbelief.

The ground is in the text as well: hope rests on the power and the mercy of the one awaited. Once these two are granted, despair has no ground left. That is, the verse treats hopelessness not as a feeling but as a consequence.

The word was cited for comparison at al-Ḥujurāt 49/12 (wa-lā tajassasū), where precisely this verse was given:

A kindred root: ح-س-س. Taḥassus — to search out by the senses, by listening. It occurs in the Qurʾān: "Go and seek news of Joseph and his brother" (Yūsuf 12/87) — fa-taḥassasū min Yūsufa wa-akhīh.

I rely on that treatment. And the distinction recorded there is worth noting: tajassus (forbidden in al-Ḥujurāt) and taḥassus (commanded here) are two separate roots (ج-س-س / ح-س-س), and the Qurʾān uses them under two separate rulings.

And the content of the command must be recorded; I give this as my own reading: not despairing is made concrete not as sitting and waiting but as searching. This is the order of the sentence: first idhhabū fa-taḥassasū (go and seek news), then wa-lā tayʾasū (do not despair). That is, the command looks first at the act, then at the attitude.

"When they entered his presence they said: 'O vizier! Hardship has touched us and our family; we have come with poor trading-goods. Give us full measure, and be charitable to us. God rewards those who are charitable.' He said: 'Do you know what you did to Joseph and his brother in your ignorance?'"

The root ز-ج-و: to drive a thing along with difficulty, by pushing. Tuzjī — drives (al-Nūr 24/43: yuzjī saḥāban — He drives the clouds). From this comes muzjāt: goods that pass only with difficulty, that are not esteemed.

And the image of the word is worth recording: it is not said that the trading-goods are little — it is said that they are "barely accepted". That is, the problem is not quantity but currency.

I record this as an observation, and I compare it with verse 20:

Twice in the same sūra a lowering of value; in the first they do the measuring, in the second they are the ones measured. This is a comparison and I give it as my own reading; the verse does not make the connection.

And there is one more verbal weave: in verse 19 it was said of Joseph wa-asarrūhu biḍāʿatan ("they hid him away as merchandise"). The same word (biḍāʿa) is in verse 88 the goods in the brothers' hands. The word occurs four times in the sūra (19, 62, 65, 88).

The root ص-د-ق: truthfulness. That ṣadaqa comes from this root is explained by the lexicographers thus: it is the act that shows the truthfulness of the giver's faith.

And that the request is in two parts must be recorded:

I give this as an observation: the first request looks to the measure, the second beyond the measure. And both are asked in the same sentence.

And this is the moment the promise of verse 15 is fulfilled.

This is a link verifiable within the sūra, and I recorded it at verse 15.

And the manner of the telling is worth recording; I give this as my own reading: the news is given not as an accusation but as a question. And a clause is added to the question: idh antum jāhilūn — "while you were ignorant".

That is, in naming the act the sentence attaches to it a time and a state. This lays the ground for the pardon — in verse 92 lā tathrība ʿalaykumu'l-yawm will come.

جَٰهِلُون — and the word was what Joseph feared for himself in verse 33: wa-akun mina'l-jāhilīn. The same word twice in the sūra, of two different persons.

"They said: 'Are you indeed Joseph?' He said: 'I am Joseph, and this is my brother. God has been gracious to us. Whoever guards himself and is patient — God does not let the reward of those who do good go to waste.' They said: 'By God, God has preferred you above us; we were indeed at fault.' He said: 'No reproach on you today. May God forgive you; He is the most merciful of the merciful.'"

The question is long and hesitant: a-innaka la-anta Yūsuf — three separate emphases (inna, the lām, and the separating pronoun anta). The answer is two words: ana Yūsuf.

I record this as an observation about the structure: the question is full of intensifiers, the answer is bare. And a single addition is made to the answer: wa-hādhā akhī.

I give this as my own reading, and its ground is the added clause: as the identity is disclosed, the man beside him is named as well — that is, the pair who were the subject of the complaint in the eighth verse are named together here (la-Yūsufu wa-akhūhu). The same pair, forty years later, together in the same way. This is an overlap verifiable within the sūra.

And the sentence is like a summary of the whole sūra. Two verbs convey two separate works:

What the two roots have in common is worth recording; I give this as my own reading: both convey holding. و-ق-ي: to set a shield before a thing (treated in al-Baqara); ص-ب-ر: to hold the soul in a place (treated at al-Maʿārij 70/5). That is, both are active verbs; they describe not endurance but holding.

And their counterparts in the sūra can be shown:

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is that the two verbs correspond to two attitudes that have counterparts in the sūra.

And the sentence occurred in verse 56 in the narrator's mouth; here it comes from Joseph's mouth, and I tabulated it there.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the comparison of the two verses: the same sentence is said first as a verdict, then as an experience. That is, the text states a principle once, and once has it repeated by the one who lived it.

And the in here too is the in mukhaffafa (treated at verse 3): "we were indeed among those at fault."

The root خ-ط-أ: to miss the mark, to err. The lexicographers record a distinction between khāṭiʾ and mukhṭiʾ: khāṭiʾ — one who does wrong deliberately; mukhṭiʾ — one who does it not by intention but by mistake. The pattern here is khāṭiʾīn.

This distinction is worth noting, and I give it as my own reading: the admission does not choose a mitigating word. And the same word occurred in verse 29 in the mouth of the master of the house: innaki kunti mina'l-khāṭiʾīn; and it will be repeated in verse 97: innā kunnā khāṭiʾīn.

ءَاثَرَكَ — root أ-ث-ر: a trace; and to prefer, to put first. Īthār — to prefer another to oneself. The lexicographers connect this with the sense "trace" thus: what is preferred is what is followed.

And this is one of the densest sentences of the sūra and deserves treatment in detail.

The root ث-ر-ب: the lexicographers explain the word thus: to count up a fault, to throw it in someone's face, to shame him for it. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here.

And the construction of the pattern must be recorded: lā tathrība — the lā al-nāfiya li'l-jins. In Arabic this pattern negates the whole genus: "no reproach of any kind." Not a partial negation.

Three separate things are done in the sentence. I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the elements of the sentence:

The lexicographers dwell on the second element, and it is explained in two ways:

Both explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And the third element is worth recording; I give this as my own reading: the sentence does not say "I have forgiven you". Two things are separated: the lifting of the reproach, which belongs to him, and forgiveness, which does not, and which is left to God.

This distinction is the finest point of the sentence: the man disposes only of what is his own.

And there is an order across the whole scene; it must be recorded:

That is, the pardon comes after the admission. I record this as an observation; the verse does not lay this order down as a condition, but this is the flow of the scene.

And the question of pardon was treated in detail at al-Shūrā 42/40 (fa-man ʿafā wa-aṣlaḥa); I rely on that treatment.

"'Take this shirt of mine and lay it on my father's face; his sight will come back. And bring me all your family.'"

And the sūra's weave of objects is completed here; I tabulated it at verse 18.

This is a countable weave within the sūra.

And this is worth recording: the first shirt took a son from the father; the third gives the father back his sight. I give this as my own reading; its ground is that the two scenes are built upon the same object.

يَأْتِ بَصِيرًا — "he will come seeing". The verb is yaʾti (to come), not yaʿūdu (to return).

I record this as an observation about the structure: the sentence tells the return of sight as an arrival. And in verse 96 the fulfilment will be given with a different verb: fa'rtadda baṣīrā — "he turned back seeing". The two verbs convey two different directions: one a coming, the other a returning.

وَأْتُونِى بِأَهْلِكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ — and the command sets in motion the last movement of the story. Ajmaʿīn — an intensifier: all of them together. And this accords with the hope in verse 83: ʿasa'llāhu an yaʾtiyanī bihim jamīʿā.

The same word (ج-م-ع), once in the father's hope and once in the son's command. This is an overlap verifiable within the sūra.

"When the caravan set out their father said: 'I sense the scent of Joseph; if only you did not think me a doting old man…' They said: 'By God, you are in your old bewilderment still.' When the bearer of glad tidings came and laid the shirt on his face, his sight came back. He said: 'Did I not tell you that I know from God what you do not know?'"

And this is one of the finest verbal links in the sūra: rīḥ is from the same root as rawḥ in verse 87 (ر-و-ح).

The common core of the root was given at al-Wāqiʿa 56/88-94 as "moving air"; I relied on it at verse 87. Seven verses apart the same root comes back in two derivatives — and the second stands like the concrete counterpart of the first: a breath of hope and a real scent.

I record this as my own reading; that the two words come from the same root is a datum of the text, and the drawing of the link between them is mine.

The root ف-ن-د: the weakening of judgement, the dotage of the mind; and to hold a saying weak and false. Fanad — the mental weakness that comes with old age. The word occurs in the Qurʾān only here.

And that the sentence is left unfinished must be recorded: lawlā an tufannidūn — "if only you did not think me a doting old man…" The apodosis is not written. This is another instance of the technique in verse 15.

The sentence was treated at al-Ḍuḥā 93/7 (wa-wajadaka ḍāllan fa-hadā) where the uses of the root ḍalāl in the Qurʾān were listed:

"By God, you are in your old bewilderment still" (Yūsuf 12/95). Here ḍalāl is used of a prophet, and those who say it are not charging him with unbelief — they find it unreasonable that he should believe Joseph is still alive. The same root also occurs at Yūsuf 12/8 in what the brothers say about their father.

I rely on that treatment.

And it is worth setting the two verses side by side:

The same root, about the same person, at the two ends of the sūra. And in the second use a word has been added: al-qadīm — "old". That is, the saying is built so as to take in the first saying too.

This is a countable repetition within the sūra, and I record it as an observation: the brothers will say exactly the opposite one verse later (97: innā kunnā khāṭiʾīn).

The root ر-د-د, Form VIII: to turn back. And the verb differs from yaʾti baṣīrā in verse 93 — it was treated there.

أَلَمْ أَقُل لَّكُمْ إِنِّىٓ أَعْلَمُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ — and the sentence is a word-for-word repetition of verse 86.

The same sentence ten verses apart, one before and one after. This is a countable repetition within the sūra.

And the content of the sentence is worth noting: aʿlamu mina'llāhi mā lā taʿlamūn. The preposition (min) must be recorded: the knowledge is tied not to the man's own acuteness but to a source. This comes from the same place as li-mā ʿallamnāhu in verse 68.

"They said: 'Our father! Ask forgiveness for us for our sins; we were indeed at fault.' He said: 'I shall ask forgiveness for you from my Lord; He is indeed the forgiving, the merciful.'"

And the word khāṭiʾīn occurs a second time, three verses later (91 and 97). And the addressee changes:

I record this as an observation: the admission is made separately to each of the two parties. And in both places the same word is used.

سَوْفَ — in Arabic a particle pointing to the future, and it looks to a more distant time than the prefix sa-.

The classical commentaries have dwelt on the deferral, and different explanations are transmitted:

I transmit the explanations; I do not impose a preference.

And this is worth recording, as my own reading: the structure of the answer follows the same logic as the sentence of pardon in verse 92. There too forgiveness was referred to God (yaghfiru'llāhu lakum). Father and son preserve the same distinction in two separate sentences: to do what is in one's own power, and to leave what is not to the authority it belongs to.

ذُنُوب — root ذ-ن-ب: dhanab — a tail. The lexicographers explain dhanb by the image of "the consequence that comes behind": what is dragged along after an act.