Yūsuf 12:90-92

"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.