(1) The scholar al-Shanqiti wrote in his commentary, Adwa al-Bayan: Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran, 3:60-62: “The second answer - and the one preferred by Abu Hayyan - is that Yusuf had no inclination whatsoever; rather, it is negated on account of his having seen the proof. This view, chosen by Abu Hayyan and others, accords most closely with the principles of Arabic grammar. For the prevalent usage in the Quran and in Arabic speech is that an omitted conditional answer is preceded by wording that indicates it. For example: ‘So place your trust in Him, if you are Muslims,’ meaning: If you are Muslims, then place your trust in Him. The preceding words indicate the omitted answer; they are not themselves the answer, because the answer to a condition and the answer to lawla cannot precede it. Rather, what precedes it serves as an indication of it, as in the verse cited above. Likewise: ‘Say: Produce your proof, if you are truthful,’ meaning: If you are truthful, then produce your proof. According to this view, the meaning of the verse is: ‘And he would have inclined toward her, had he not seen the proof of his Lord’; that is, had he not seen it, he would have inclined toward her. What precedes lawla is thus an indication of the omitted answer, as is prevalent in the Quran and Arabic usage. A similar example is His saying: ‘She would almost have disclosed it, had We not strengthened her heart.’ What precedes lawla indicates the answer; that is, had We not strengthened her heart, she would almost have disclosed it. Know that a group of Arabic grammarians permitted the answer to lawla, and the answers to all other conditional clauses, to precede their conditions. According to this view, the answer to lawla in the words, ‘Had he not seen the proof of his Lord,’ is the preceding phrase, ‘And he inclined toward her.’ The Kufan grammarians held that this preposing is permissible, as did two leading Basran grammarians, Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad and Abu Zayd al-Ansari.” Shaykh Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi wrote in al-Bahr al-Muhit, 5:294-295: “The exegetes have spoken at length concerning these two inclinations, and some have attributed to Yusuf, peace be upon him, what it would not be permissible to attribute even to an individual sinful Muslim. The view I choose is that Yusuf, peace be upon him, had no inclination toward her at all; rather, it is negated by his seeing the proof. This is like saying, ‘You would have departed, had Allah not protected you.’ We do not say that the answer to lawla precedes it, although there is no decisive evidence that this is impossible. Indeed, there is disagreement concerning the explicit conditional particles as to whether their answers may precede them. The Kufan grammarians held this view, as did the leading Basran grammarians Abu Zayd al-Ansari and Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad. Rather, we say that the answer to lawla is omitted, with what precedes it indicating it. This is the position of the majority of Basran grammarians regarding the Arab expression, ‘You are unjust if you do [this],’ which they understand as: If you do [this], then you are unjust. The statement, ‘You are unjust,’ does not establish that injustice has actually occurred; it is affirmed on the assumption that the act occurs. Likewise here, the meaning is: Had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have inclined toward her. Thus, the inclination would have existed on the assumption that he had not seen the proof; but since he did see the proof, the inclination was negated.” After responding to a linguistic objection raised by al-Zajjaj, Abu Hayyan said: “As for the statements attributed to the Salaf - some of which Imam al-Baghawi cites here - we believe that nothing of this is authentically reported from any of them, for these are mutually contradictory statements, some of which impugn conduct that would be shameful even for sinful Muslims, let alone for those whose infallibility is decisively established. Moreover, the reports attributed to the Salaf are not supported by Arabic usage, because they posit an omitted answer to lawla without any evidence indicating it. They did not understand it to mean, ‘He would have inclined toward her.’ Arabic usage provides no basis for assigning an omitted meaning other than that indicated by what precedes the condition, since what precedes it is evidence for it; nothing is omitted without evidence for it.” Abu Hayyan further says: “We have kept this book of ours - that is, his commentary al-Bahr al-Muhit - free of the material found in exegetical works that is unfit to mention. We have confined ourselves to what is indicated by the Arabic language and by the context of the verses in this surah, which establish Yusuf's infallibility and his innocence of every blameworthy matter.” See also Muhammad Muhammad Abu Shahbah, al-Israiliyyat wa-l-Mawduat, pp. 307-319; and Muhammad Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Manar, 12:280-286. (2) See above, p. 218, note 5.