Verses 22–34

Chapter 12: Yūsuf (Joseph) · Printed edition: Volume 21, pp. 143–205

The verses encompass the story of Joseph during his days in the house of Potiphar, where he was tested by Potiphar wife’s infatuation with him and her attempts to seduce him. He also faced challenges with the women of the city’s infatuation with him and their efforts to lure him into sin. This was a trial for him and, during this time, his chaste nature and pure intent manifested in an astonishing manner. Moreover, his devotion and love for his Lord were even more remarkable.

وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ ٢٢

(12:22) When he came of age (balagha ashudda-hu), We gave him judgement and knowledge, and thus do We reward the virtuous.

Bulūgh al-ashadd (‘coming of age’) refers to the age at which a person’s physical strength is at its peak and his faculties are fortified, with the traces of childhood fading. This usually takes place from the age of eighteen up to the age of full intellectual maturity and rationality.

It appears that God’s intent here is to refer to the beginning of young adulthood, rather than its midpoint or its end around forty. The evidence for this can be found in God’s words regarding Moses : When he came of age (balagha ashudda-hu) and became fully matured (wa istawā), We gave him judgement and knowledge (). The word istawā implies reaching the midpoint. Another verse says: When he comes of age (balagha ashadda-hu) and reaches forty years (balagha arbaʿīn sana), he says, ‘My Lord! Inspire me to give thanks for Your blessing (). If coming of age was the same as reaching forty, there would be no need for the repetition of the verb ‘reached’ (balagha).

In light of this, the claims of some commentators that coming of age refers to reaching the age of thirty or thirty-three, and others who claim it’s the age of forty, do not hold. It is amusing to think that the wife of Potiphar restrained herself from Joseph during the peak of his youth and prime years only to become infatuated with him and try to seduce him as he approached forty, nearing middle age!

God’s words, We gave him judgement (ḥukm), refers to giving him decisive speech that removes doubt from matters that are open to dispute. Inherently, this judgement encompasses a clear understanding of the vast realm of human knowledge, pertaining to the origin and the return to God, ethical values, divine laws, and societal norms.

Considering Joseph’s statement to his fellow inmates in prison: Sovereignty (ḥukm) belongs only to Allah (), and his later statement: The matter about which you inquire has been decided (quḍiya al-amr) (), it is understood that the judgement he was endowed with was indeed the judgement of God; his decree was the decree of God. This is the same judgement that Abraham asked from his Lord when he said: My Lord! Grant me judgement, and unite me with the Righteous ().

The words, and knowledge (ʿilm), refer to God-given knowledge that, no matter its nature or quantity, is not tainted by ignorance. (jahl). Similarly, the aforementioned judgement is not influenced by personal desires or devilish insinuations. How could it be otherwise, when the one who bestowed these is God, the Exalted. God has stated: Allah has command of His affair (), and Indeed Allah carries through His command (). Thus, the judgement He bestows on His servants is free from doubt or hesitation, and the knowledge He grants is devoid of any ignorance.

It is obvious that these divine gifts are not arbitrary actions, nor are they frivolous or trivial on the part of God Almighty. Souls that are endowed with this discernment and knowledge are not equivalent to those souls that are mistaken in their judgements or immersed in their own ignorance. God has said, The good land—its vegetation comes out by the permission of its Lord, and as for that which is bad, it does not come out except sparsely (). This point is driven home by His saying, and thus do We reward the virtuous—suggesting that this judgement and knowledge granted by God were not gifts given without a some cause to occasion them; rather, they are forms of recompense bestowed by God because the recipient of these gifts has been righteous aforehand.

Therefore, it is not far-fetched to infer from His saying, and thus do We reward the virtuous, that God Almighty rewards every benefactor—depending on the nature of their good deeds—with a measure of discernment and knowledge that is appropriate to their standing in righteousness. God has stated, O you who have faith! Be wary of Allah and have faith in His Messenger. He will grant you a double share of His mercy and give you a light to walk by (). And He also said, Is he who was lifeless, then We gave him life and provided him with a light by which he walks among the people, like one who dwells in a manifold darkness …? ()

The knowledge mentioned in the verse must contain what God Almighty promised to teach Joseph regarding the interpretation of dreams, as it falls between His saying in the earlier verses, … that We might teach him the interpretation of dreams () and Joseph’s recounting to his two prison companions, That is among things my Lord has taught me (). So ponder on this.

وَرَاوَدَتْهُ الَّتِي هُوَ فِي بَيْتِهَا عَنْ نَفْسِهِ وَغَلَّقَتِ الْأَبْوَابَ وَقَالَتْ هَيْتَ لَكَۚ قَالَ مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ ۖ إِنَّهُ رَبِّي أَحْسَنَ مَثْوَايَ ۖ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظَّالِمُونَ ٢٣

(12:23) The woman in whose house he was solicited him (rāwadat-hu). She closed the doors (ghallaqat al-abwāb) and said, ‘Come!’ (hayta la-ka!) He said, ‘God forbid! (maʿādh Allāh) Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode. Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous.’

In al-Mufradāt, al-Rāghib writes:

‘Rawd means to persistently and gently request something. From this comes the term rāʾid for someone seeking pasture. The verb irāda is derived from the verb rāda / yarūdu, meaning to strive in seeking something. Murāwada (the infinitive of the verb in the verse) means to dispute with someone about a desire, wanting something other than what the other wants or rejecting what the other is seeking. Thus, when it is said rāwadat-hu (‘she solicited him’), it means she tried to change his mind—in other words, he was refusing her advances. Based on this, when Joseph says, ‘It was she who solicited me’ (hiya rāwadatnī ʿan nafsī) () or the townswomen say, ‘The chieftain’s wife has solicited her slave boy’ (turāwidu fatā-hā ʿan nafsi-hi) () it means to attempt to change one’s mind. The same meaning can be observed in the wife of Potiphar’s confession, ‘Certainly I did solicit him’ (), and in the words of Joseph’s brothers about his younger brother Benjamin and their father Jacob, ‘We will solicit him from his father’ ().’

In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes:

‘Murāwada means to ask for something gently and kindly so that the request will be granted. From this is derived the word murūd, which refers to one who acts upon such a request. The verb rāwada-hu is not used when seeking repayment of a loan. The origin of the term is from the verb rāda / yarūdu, which means to seek pasture for one’s herd animals. There is a figure of speech: “A seeker of pasture (rāʾid) doesn’t lie to his family.’ Taghlīq (from whence is derived the verb ghallaqat, or ‘she closed’) refers to securely locking a door in a way that makes it difficult to open, and this term is emphasized either to denote a strong locking mechanism or to exaggerate the act of her closing the doors.’

Hayta la-ka (‘Come!’) is an imperative verb, meaning ‘come forth’. Maʿādh Allāh (‘God forbid!’) means ‘I seek refuge in God!’ Here, maʿādh behaves as an absolute object that stands in the place of the verb aʿūdhu (‘I seek refuge…’).

The verse, The woman in whose house he was solicited him. She closed the doors and said, ‘Come!!’ He said, ‘God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode. Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous’ is extremely concise, hinting at the overall story of the attempted seduction. However, reflecting on the qualifiers used in it, the context in which it occurs, and the other aspects of the narrative as portrayed in the chapter, clarifies the actual situation and unveils the details of the matter.

About Joseph

Joseph was a young child when the hand of fate brought him to the house of Potiphar bearing the marks of a slave. Perhaps he was only ever asked his name, and perhaps he only ever said: ‘My name is Joseph’, or it was said for him. Nothing of his language hinted at anything more than the fact that he had grown up among the Hebrews. No one asked of his home or lineage, for slaves have no homes, and it wasn’t customary to record the lineage of slaves. He remained silent, his tongue sealed, speaking of nothing, though many stories existed within him. His lineage became known only years later when he mentioned to his fellow prison inmates, ‘I follow the creed of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ (). His deeply held belief in the oneness of God was revealed only to Potiphar’s wife when she tried to seduce him and he exclaimed, ‘God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord …’ ().

On the day of his arrival in Potiphar’s house, he remains silent, though his heart is full of what he sees as God’s delicate craftsmanship. He remembers what his father, Prophet Jacob , had taught him about the essence of monotheism and the meaning of being a servant to God. He also recalls the dream’s prophecy that God would save him, reunite him with his forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He has neither forgotten what his brothers did to him, nor the promise that God made to him in the depths of the well when all seemed lost: that he was under divine care and would eventually confront his brothers without them recognizing him.

Thus he was filled with feelings and completely absorbed in witnessing God’s subtle blessings. He saw himself under God’s guardianship, surrounded by His beautiful deeds, facing only good and encountering only beauty.

This very realization eased for him the adversities he encountered, and the constant trials and calamities that befell him. Despite their bitterness, he persevered, never complaining, never giving up hope, never losing his way. He mentioned this resilience to his brothers when he revealed his identity to them, saying, ‘Indeed if one is Godwary and patient Allah does not waste the reward of the virtuous’ ().

Joseph’s attention was constantly drawn to the wondrous deeds of his Lord. His heart was engrossed in God’s subtle signs. With each passing day, his love for God grew stronger as he witnessed the evident protection from his Lord, observing that God oversees every soul for its deeds and is a witness over everything. This divine love consumed him, and an overwhelming passion settled deep within him. His concern was solely for his Lord; nothing distracted him, nothing diverted him, not even for the blink of an eye. The chapter tells us more about this through his statements such as, God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord …, ‘It is not for us to ascribe any partner to Allah’ (), ‘Sovereignty belongs only to Allah’ (), You are my guardian in this world and the Hereafter! (), and many other instances that we will explain below.

For Joseph, what prevailed above all else was a divine love that made him forget himself and occupied his mind constantly. The essence of his being was pure, with a purity God reserved solely for Himself without allowing anyone else to partake in it.

But, when Joseph first arrived at the house of Potiphar, nothing was evident except that he was a young Hebrew boy now owned by this Egyptian nobleman. Yet, the nobleman’s remark to his wife, ‘Give him an honorable place. Maybe he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son’, reveals that he saw in Joseph a dignity and a nobility of spirit. He might have hoped to benefit from him or perhaps was drawn to Joseph’s extraordinary beauty and grace.

The Wife of Potiphar

The wife of Potiphar, a noble lady of Egypt, was instructed by her husband to ensure Joseph was treated with kindness and honor. She knew that her husband had certain hopes and aspirations related to Joseph. Thus, she made continuous efforts to treat Joseph with great respect and to improve his living conditions. Her concern for him was not like the concern one might have a servant that one owns, but rather as one would care for a treasured gem or a cherished child. She was drawn to him on account of his exceptional beauty and abundant virtues. As the days passed, her affection turned into deeper love, and when Joseph reached his prime, she could not control her feelings for him. Despite her aristocratic status and pride, and her known reputation for chastity and honor, she became infatuated, with this passion deeply rooted within her, taking over her heart.

Certainly, Joseph maintained a close association with her throughout their interactions, and there was no distance between them. She was a woman of stature, unswerving in her decisions, never retreating from her resolutions. In her eyes, she was the mistress, and Joseph was her servant, a possession. He had no choice but to obey and submit to her. The homes of royalty and the elite often deploy various strategies and schemes for their objectives; most means, no matter how challenging, become accessible to them. The wife of Potiphar was a woman of beauty and adornment. The harems of kings do not entertain unattractive women; only enchanting beauties with captivating charm are allowed.

It is customary to infer that these factors, all of which converged within the wife of the Egyptian nobleman Potiphar, ignited every passionate flame within her. They fanned every fire until she became utterly consumed by her love for Joseph. Her infatuation was such that he became the centre of her universe; he was the first name on her lips when she spoke and ever-present in her thoughts when silent. Her sole concern and desire were for Joseph. Such is the allure of beauty, which can captivate hearts, and especially so when beheld continuously by the infatuated gaze of a lover.

Joseph and the Wife of Potiphar

The wife of Potiphar continuously nurtured the hope of a union with Joseph. She yearned to obtain what she sought from him. In their interactions, she would employ all the coquetry and allure typical of beautiful women, trying to seduce him with what she had, just as she was enticed by what he possessed. Perhaps what she perceived as Joseph’s patience and silence further emboldened her intentions and enticements towards him.

Until, overwhelmed by her passion for him, she managed to isolate him in her house, having secured all the doors, leaving just the two of them inside. She had no doubt that Joseph would comply with her wishes. After all, she had always known him to be obedient and compliant. The prevailing circumstances seemed to assure her success in achieving her desires.

There they were, a young man, enthralled by his feelings for God, and a woman, consumed by her infatuation for him, alone in a secluded house. She, consumed by her love for Joseph, wanted to divert his attention from his spiritual convictions to her desires. She relied on sealing the doors, tempting him, and banking on her authority and power. She commanded him with an imperative ‘Come!’, hoping to overpower him and make him yield to her desires.

Joseph, however, was profoundly devoted to his Lord. His soul was purified, and no room was left in his heart for anything but his beloved Creator. He was in intimate communion with God, constantly witnessing His beauty and majesty. Worldly factors, despite their apparent influence, could not hold his focus. Unlike her, he was not enthralled by externalities.

Potiphar’s tried to persuade Joseph with all the means at her disposal, including by locking the doors to the house, adopting a seductive approach, and issuing commands. However, Joseph responded with, ‘God forbid!’ Note, however, that he did not rebuke her with threats, nor did he say, ‘I fear your husband’ or “I cannot betray my master’, nor did he invoke his prophetic lineage or purity. He did not express hope for God’s rewards or fear of His punishment. Had his heart been attached to any external factor, he would have mentioned it, especially in such a challenging situation, as is human nature.

Instead, Joseph clung to the principle of monotheism, seeking refuge in God alone. His heart was occupied by none but his Lord, and his gaze was fixated solely on Him. This is the pure monotheism to which divine love had guided him, overshadowing all externalities, even causing him to forget himself. He did not say, ‘I seek refuge from you in God’ or anything of that implication, but simply stated, ‘God forbid!’ Therefore, there is a difference between his statement and the Virgin Mary’s words to the spirit that appeared to her in human form: ‘I seek the protection of the All-beneficent from you, should you be Godwary!’

As for what he said to her next, ‘Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode. Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous’, this elucidates his initial exclamation, ‘God forbid!’ He states that the kindness he has experienced from her—referenced in Potiphar’s command to, ‘Give him an honorable place’—is a blessing from his Lord. While this kindness might be attributed to her in some way, it’s ultimately God to whom he turns and seeks refuge. Joseph refrains from her advances because committing such a sin would be a grave wrong, and wrongdoers never prosper.

Joseph’s remark, ‘Indeed He is my Lord’, underscores his monotheistic belief. He does not perceive the polytheistic concept of having multiple lords, as held by pagans who assign various deities to control different aspects of the world. Instead, Joseph asserts that God alone is his Lord, with none beside Him.

Second, it is evident that he is not among those who verbally profess the oneness of God yet associate others with Him in practice by attributing independence to these apparent causes which bring about their effects with God’s permission. On the contrary, he perceives that the beautiful effects attributed to these causes are, in reality, attributed to God. Just as the wife of Potiphar believed that she had given Joseph and honorable place due to the wishes of Potiphar and that she and her husband took care of him, he believed it was God who truly provided for his good stay and that it was his Lord who managed his affairs. Thus, he sought refuge in Him.

Third, Joseph sought refuge in God from what she invited him to, as wrongdoing will not lead to success for those who indulge in it. They will not be guided to happiness or find peace in the presence of their Lord, as God mentioned about his ancestor, Abraham: Those who have faith and do not taint their faith with wrongdoing—for such there shall be safety, and they are the rightly guided ().

Fourth, he is under God’s authority and dominion; he has no control in matters and cannot bring benefit or harm to himself unless God wills or desires it. Therefore, when she propositioned him, he did not straightforwardly decline but instead responded indirectly, saying: ‘God forbid!’ Note that he did not say, ‘I will not do as you command’, or ‘I will not commit such a sin’, or ‘I seek refuge in God from you’, or any other similar phrases, seeking to avoid claiming any power and strength for himself and being wary of the defect of associating partners with God. The only exception is when he said, ‘Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode (aḥsana mathwāya)’, in which he referred to himself twice, but only to affirm his dependence and emphasize his humility and need. By using the term iḥsān (‘kindness’) in reference to Potiphar’s command to ‘Give him an honorable place (akrimī mathwā-hu)’, by saying ‘He has given me a good abode’, to convey the idea of personal respect and honor.

In summary, even though the incident appeared as a confrontation and struggle between the wife of Potiphar and Joseph on the surface, it was actually a tug-of-war between divine love and passion and mere worldly lust and infatuation, both pulling Joseph in their direction. However, God’s word prevailed. Divine heavenly attraction took him, and divine love defended him, for God has command of His affair.

God’s statement, The woman in whose house he was solicited him, indicates the root of her temptation. Mentioning that he was in her house implies that the circumstances were in her favor, making the temptation more intense for him. Similarly, the phrase, She closed the doors used an intensified form of the word ‘close’ (ghallaqa) to emphasize the extremity of her intention. Also, when she said, ‘Come!!’ she used an authoritative tone, highlighting her perceived power and dominance, implying she had prepared everything for him and there was nothing standing between Joseph and her demand except his willingness to do so. However, God was closer to Joseph than his own self and closer than the wife of Potiphar, and all might belongs to God.

When Joseph said, ‘God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode … this is his response to the wife of Potiphar, in which he counters her solicitation by seeking refuge in God. It is as if to say: ‘I seek God’s refuge from what you invite me to, because He is my Lord who took care of my affairs and gave me a good abode, and thereby making me fortunate and successful. If I were to commit this wrong, I would deviate from my success and remove myself from His guardianship.’

Notice how Joseph observed all the etiquette of servitude in this speech, as has been mentioned before. Firstly, he used the term of grandeur (‘Allah’), and then referred to the attribute of Lordship, to signify that he does not worship any lord other than God, following the tradition of his forefathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Some commentators have posited that the pronoun in his statement, ‘Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode’, refers to the matter at hand, meaning that Potiphar, my master (because he was the one who had purchased Joseph) has given me a good abode by instructing you to treat me honorably. Responding to your proposal would be betraying him, and I would never betray him.

Similar to this is the reading that the pronoun refers to Potiphar, with ‘He is…’ being the subject and ‘…my Lord’ being the predicate of the sentence, and ‘He has given me a good abode’ is an additional predicate.

However, had this been the case, it would have been more appropriate to say, ‘Indeed, betrayers are not felicitous’, just as he said to the messenger while in prison: ‘that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous’ (). Note that he did not say, ‘I did not wrong him in his absence.’

However, Joseph would never consider Potiphar his ‘Lord’ (rabb). Even though people perceived him as a servant, he was a free man and not owned by him. He told one of his prison mates, ‘Mention me to your master (rabb)’ (). He told the king’s messenger, ‘Go back to your master (rabb)’ (). He never referred to the king using the term ‘my lord’ as was their custom. He also said to the king’s messenger, ‘and ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands. My Lord is indeed well aware of their stratagems’—wherein he acknowledges God as his Lord, in contrast to the messenger referring to the king as his lord. This interpretation is further supported by his statement in the following verse: had he not beheld the proof of his Lord ().

وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهِ ۖ وَهَمَّ بِهَا لَوْلَا أَنْ رَأَىٰ بُرْهَانَ رَبِّهِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ لِنَصْرِفَ عَنْهُ السُّوءَ وَالْفَحْشَاءَ ۚ إِنَّهُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُخْلَصِينَ ٢٤

(12:24) She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord. So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants.

Key Debate: Joseph and the Proof of His Lord →

Understanding this verse requires us to thoroughly contemplate on the details of the story. Delving into the various perspectives, causes, and underlying conditions reveals that Joseph’s escape from this situation was nothing short of miraculous, more resembling a vision than reality.

Indeed, Joseph, was a man, and it is within men’s nature to be attracted to women. He was a young man at the peak of his youth, a time characterized by the fervor of passion and desire. In addition to this, he possessed extraordinary beauty that captivated people’s minds and stole their hearts, such beauty and elegance naturally attracts temptation and indulgence. Living in luxury and comfort, surrounded by generous hospitality, he found himself in a setting that could easily lead to indulgence and excess. The queen, too, was exceptionally beautiful, as the wives of kings and nobles often are.

She was undoubtedly decked out in a manner that would enthral any heart. As a powerful aristocratic woman of Egypt, she was infatuated with him, a feeling that many would have also felt towards her. She had previously treated Joseph with kindness, generosity, and dignity, circumstances that can easily sway a person’s judgements and mindset. She approached him, inviting him to submit to her desires. Resisting such advances is always challenging in itself. She tried to seduce him with all her allure and coquettishness. Her persistent attempts to draw him closer led her to tear his shirt, making it even harder for him to resist. A powerful woman, her wishes were rarely denied, and the man she sought was entrusted to her by her husband. They were in a lavish palace, characteristic of aristocratic residences, surrounded by breath-taking views that befitted such a luxurious life.

They were alone, with doors locked and curtains drawn. The threat of exposure or scandal was never far away, yet there was a perceived safety given her status and her ability to conceal matters. This encounter wasn’t a one-off opportunity; it could have been the key to a prolonged luxurious life for Joseph. By giving in to her, he could have secured many of life’s aspirations, like power, honor, and wealth.

Such overwhelming temptations, if directed at a mountain, could shake it, and if faced by the most steadfast rock, could melt it. The only conceivable deterrents here were fear of the scandal being exposed, tarnishing Joseph’s reputation, or betraying the trust of Potiphar. As for the fear of exposure, it has been mentioned that he felt safe from it. Even if any evidence did emerge, the noblewoman had the power to interpret it as she did when her advances were exposed. She almost convinced her husband when he discovered them, shifting the blame onto Joseph and resulting in his imprisonment.

As for the protection offered by noble lineage, had this been any deterrent whatsoever, it would have prevented Joseph’s brothers from committing a deed far graver than adultery and far more sinful. Indeed, they were the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, just like Joseph, yet their noble lineage did not prevent them from plotting to kill him, from casting him into the depths of a well, from selling him as one sells slaves, and from causing their father, Prophet Jacob such anguish that he cried until his eyes turned white with grief.

Regarding the ugliness and prohibition of treachery, it belongs to the domain of social laws. The impact of these social laws is truly felt when violations are followed by appropriate consequences, especially when individuals are under the authority of an enforcing power and a just government. But if such authority is negligent or corrupt, if crimes are concealed from its view, or if they are outside its jurisdiction, then the effects of these laws diminish, as we will soon discuss.

Therefore, Joseph had nothing to shield him from these powerful temptations, except for the foundation of monotheism, which is belief in God. Alternatively, one might say it was the divine love that filled his existence and consumed his heart, leaving no space or even the smallest gap for anything else. This is what a reflection on the story reveals. Now, let’s return to the verse at hand.

Consider God’s words: She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord. So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants. This clearly indicates the reason for Joseph’s escape from this predicament. The context suggests that being saved from evil and indecency refers to his rescue from what was sought of him in terms of seduction and being alone with her. The phrase, So it was … refers to the passage: had he not beheld the proof of his Lord.

Thus, the meaning of the phrase So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency …, is that because he was one of God’s devoted servants, God diverted evil and immorality away from him through what he witnessed in the proof of his Lord (burhān rabbi-hi). This vision of the proof of his Lord is the reason why God, in His perfection, averted evil and indecency from Joseph. Consequently, the implied outcome of had he not beheld the proof of his Lord would be that, had he not beheld it, he would have engaged in evil and indecency. This necessitates that the phrase had he not beheld serves as a restriction to the meaning of the phrase, and he would have made for her, implying that his inclination towards her, which mirrors her inclination towards him, pertains to the intention of committing a sin. Therefore, his inclination towards her falls under a conditional statement. Even though had he not is associated with a conditional statement, the grammarians have debated whether it is possible to place consequence before it in a manner analogous to the conditional particle ‘if.’ However, and he would have made for her is not actually a consequent, but rather is joined to the phrase She certainly made for him via a conjunction. This can be compared to when a person might say, ‘By God, I will hit him if he hits me,’ meaning, ‘By God, if he hits me, I will hit him.’

Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘By God, she certainly made for him and, by God, had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have made for her too and would have been on the verge of committing a sin.’ Note that we would say, ‘was on the verge of committing a sin’, rather than ‘he would have committed a sin’, because the verb hamm (‘to make for’), as mentioned, is only used when coupled with an obstacle. As God Almighty says, They made for (hammū) what they could not achieve (), and When two groups among you were about to lose courage (hammat … an tafshalā) (), and as the poet al-Ṣakhr’s says:

I desire (ahamm) a thing I cannot attain /

For an obstruction came between the caravan and its departure.

Had Joseph not seen the proof of his lord, the real act would be mere desire and approach without actual commission. God alludes to this when He says, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. He did not say: ‘to turn him away from evil and indecency.’ In other words, God turned the evil and indecency away from him. He did not turn him away from evil and indecency.

From this, it appears that the most appropriate explanation of the term ‘evil’ (sūʾ) is the desire for her and inclination towards her. While ‘indecency’ (faḥshāʾ) refers to committing the immoral act itself, which is adultery. So, Joseph neither committed the sin of adultery nor was on the verge of committing it. However, had God not shown him His proof, he would have desired her and perhaps been close to engaging in adultery. This interpretation is supported by our prior reflections and contemplations on the circumstances and factors present at that moment, which had a significant influence on him.

When God says, She certainly made for him … (la-qad hammat bi-hi), He uses the lām of oaths for emphasis, meaning: ‘I swear, she made for Joseph because of her desire for him …’ And the verb hamm only makes sense when the desire is accompanied by some form of action.

And when He says, and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, this is joined to the preceding sentence where the lām is used for emphasis. The meaning is: ‘And I swear, had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have made for her and would have been on the verge of submitting to her desires.;

The ‘proof’ (burhān) God refers to in this verse signifies the means by which a person attains such a level of certainty that it takes control of his heart like a miracle. As God says to Moses about his miracles, These shall be two proofs from your Lord to Pharaoh and his elite (), and in reference to the Qur’an, O mankind! Certainly a proof has come to you from your Lord (), and What! Is there a god besides Allah? Say, ‘Produce your proof, should you be truthful’ (). Therefore, a burhān is a conclusive argument that clarifies the truth and leaves no doubt for the sceptic.”

The Qur’an does not tell us what proof Joseph witnessed from his Lord. However, whatever it was undoubtedly served as a source of unwavering certainty for him—one that was not tainted by ignorance or misguidance in any way. This is indicated by Joseph’s plea to his Lord, as will be discussed below, If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline towards them and become one of the senseless. (). This suggests that the knowledge he was endowed with wasn’t merely the conventional understanding of good and evil, or benefits and harms. Such knowledge can, at times, coexist with error and sin. This is evident in God’s saying: Have you seen him who has taken his desire to be his god and whom Allah has led astray knowingly () and They impugned them—though they were convinced in their hearts—wrongfully and defiantly ().

The proof shown to him, which is the kind of evidence God reveals to His devoted servants, is a type of unveiled knowledge and witnessed certainty. When internalized, the human soul naturally adheres to this proof, and no longer inclines toward sin. We will elaborate on this further, below.

So it was (kadhālik), that We might turn away from him (li-nuṣrif ʿan-hu) all evil and indecency—The lām in li-nuṣrif is either purposive or causative, but the meaning in both cases is one. Kadhālik is linked to li-nuṣrif and refers back to the previous statement about Joseph beholding the proof of his Lord. ‘Evil’ (sūʾ) here refers to whatever grieves the heart of a divine servant as a divine servant, which is any kind of sin or inclination towards sinning. ‘Indecency’ (faḥshāʾ) refers to the commission of vile acts such as adultery. And we have already discussed how the context suggests that ‘evil’ and ‘indecency’ refer to adultery and the inclination to engage in it.

Therefore, the meaning of this passage is: ‘The purpose—or reason—for Joseph beholding the evidence from his Lord was to divert from him both the indecent act and the inclination towards it.’

A subtle aspect of the verse lies in the passage: that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency, implying that evil and indecency are being diverted away from Joseph, rather than him being diverted away from them. The latter would suggest that he possessed an inclination to commit such acts, needing to be diverted. This contradicts God’s testament that Joseph was among His sincere and devoted servants, those whom God has chosen exclusively for Himself, such that nothing shares in their devotion. They do not obey anyone other than Him, whether it be a misguidance from Satan, a temptation of the soul, or any call that invites them to turn away from God Almighty.

As for the phrase, He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants, this provides the rationale for His saying, So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. The meaning is: ‘We treated Joseph in this manner because he was one of Our devoted servants, and they receive such treatment.’

It is evident from the verse that it is the nature of the devoted servants of God to witness the proof of their Lord. And God, in His glory, wards off all evil and indecency from them, so they do not commit sins or even contemplate them, due to the signs that God shows them. This is the meaning of infallibility (ʿiṣma, or ‘divine protection’).

It is also evident that this proof is a certainty that is grounded in knowledge, but it is not a certainty derived from the conventional sciences to which we are accustomed.

There are various interpretations by both Shīʿī and Sunnī commentators regarding this verse:

Some say—citing Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, Qatāda, ʿIkrima, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and others, mentioned that the meaning is that she desired to commit an immoral act with him, and he would have desired it too if not for seeing the proof of his Lord.

They described his contemplation, which is beneath the dignity of prophethood and outside the realm of sincerity, as approaching her until they were almost in a state of undress and engaging in carnal acts. However, the proof from his Lord arrived, nullifying his passion. In describing this proof, they presented differing accounts:

Al-Ghazālī, in his commentary on this chapter, writes: ‘Scholars have disagreed regarding the nature of the proof (burhān) witnessed by Joseph. Some say that a bird landed on his shoulder and whispered in his ear, cautioning him. Another account says he saw a vision of his father Jacob biting his finger in distress, saying: “O Joseph, do you not see me?” Al-Ḥasan Al-Baṣrī mentioned that Joseph saw her covering something, and when he inquired, she responded that she was covering her idol’s face out of shame. Joseph remarked that if she felt shame before an inanimate object, he should feel more shame before One who sees and knows all.

Another explanation says he heard a voice in his heart, calling out to him: ‘O Joseph, your name is written in the register of the prophets, how is it then, that you wish to behave in the manner of the foolish?’ Others say he saw a hand emerge from behind the wall bearing a warning about adultery: Do not approach fornication. It is indeed an indecency and an evil way (). Another says, “The ceiling opened up, and he saw a beautiful image saying, ‘O Divinely protected messenger, do not do it, for you are under God’s protection.’ Another account suggests he lowered his gaze and saw on the ground written: whoever commits evil shall be requited for it (). Another says an angel came and swept its wings across his back, and his desire left his body through the tips of his toes. Yet another account suggests he saw an angel in the room saying, “Am I not here?” Another says a barrier appeared between them, so neither could see the other. Another account mentions he saw one of the maidens of paradise and, dazzled by her beauty, asked her, “Who are you for?” She replied, “For those who do not commit adultery.”

Another states: “A bird flew by him and called out, ‘O Joseph, do not be hasty, for she has been made lawful for you and created for you.’” Another account mentions: “He saw the well into which his brothers had thrown him appear near his feet, and atop it stood an angel who said, ‘O Joseph, have you forgotten this well?’” It was also said that: “He saw Zulaikha in an unsightly form, which caused him to flee from her.” Another account claims that: “He saw a figure who said, ‘O Joseph, look to your right.’ When he looked, he saw a huge snake and was told, ‘The adulterer will be inside me tomorrow.’ Thus, he ran away from it.”’

Among the narrations on this topic is one that states: ‘Jacob appeared before him and struck him in the chest, driving out his desire through his fingertips.’ This account was relayed by al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-manthūr, where it is attributed to Mujāhid, ʿIkrima, and Ibn Jubayr, among others, along with various other explanations that are derived from exegetical traditions.

The response to these narratives, in addition to the fact that Joseph was a prophet endowed with infallibility (ʿiṣma), which protected him from sin, is that the moral virtues and pure devotion that God described him as possessing leaves no doubt that he held a status far purer and loftier than what these narratives seem to suggest. God has described him as one of His devoted servants, chosen for His worship, granted wisdom and knowledge, skilled in the interpretation of dreams. He was a devout, patient servant of God, neither treacherous nor unjust nor ignorant. He was among the righteous, and God included him with his virtuous forefathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How can such lofty stations and elevated ranks be attributed to someone unless he is pure at heart, sanctified in body, righteous in deeds, and upright in conduct?

As for those who believe that he intended to sin against God, they are asserting that Joseph was contemplating one of the gravest sins in God’s religion—adultery, especially with a married woman, and betraying her husband, a man who had shown him the utmost kindness. Furthermore, these accounts suggest that he was persistent in his intent to carry out this sin until he had lain with her as a man does with a woman: He was undeterred by one divine sign after another and divinely reprimanded repeatedly and from every direction but felt neither shame nor hesitation until he was struck in his chest, and his desire was miraculously driven out through his fingertips. Or until he saw a massive snake to his right and was alarmed by it, fleeing in terror of what he witnessed. Such a person is hardly fit to be called a human, let alone to don the mantle of prophethood and divine messengership. How could God bestow such a person with His revelations, entrust to him the keys to His religion, grant him His wisdom and knowledge, and associate him with the likes of Abraham, God’s confidante?

Yet, those who cling to such internally inconsistent narratives, accretions from Judeo-Christian sources, and fabricated traditions, also impugn the character of his grandfather Abraham concerning his wife Sarah. Therefore, it is no surprise that they level such accusations against his scion Joseph concerning another’s wife.

In al-Kashshāf, al-Zamakhsharī writes: ‘Joseph’s making for her (hamm) were interpreted as him loosening his clothing, sitting in such a way as to be ready for carnal intimacy. It was also said that he undid the fastening of his trousers and sat, legs apart, with her lying on her back. The proof he beheld has been explained as him hearing a voice warning, “Beware of her!” But he paid no heed. He heard it again and still did not act on it. Then he heard for the third time, “Turn away from her!” Yet, he wasn’t deterred until Jacob appeared to him, biting his fingers in vexation. Another account says Jacob struck his chest, causing his desire to flow out from his fingertips.

Some have also said: “Every son of Jacob had twelve children except for Joseph, who had eleven, because of what was reduced from his passion at that moment.” Others have said: that a voice called out: “O Joseph, do not be like the bird that once had feathers, but after committing adultery, sat featherless.” Yet another narrative states that a hand appeared between them, without forearm or wrist, inscribed with the verse: Indeed, there are over you watchers, noble writers () He still did not turn away. Then he saw on it Do not approach fornication. It is indeed an indecency and an evil way (). Still, he did not desist. Then he observed, And beware of a day in which you will be brought back to Allah (). And yet, he still wasn’t deterred. God then said to Gabriel, “Save My servant before he commits a sin!” Gabriel descended, saying, “O Joseph! Would you act foolishly while your name is inscribed in the register of the prophets?”

Another account claims Joseph saw the statue of Potiphar. Yet another says the woman moved towards an idol present there, covered it, and said, “I’m ashamed that it should see us.” Joseph responded, “You’re ashamed in front of one who neither hears nor sees, but aren’t ashamed before the All-Hearing, All-Seeing, Knower of what’s in the hearts?”

Such narratives and similar ones are from those who accept every narration and subscribe to predestination (jabr), whose religion is to attribute such falsehoods to God and His prophets. The proponents of divine justice and monotheism do not associate with such claims or narratives, praise be to God.

Had there been the slightest misstep by Joseph , it would have been held to account for it and his repentance and seeking of forgiveness mentioned. Just as the slips of Adam, and David, and Noah, and Job, and Jonah were all documented, alongside their repentance and supplication. And how could there be, when Joseph was praised by God and described as devoted and sincere?

Certainly, in that situation, he took a firm stance against temptation, striving against his inner desires with great determination and resolve. He reflected on the divine prohibitions and the inherent ugliness of the act until he earned God’s praise, as revealed in the scriptures of earlier prophets and later in the Qur’an, which stands as a testament against all His other scriptures and confirms them. The Qur’an does not merely recount his story but dedicates an entire chapter to it, granting him the same worthy repute among posterity (lisān al-ṣidq fī al-ākhirīn, see ), that was granted to his forefather, Abraham. Thus, the righteous would look up to him as a paragon of chastity, moral integrity, and steadfastness in face of temptation until the end of time.

God has abased those who claimed that this chapter—which was sent down by God with the best of stories in the clear Arabic Qur’an so that people might follow the moral example of a prophet, one of God’s messengers—depicts Joseph sitting between the legs of an adulteress, that he untied his waist cord to commit the act, and was dissuaded by his Lord on three occasions, being reprimanded clearly with the manifest verses of the Qur’an, accompanied by great admonition, severe threats, and the parable of a bird that loses its feathers when it tries to mate with another not of its kind, and remains frozen, unresponsive, and oblivious until God sends Gabriel to set things right. If the most shameless adulterer had faced even a fraction of what they claim, he would not have had a heartbeat left, nor would any of his limbs have moved. What an outrageous and clear deviation it is, then, to claim that Joseph was not dissuaded by any of these things!’

How aptly some exegetes have criticized those who held such a view. They defame him in this event, while everyone connected to it testified to his innocence. God Himself attests to this, saying: He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants. The witness from his household declared, ‘But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she lies and he tells the truth’ (), and the subsequent verses. Potiphar reprimanded his wife, saying, ‘This is from you women’s guile’ (). Even Potiphar’s wife eventually admitted, ‘Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth’ (). The townswomen likewise exclaimed, ‘Heaven be praised! We know of no evil in him.’ Joseph himself denies it, whom God has named truthful, stating, ‘I did not betray him in his absence’ ().

The primary reason they hold this view is twofold:

Firstly, their excessive reliance on traditions and their acceptance of any narrative, even if it contradicts the clear dictates of reason and the explicit texts of the Qur’an. They were beguiled by borrowings from the Judeo-Christian tradition and other fabricated stories that followed, which made them forget every truth and reality and turned them away from true knowledge.

Hence, you observe that they do not perceive religious knowledge as having any foundation beyond sensory experience, nor do they believe that profound human statuses like prophethood, sainthood, infallibility, and sincerity have any basis other than mere conjecture and consideration. They equate these with imagined conceptual positions that only exist in the conventions of human society, positions that have no reality beyond mere naming and mental concepts.

Thus, they measure the souls of the noble prophets against those of ordinary men, which fluctuate according to their whims. Such souls, when mired in ignorance and baseness, can, at their best, only aspire to the most basic level of piety, seeking reward and fearing punishment. Often, they succeed, but they also err. If divine protection prevents them from wrongdoing in some situations, they understand it merely as a barrier between the individual and sin. This protection operates by nullifying all other human-instilled inclinations and forces, compelling the individual to do good. However, there is no beauty in an act, no merit in an action, and no praise for a person if everything is preordained or compelled. We will discuss this in more detail in a specialised study.

The second reason they hold this view pertains to the apparent meaning of God’s saying: She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord. Based on what the grammarians have stated, the implied meaning of ‘had he not’ does not always precede its response. In this context, ‘and he would have made for her’ is a complete statement, not conditioned by ‘had he not.’ However, if this is the case, then the consequent of the conditional phrase, had he not beheld the proof of his Lord is ‘he would have done so.’ In which case, the meaning implied is that had Joseph not witnessed the sign from his Lord, he would have succumbed.

However, it is evident that such an interpretation is flawed. The two statements— She certainly made for him and and he would have made for her—are both the objects of oaths. The consequent to ‘had he not’ is implied in the second statement. The structure of this is parallel to the expression: ‘By God, I would have hit him had he hit me.’

Even though the suggested meaning is implied, it would have been clearer to say: ‘And had he not seen the evidence of his Lord …,’ linking the statements. However, there is no overt contextual reason to suppose that they are separate statements.

Furthermore, among the interpretations of the verse is that what’s meant by Joseph’s inclination is a natural predisposition or the arousal of innate desire. As explained by al-Zamakhsharī in his Tafsīr al-Kashshāf:

‘If one were to ask: “How is it permissible for a prophet of God to have an inclination towards sin or to intend it?” The answer is that his soul was inclined towards sexual gratification due to youthful desire and his nature leaned towards it in a way that resembled actual intent. Such an overpowering situation might overwhelm the minds and wills of some men. However, Joseph resisted these urges, looking instead to the proof of God, recalling the duty of the morally accountable to avoid forbidden things.

For this reason, you see them not regarding religious knowledge as having any basis beyond sensory perception. They do not see spiritual human statuses such as prophethood, guardianship, infallibility, and sincerity as having any foundation other than mere convention and mental abstraction. This perspective likens them to the symbolic statuses that circulate in human society, which have no grounded reality behind their names upon which one can rely.

Had this strong inclination, termed as hamm (‘preoccupation’) due to its intensity, not existed, Joseph would not have been praised by God for his self-restraint. For the magnitude of patience during a trial is proportional to the intensity thereof. If his inclination towards her was as fixed as hers was upon him, God wouldn’t have praised him as one of His ‘dedicated’ (mukhliṣ) servants.

It’s possible that when God says, and he would have made for her, it means he was on the verge of desiring her, akin to someone saying, “I would have killed him had I not feared God”, implying an approaching act without committing it.

Regarding the phrase, had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, one might ask: “Why consider the consequent implicit (that is, had he not beheld the proof of his Lord ‘he would have done so’) rather than explicitly stated (that is, he would have made for her had he not …)?”

The answer is: The consequent cannot precede the hypothetical clause had he not (law lā), which functions as a conditional. The condition must always lead the sentence and, in conjunction with what’s within it, forms a single unit. One cannot, according to the rules of Arabic grammar, rearrange parts of a sentence. However, leaving part of it implicit when a prior indication exists is possible.

If one were to ask: “Why does had he not only relate to he would have made for her and not to the entirety of the passage, She certainly made for him, and he would have made for her? After all, the object of the word hamm must be an idea (maʿnā) rather than a substance (jawhar). Intimacy requires two parties, so a more appropriate reading of the passage would be: ‘They would have both inclined towards intimacy, were it not for a factor that prevented one of them.’”

The answer is: While God mentioned the hamm of both parties separately— She certainly made for him, and he would have made for her—making it necessary to understand the phrase as: ‘She desired intimacy with him, and he desired intimacy with her’. The point is that each of them had their respective shares of desire, but it was Joseph who saw God’s sign and refrained, making the phrase had he not … correctly associated only with his desire.’

Al-Bayḍāwī summarized this in his commentary, saying: ‘What is meant by his hamm (“making for her”) is a natural inclination and a pull of desire, not a deliberate intent. Such inclinations are not subject to moral accountability. Instead, they merit praise and ample reward from God for those who restrain themselves from acting upon such inclinations or even approaching them. This is like saying, “I would have killed him, had I not feared God.”

However, this argument contradicts the established linguistic meaning of the term hamm, which signifies intent to act, accompanied by certain revealing actions such as a movement towards the intended act or initiating some of its preliminaries. An example is when someone intends to hit another and moves towards him. However, a mere inclination of nature or the pull of carnal desires is not termed as hamm at all. According to its linguistic meaning, even hamm—let alone completing the act—is morally reprehensible and should not emanate from a divine prophet. Even though natural urges, being beyond the realm of obligation, cannot be considered morally blameworthy, neither can they be termed as hamm.

Author’s comment: This explanation is only suitable as a response to those who claim that the Prophet Joseph’s hamm refers to the inclination of nature and pull of carnal desires. It is not acceptable to suggest that by hamm, the verse refers to a mere consideration or awareness of intent. The verse differentiates between the two types of intents. Her hamm refers to a deliberate approach to intimacy with him, while his hamm is his mere consideration of it without actual realization. The evidence for this is the divine description praising him excessively. If his hamm were genuinely deliberate towards intimacy with her, it would be a reprehensible act, unworthy of any praise. Thus, it’s clear that his hamm on the part of Joseph was mere consideration, not actual intent.

Non-literal meanings for terms and phrases can only be considered when the literal interpretation is impossible. It has been established that the literal meaning of hamm in this context is perfectly plausible. What commentators have said about Joseph beholding the proof of his Lord, namely that it was an intellectual realization to refrain from religious prohibitions, does not accord with the text of the verse. ‘Beholding’ (ruʾya) is used either for physical sight or a profound spiritual realization, which is much clearer than mere intellectual reflection, which cannot be termed as ‘seeing’ at all.

Another explanation of the verse under discussion is that the two instances of the verb hamm (‘to make for’) differ in meaning. Her intent was to seduce him, while his was to strike her in self-defence. The evidence offered for distinguishing between the two different kinds of hamm is God saying that Joseph is among His devoted servants, along with the logical arguments for the infallibility of prophets.

For example, al-Ṭabrisī notes in Majmaʿ al-bayān: ‘The apparent meaning of hamm in the verse presents a problem, because two people cannot make for one another without an act of intimacy resulting. When God says, she made for him, and he would have made for her …, it associates hamm with both Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. Therefore, the verse indicates her resolving upon Joseph and Joseph resolving upon her, but it is impossible to ‘resolve’ on someone who is not likewise ‘resolved’ on you and not have the act transpire. Therefore, they must each be resolving on a different act, which the verse does not explicitly mention. With this in mind, it is possible for us to read the verse as saying that Joseph ‘resolved’ on something that was not immoral, such as striking her or pushing her away. As if to say: “She resolved to fornicate with him, and Joseph resolved to strike her or repel her”, much like saying “I went for so-and-so”, meaning in order to harm or hurt them.

Therefore, when God says that Joseph beheld the proof of his Lord, this means that God, in His glory, showed him a proof that if he acted upon what he intended, her family would either ruin him, kill him, or she would accuse him of pursuing her for immoral reasons and slander him by saying he propositioned her and then assaulted her for refusing his advances. When God says that He turned evil and the indecency away from Joseph , this refers to potential murder and the accusation that he had committed an indecent act. Therefore, the phrase can be interpreted as: ‘had he not seen the proof from his Lord, he would have acted upon it.’ The consequent to the phrase had he not beheld the proof of his Lord is omitted, in a fashion similar to the omission in the verse: Were it not for Allah’s grace and His mercy upon you, and that Allah is all-kind, all-merciful ().’

My response is that while there is nothing inherently wrong with such an explanation, it rests on distinguishing between two different kinds of hamm (one for Joseph and one for the wife of Potiphar), which goes against the apparent meaning of the text. Such a distinction should only be made when it’s impossible to interpret them as having the same meaning, though we know that this is indeed possible in the case of the present verse.

This is in addition to the fact that this reading makes the proof he witnessed refer to the fact that if he struck here that would lead to his destruction or some other calamity befalling him. This, in turn, makes the intended meaning of evil and indecency murder and accusations, as al-Ṭabrisī states. However, such an explanation is clearly at odds from what the context indicates.

As for al-Ṭabrisī’s argument in Majmaʿ that it is not possible for both parties to have made for one another without them engaging in the act itself and that, therefore, they must have each made to do something different to one another. The reason for this is that if we assume that the intention was made by one side, it cannot logically coexist with a similar intention from the other side. There is no meaning in having the desire relate to both the desired and the one being desired simultaneously desiring the one who desires them, without the act occurring.

However, there is nothing to say that both parties did not have the intention simultaneously if we assume they both acted at the same moment, without either one moving before the other. An analogy can be two individuals wanting to approach and meet: one might stay still while the other approaches, or they might both approach and come closer at the same time, like two bodies being attracted to one another.

Another reading of the verse is that the term hamm in both cases refers to the intention to strike and defend. According to Rashīd Riḍā in Tafsīr al-Manār, when the wife of Potiphar attempted to seduce Joseph , and he resisted her advances, she became enraged and vengeful. She felt a mixture of passion, anger, and regret and intended to strike him for his defiance against her wishes. On the other hand, when he witnessed this, he prepared to defend himself and to retaliate if she harmed him. However, retaliating might lead to accusations that he had tried to force himself upon her. God, in His grace, showed him a sign, making him realize this and inspired him to choose the path of escape rather than confrontation. He headed for the house door to open it and escape from her, but she chased him, and they raced to the door.

Furthermore, such a reading argues that there is no basis for interpreting the term hamm here as an intent for intimate physical interaction in the verse: She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her. This is because hamm can only be realized through an action of the one who possesses the intention. And a woman’s natural action in this context is not to initiate, but to accept or acquiesce to the one who seeks it from her. This is first.

Furthermore, Joseph did not seek such an act from Potiphar’s wife, hence her acceptance of his supposed request, or her consent to permit him, cannot be termed as hamm for her. For the preceding and subsequent verses clearly exonerate him from even the precursor or initiation of such actions. This is second.

Now, were it to be posited that they both had such intentions, it would have been more appropriate for God to say: ‘He made for her and she made for him,’ given that the primary initiator in such circumstances is naturally the male, and the female intention depends on this and cannot occur without it. This is third.

It’s evident from the narrative that this woman was resolute in her desire, without the slightest hesitation or obstacle. Thus, it makes no sense to say that she merely had a fleeting hamm towards him, even if we were to hypothetically accept that her intention was in response to his overtures. The term hamm suggests a tentative approach to an act. As for interpreting hamm as her intention to physically chastise him, this makes more sense in the context. This is the fourth point.

My response to this is that Rashīd Riḍā’s view agrees in its essence with the previous opinion about Joseph making for her in a non-carnal manner, and our refutation of the former applies to the latter. The assumption that her hamm towards him denotes her intention to strike him or the like has no evidentiary basis. Merely having such an incident in similar stories does not mandate interpreting the verse in this particular light without clear indicators in the text itself.

As for the claim that the word hamm in the verse She certainly made for him … does not refer to her seeking to initiate intimacy with him, or the claim that such an interpretation is invalid, the arguments presented are rather weak. It’s known that such intimate interactions typically consist of both actions and pauses, wherein a woman’s role is active, not merely passive. If she intended for a kind of closeness with him that might awaken his natural carnal instincts and persuade him to reciprocate her desires, it’s correct to say she made for him in terms of intimacy. It’s not necessary to interpret her hamm as referring specifically to what she could receive in sexual intercourse, such that the broad meaning of hamm could not apply here.

Now let us turn to Rashīd Riḍā’s final claim, that the wife of Potiphar was resolute and undeterred, and that, therefore, one cannot suggest that her intent was to initiate an act of intimacy with him. The problem with this view is that she was indeed determined in her desire for him and her resolve towards him. However, when it comes to the actual realization and occurrence of the act, it did not transpire—how? She saw Joseph’s refusal and his dignified resistance to her advances. She became intent upon him when he rebuffed her. Yet, she had no certainty that he would ever reciprocate her advances or comply with what she wanted from him, and this is evident.

Yet another reading of the verse proposes a rearrangement of its structure and the insertion of implicit meanings. According to this reading, the verse means: ‘She indeed made for him, and had he not seen the evidence of his Lord, he would have made for her too. But when he saw the evidence of his Lord, he did not make for her.’ This is similar to sayings like, ‘I would have perished if I had not found you’, or ‘I would have been killed if you hadn;’t saved me’ Even if neither perishing nor killing occurred, the meaning remains valid. An example from poetry:

‘My people, do not leave me to an unpleasant day,

Even if I delay in striking or hasten forth.’

And in the Qur’an: , and indeed she was about to divulge it had We not fortified her heart so that she might have faith (Al-Ṭabrisī attributes this view to Abū Muslim, the commentator, in Majmaʿ al-bayān).

The issue with this statement is that if the intent of this explanation is to invoke what some exegetes have said about the textual arrangement of words and phrases in certain Qur’anic verses not corresponding to their syntactical order, they usually mean situations involving multiple sentences. Naturally, some of these sentences take precedence over others, and while the Qur’an might mention them later, it does not alter the natural order or meaning. This is similar to instances where several items are enumerated, and even though one might naturally precede the other, it is mentioned later in the Qur’an. Such sequencing is done without a specific emphasis on order, as seen in the verse: His wife, standing by, laughed as We gave her the good news of Isaac, and of Jacob, after Isaac (). This is an instance of words not occurring in their syntactical order.

However, with regard to the present verse, and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, this is not the case, as if the words and phrases are reordered, the meaning of the verse changes depending on which part is given syntactical priority. If he … made for her is read as coming first syntactically, then ‘to make for’ (hamm) is unqualified, because this phrase cannot be qualified by had he not (law lā) when it precedes it, whereas if we read had he not beheld the proof of his Lord as having priority, then made for her is qualified by the conditional law lā.

If he would have made for her is supposed to be read as a consequent of law lā, even though it appears earlier, we would respond to this that the grammarians do not allow for such a reading based on the rules of conditionals the Arabic language, as they do not allow a consequent clause to precede a conditional one. The only way such a reading could be considered valid is if we are to assume that the exegete is disagreeing with the views of the classical grammarians, believing that there is no rational basis or valid evidence to support their understanding.

Another reading of the verse is what some have commentators have proposed, namely that she was attracted to him in her dream and he to her because he saw her in his dream. Due to this, he realized that she was meant for him, hence he felt an attraction to her. Al-Ghazālī has said this in his commentary: ‘This is a valid interpretation because the Prophets are infallible and do not pursue sins.’

My response to this is: If what he means is that the phrase he would have made for her refers to what Joseph saw in his dream, this is mere speculation without any textual evidence. If what he means is that Joseph saw her in his dream and was attracted to her in it, and from there believed she was meant for him, especially considering that the visions of the Prophets are divine revelations, and then he felt an attraction to her in the real world based on that belief, until he saw clear evidence from his Lord indicating his mistake, this would imply that Prophets can err in receiving revelation, and this is no less problematic than allowing the possibility that they commit sins.

Moreover, considering that in the previous verse Joseph considers such intimate relations outside of marriage as an act of wrongdoing whose doer will not prosper and seeks refuge in God from such an act, how can he have claimed that she was meant for him while simultaneously regarding it as an injustice and seeking refuge from it with God?

These are the main explanations given for the verse, and along with what was previously mentioned, there are about seven or eight views in total. It is evident that the precise meaning of beheld the proof of his Lord varies from one view to another. Some say that it refers to a tangible reason that Joseph witnessed, while others say that it refers to signs and phenomena that appeared to him in order to deter him from the sin: some say it was the knowledge of the divine prohibition on fornication and the punishment for it, others claim it denotes the virtue of chastity (ʿiffa), others say it referred to spiritual purity and divine infallibility. The reader is already aware of the correct understanding, and we shall return to this topic after finishing our study of the verses.

وَاسْتَبَقَا الْبَابَ وَقَدَّتْ قَمِيصَهُ مِنْ دُبُرٍ وَأَلْفَيَا سَيِّدَهَا لَدَى الْبَابِ ۚ قَالَتْ مَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ أَرَادَ بِأَهْلِكَ سُوءًا إِلَّا أَنْ يُسْجَنَ أَوْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ٢٥

(12:25) They raced to the door (istabaqā al-bāb), and she tore his shirt from behind (qaddat qamīṣa-hu min duburin), and they ran into her husband at the door. She said, ‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’

Istibāq (‘racing’) means to try to outrun one another, as previously discussed.

Qadd (‘tear’) means to rip or tear, and qadd means to tear lengthways, while qaṭṭ means to tear widthways.

Dubur (‘behind’) means the back or rear of a thing, as opposed to the front of it.

The context suggests that their race had two different motivations: Joseph wanted to open the door to escape from her and leave the house, while Potiphar’s wife wanted to beat him to it to prevent him from opening the door and leaving, hoping to get what she desired from him. Even though Joseph reached the door first, she pulled his shirt from behind, tearing it. It tore lengthwise because he was in a state of fleeing, distancing himself from her; otherwise, it would not have torn that way.

… and they ran into her husband (alfayā sayyida-hā) at the door—ilfāʾ (from whence alfayā is derived) literally means ‘to find’ someone or something. Sayyid (lit. ‘master’) refers to her spouse. Some have said that the Qur’an calls him her sayyid because that was the customary way in which Egyptian wives addressed their husbands—a practice that continued until the present day.

She said, ‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’ When they ran into her husband at the door, the situation transitioned from an intimate setting to a confrontational one. This change was triggered by the presence of the Potiphar, their presence together there, and the situation that unfolded. The passage begun by the phrase, The woman in whose house he was solicited him … () extends across five verses.

Potiphar’s wife began by accusing Joseph, asking her husband to punish him, implying that Joseph intended harm towards her. She said that her husband should either imprison him or subject him to a painful punishment. Yet, she never explicitly stated this or any details about the incident. Instead, she presented a general rule that anyone who intends harm towards another’s wife should be punished, saying, ‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’ She never mentioned Joseph, herself, or the exact nature of the ‘harm’ (which was adultery) that was intended. This was out of respect for Potiphar and to maintain the decorum of the situation.

Nor did she did not specify the punishment, oscillating between imprisonment and a painful penalty. Her heart, filled with love for Joseph , did not allow her to be specific, for ambiguity offers some comfort. Her phrasing, ‘for your wife’, suggests an attempt to provoke Potiphar and turn him against Joseph. This was a ruse to divert Potiphar’s attention from her own guilt, making it easier for her to deflect blame onto Joseph.

قَالَ هِيَ رَاوَدَتْنِي عَنْ نَفْسِي ۚ وَشَهِدَ شَاهِدٌ مِنْ أَهْلِهَا إِنْ كَانَ قَمِيصُهُ قُدَّ مِنْ قُبُلٍ فَصَدَقَتْ وَهُوَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ ٢٦ وَإِنْ كَانَ قَمِيصُهُ قُدَّ مِنْ دُبُرٍ فَكَذَبَتْ وَهُوَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ ٢٧

(12:26-27) He said, ‘It was she who solicited me.’ A witness of her own household testified: ‘If his shirt is torn from the front, she tells the truth and he lies. But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she lies and he tells the truth.’

Joseph initially did not speak out of respect for Potiphar and in an effort to protect Potiphar’s wife from blame. However, when she accused him of wrongdoing, he felt compelled to speak the truth, stating, ‘It was she who solicited me.’ This declaration indicates restraint and control, emphasizing that he did not initiate any wrongdoing but rather, she was the one who tried to seduce him.

The fact that his statement appears without any particles to provide emphasis or show that he is swearing an oath is indicative of his calm and composed demeanor. He was neither ashamed, nor panicky, nor fawning when protesting his innocence against her accusations, for he had done nothing wrong. He wasn’t afraid of her or of her accusations, and he had already sought refuge in his Lord when he exclaimed, ‘God forbid!.’

‘Testified’ is used here in the sense of the verb ‘said’. So, there’s no need to explicitly state the testimony before mentioning: ‘If his shirt...’ Some commentators have said that since this statement conveyed the essence of the testimony, it was described with the term of bearing witness.

This witness pointed out a critical piece of evidence that would clarify matters. The witness said, ‘If his shirt is torn from the front, she tells the truth and he lies.’ This essentially indicates that one of them is telling the truth and the other is lying. If the shirt is torn from the front, it signifies a face-to-face struggle, suggesting he is at fault. Conversely, ‘But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she lies and he tells the truth’, indicating that he was fleeing from her, and she pursued and tried to pull him back, indicating she was at fault. This is obvious.

As for the identity of this witness, commentators have proposed various theories. Some say he was a wise man who advised Potiphar, as is reported by al-Ḥasan, Qatāda, and ʿIkrima. Others suggest that he was a male relative of the wife and was sitting with her husband at the door. Yet others assert that he wasn’t a human or a jinn, but a unique creation by God, as cited from Mujāhid. However, this is contradicted by God’s specific mention of ‘from her own household.’

According to traditions from the Household of the Prophet and some Sunnī sources, the witness was a baby from her family, still in his cradle. This will be further explored in discussions of the traditions.

What should be highlighted is that the evidence presented by this witness is logical and rational, pointing towards a conclusive judgement about one of the two parties. Typically, this kind of rational deliberation is not termed ‘testimony’ (shahāda) in the traditional sense of the word, as testimony is usually based on sensory perception or its equivalent, not on reflection or reasoning, as exemplified in the verses: their hearing will bear witness against them and their sight and their skins (), and When the hypocrites come to you they say, ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the messenger of Allah.’ (). Even though confessing one’s belief in prophethood should be based on intellectual reasoning, the term ‘testimony’ here signifies that they are expressing a known absolute truth without highlighting its rational or reflective nature—in other instances, this is expressed with the verb ‘say’ (qawl) or the like.

In fact, it is possible to read the phrase, A witness … testified as indicating that this speaker spoke spontaneously, without contemplation or forethought, thereby rendering his statement a form of testimony (shahāda) in the sense that it was not based on reflection and reasoning, in contrast to the word qawl (‘statement’), which conventionally denotes a deliberate or thoughtful utterance. This aligns with the narration suggesting that this witness was an infant in the cradle; indeed, this might have been a kind of miraculous event through which God supported the claim of Joseph.

فَلَمَّا رَأَىٰ قَمِيصَهُ قُدَّ مِنْ دُبُرٍ قَالَ إِنَّهُ مِنْ كَيْدِكُنَّ ۖ إِنَّ كَيْدَكُنَّ عَظِيمٌ٢٨

(12:28) So when he saw that his shirt was torn from behind, he said, ‘This is from you women’s guile! Your guile is great indeed!

This means when Potiphar saw Joseph’s shirt torn from the back, he said: ‘This matter was a scheme of you womenfolk, surely your scheming is grand indeed!’ In other words, he attributed this to women collectively, even though it was his wife’s doing. This attributes the act to all women, suggesting that it emerged from his wife’s nature as a woman, whose cunning is well-known and significant. Then he added, ‘Your guile is great indeed’, implying that men are naturally attracted to women, and these women possess the means to allure men, captivating their hearts and ensnaring their spirits with their enchanting beauty and magical charms, diverting them toward their desires without the men even realizing. This guile involves meaning them harm. From the verse, Potiphar, upon witnessing Joseph’s shirt torn from the back, took Joseph’s side against his own wife.

يُوسُفُ أَعْرِضْ عَنْ هَٰذَا ۚ وَاسْتَغْفِرِي لِذَنْبِكِ ۖ إِنَّكِ كُنْتِ مِنَ الْخَاطِئِينَ٢٩

(12:29) ‘Joseph, let this matter alone, and you, woman, plead for forgiveness for your sin, for you have indeed been erring.’

This is Potiphar’s statement. After taking Joseph’s side against his wife, he advised Joseph to disregard the matter and instructed his wife to seek forgiveness for her transgression and wrongdoing.

Joseph, let this matter alone refers to the incident that took place, urging Joseph to overlook it, treat it as if it never happened, and to not speak of it to others. There’s no indication in the verses that Joseph ever spoke of it to anyone, which is consistent with what we already know about him. For example, we see that when they were discovered by Potiphar, Joseph did not accuse Potiphar’s wife of making advances toward him until she accused him of seeking to harm her, at which point he spoke the truth. However, how could a flirtation, lasting for a significant time, during which she was completely infatuated with him to the point of losing all rationality and discretion, remain hidden? This wasn’t a one-time or two-time event. The evidence for this is what will be mentioned later from the words of the other women of the city, ‘The chieftain’s wife has solicited her slave boy! He has captivated her love. Indeed we see her to be in manifest error.’

‘… and you, woman, plead for forgiveness for your sin, for you have indeed been erring (min al-khātiʾīn)’—this confirms her guilt and instructs her to seek forgiveness from her Lord for that sin, because in doing so, she was among those who erred. That is why the masculine plural khātiʾīn is used (as this encompasses both men and women) rather than the feminine plural khātiʾāt.

All of this belongs to the speech of Potiphar, as indicated by the context, and not to the speech of the witness, because the judgement in this dispute fell to Potiphar and not the witness.

Some commentators mistakenly argue that the meaning of ‘… and you, woman, plead for forgiveness for your sin’ is: ‘ask your husband not to punish you for your wrongdoing.’ They base this on the idea that the statement comes from the witness and not from Potiphar. Another explanation is that it means: ‘Seek God’s forgiveness for your sin and repent to Him. The sin was yours, not Joseph’s.’ And this is because the Egyptians still believed in God Almighty even while they also worshipped idols.

Indeed, the idolaters acknowledged God in His role as the Creator, but they only worshipped deities and lords other than Him. This topic has been discussed earlier in our commentary. Note, however, that in the verse her husband only commands her: ‘plead for forgiveness for your sin’ without specifying from whom she should plead forgiveness, which in her faith would be whichever deity she worshipped.

Some have argued that the verse implies that Potiphar lacked jealousy, but the truth it points to is his deep love for his wife.

وَقَالَ نِسْوَةٌ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ امْرَأَتُ الْعَزِيزِ تُرَاوِدُ فَتَاهَا عَنْ نَفْسِهِ ۖ قَدْ شَغَفَهَا حُبًّا ۖ إِنَّا لَنَرَاهَا فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ ٣٠

(12:30) Some of the townswomen (niswatun fī al-madīna) said, ‘The chieftain’s wife (imraʾat al-ʿazīz) solicits (turāwid) her slave boy (fatā-hā)! He has captivated her love (shaghafa-hā ḥubban). Indeed we see her to be in manifest error.’

The verse initiates the story of the women of Egypt with Joseph in the house of Potiphar, which spans six verses.

Contemplating on these verses, keeping in mind the circumstances and the nature of the story, when the incident between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife took place, news of this gradually spread throughout the city. The women, who were the city’s elite, discussed it in their gatherings, taunting the wife of Potiphar, saying she was infatuated with the young man and had been overtaken by love, persistently trying to seduce him. They believed she was in clear error. This was a cunning move on their part, typical of the envy and pride found in many women’s nature. A woman is often overwhelmed by delicate emotions and refined feelings. Her essence is adorned with beauty and grace, her heart captivated by allure. Such attributes, especially in young women, lead to conceitedness towards herself and envy towards others.

In sum, their talk of love and temptation was a ruse aimed at the wife of Potiphar, providing them some solace and alleviating the resentment they felt in their hearts towards her. They had not seen Joseph as she had, nor had they witnessed what she did. They simply speculated and made assumptions. However, first-hand experience is distinct from mere storytelling, and first-hand observations differ from hearsay.

The gossip about Joseph eventually became so widespread that it reached the wife of Potiphar’s own ears. She, whose only concern was to have Joseph yield to her desires, cared little about her status or power; she only wished to make him love her in return. Recognizing the ladies’ scheme against her, she invited them to a soiree, knowing they were the elite and noble women of the city, connected socially to Potiphar’s household, and thus fit to be present at her gathering.

They prepared themselves, donning their most beautiful attire and ornaments, as was customary for such occasions among ladies of their rank. Each hoped to see Joseph and witness the charm that had so ensnared and exposed the wife of Potiphar. Her primary aim that day was to reveal them to Joseph so that they would understand her infatuation, thereby diverting their attention from her indiscretions. She felt secure in her position over him, deeming herself his mistress and owner. She believed he held no interest in other women, and she recognized his resistance to such temptations in any case.

Once they arrived and settled, the atmosphere became amiable. As they chatted and negotiated, each was given a knife, and fruits were presented before them. At that moment, she ordered Joseph to appear, who until then had been hidden from their view. The moment they set eyes on him, they were so taken aback and astonished that they accidentally cut their hands instead of the fruit. Such is the nature of intense surprise and shock: when one is pulled strongly towards something they deeply desire or fear, they can become disoriented. Sometimes, they may rush towards danger or, in their shock, become paralysed, acting without intention. Such cases related to passionate love are numerous, and the tales of the behavior of infatuated lovers are well-known.

This difference between the wife of Potiphar and the other women was evident. Her infatuation with Joseph developed gradually. In contrast, the women of the city were suddenly exposed to his beauty, and their hearts were overwhelmed all at once. This sudden surge of affection disarmed them, disrupting their reason and discernment. They forgot about the fruit, inadvertently cutting their hands, discarding any restraint or patience. They outwardly displayed their intense love, exclaiming, ‘Good heavens! This is not a human being! This is but a noble angel!’

Furthermore, all of this occurred in the house of Potiphar, a place where utmost decorum and dignity were expected. They should have acted with caution and modesty. These women were noble, beautiful, and married, known for their modesty and chastity. All these factors should have restrained them from such open indiscretion. They hadn’t forgotten their recent discussions, where they criticized and condemned the wife of Potiphar for her infatuation with Joseph, even though they had been living under the same roof for years.

Each of them should have been more cautious than to indulge in such behavior. They knew well the scandal and the reputational damage the wife Potiphar had suffered because of Joseph. And Joseph stood before them, hearing their words and observing their actions.

However, the beauty of Joseph that they witnessed was so astonishing that it erased whatever opinions they had previously held. The setting, which should have been one of decorum and modesty, transformed into a vulgar celebration where attendees did not conceal their emotions or care about their appearance in front of others. Shortly after beholding him, they proclaimed, ‘Good heavens! This is not a human being! This is but a noble angel!’ While not long before that, they had whispered to one another, ‘The chieftain’s wife has solicited her slave boy! He has captivated her love. Indeed we see her to be in manifest error.’

The words they spoke upon beholding Joseph, after their initial criticism of Potiphar’s wife, served as a kind of confession. The essence of this was that their earlier opprobrium of Potiphar’s wife would have been valid if Joseph were merely human. Humans can be blamed and criticized when they succumb to desires for another human, especially when they could find satisfaction in an equally attractive alternative. However, when faced with unmatched—no, supernatural—beauty that weakens one’s resolve and choice, one cannot be blamed for succumbing to its allure.

For this reason, the atmosphere of the gathering shifted abruptly. The bounds of modesty were broken as the women freely and openly discussed Joseph’s attractiveness. Each spoke according to her innermost feelings about him. The wife of Potiphar declared, ‘He is the one on whose account you blamed me. Certainly I did solicit him, but he was continent’ () She revealed a secret she had not previously admitted and threatened Joseph with imprisonment, both to maintain her status among the women of the city and in hope of securing his compliance, saying, ‘and if he does not do what I bid him, surely he shall be imprisoned and be among the abased.’

As for Joseph, he remained unaffected by the allure of these beautiful women, their captivating glances, their sweet talk, or the looming threat from the wife of Potiphar. Her turned fixed countenance upon the Beauty before which all other beauty fades and the Majesty before which all other might and dignity are abased. He neither engaged with them nor paid heed to the wife of Potiphar’s words. Instead, he turned to his Lord, praying, “‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me. If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline towards them and become one of the senseless’ ().

Comparing this plea to what he said to the wife of Potiphar during her initial seduction, ‘God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode. Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous’, it becomes evident that the situation described in these verses was far more challenging for Joseph. Where once he resisted the advances of just the wife of Potiphar, now he faced the collective desires and intrigues of all the women of the town. The prior event occurred privately, with her attempting to conceal it. Yet now, these women openly professed their love, tempting him and conspiring to seduce him. The collective pressure exerted on him at this moment was significantly more intense than anything he had faced before.

Therefore, Joseph fervently prayed to God to shield him from their plots. Previously, he merely sought God’s protection. In response, God answered his prayers, diverting their schemes from him. Truly, He is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Returning to the examination of the verses:

The term niswa refers to a group of women and, by mentioning they are fī al-madīna (‘in the city’), it indicates that they were either significant in number or influence, enough to spread the scandal widely.

Imraʾat al-ʿazīz (‘the chieftain’s wife’) is the one in whose house Joseph resided and who tried to seduce him. The title ʿazīz is well-known in Arabic, and it was the epithet used for the master who purchased Joseph from the caravan. This title was also used for dignitaries in Egypt, and later, Joseph himself was given this title when he was put in charge of the granaries of the land.

The word turāwid (‘solicits’) indicates continuity and intensifies the meaning of seduction (murāwada). The term fatā (‘slave boy’) usually denotes a young man but, in this context, it refers to a servant. So prevalent was the term for a servant that it was specifically attributed to her with the phrase ‘her slave boy.’

Regarding the phrase, shaghafa-hā ḥubban (‘he has captivated her love’), al-Rāghib writes in his Mufradāt:

‘According to al-Ḥasan, this implies that passion reached the innermost part of her heart. Or, according to Abū ʿAlī, the centre of her heart—and these two meanings are similar.’

Different interpretations suggest it refers to the enveloping layer of the heart. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is as follows: ‘Several women of the city commented on the wife of Potiphar’s behavior, and their words were influential in the society. They pointed out that it is unseemly for a woman, especially a noblewoman like her, to try to seduce a man, let alone a servant. This behavior is generally expected of men, not women. As the wife of the chief, she should have been mindful of her household’s honor, her husband’s dignity, and her personal reputation. It is unbecoming of someone of her status to be infatuated with a foreign servant among her many servants. Her persistent attempts to seduce him, despite his refusals, were deemed reprehensible and a deviation from the path of good sense.’

Therefore, after saying, ‘The chieftain’s wife solicits her slave boy …’, they added: ‘Indeed we see her to be in manifest error.’

فَلَمَّا سَمِعَتْ بِمَكْرِهِنَّ أَرْسَلَتْ إِلَيْهِنَّ وَأَعْتَدَتْ لَهُنَّ مُتَّكَأً وَآتَتْ كُلَّ وَاحِدَةٍ مِنْهُنَّ سِكِّينًا وَقَالَتِ اخْرُجْ عَلَيْهِنَّ ۖ فَلَمَّا رَأَيْنَهُ أَكْبَرْنَهُ وَقَطَّعْنَ أَيْدِيَهُنَّ وَقُلْنَ حَاشَ لِلَّهِ مَا هَٰذَا بَشَرًا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا مَلَكٌ كَرِيمٌ٣١

(12:31) When she heard of their machinations (makri-hinna), she sent for them and arranged a repast, and gave each of them a knife, and said, ‘Come out before them.’ So when they saw him, they marvelled at him and cut their hands, and they said, ‘Good heavens! This is not a human being! This is but a noble angel!’

In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘Makr (‘machinations’) refers to a cunning stratagem to covertly achieve one’s desires.’ Therefore, labelling their gossip as a makr against the wife of Potiphar reflects that they intended to publicly shame her and diminish her dignity, and that, in this, they were motivated by jealousy and malice towards her. She summoned these women to display Joseph’s beauty to them and to put them to the test she faced, hoping they would then refrain from blaming her and understand her infatuation.

Given this context, their statements are labelled as cunning, and the wife of Potiphar is described as ‘hearing of’ them because these statements emanated from them out of envy and a desire to disgrace her among the people.

Some scholars have said that their statement is described as a makr because they used it as a pretext to meet Joseph, having heard of his extraordinary beauty. They uttered these words so that the wife of Potiphar would hear and then invite them over, hoping to present Joseph before them. This would justify her infatuation with him and perhaps offer them an opportunity to also attempt to seduce him. However, the first explanation seems more consistent with the context of the verses.

The meaning of the phrase, she sent for them, is clear: It means that she invited them to assemble in her presence.

… and arranged a repast (aʿtaddat la-hunnā muttakaʾan), and gave each of them a knife—Aʿtaddat means that she made ready or set up, while muttakaʾ is the passive participle of the verb ittikāʾ (‘to recline’). Here, it denotes something one reclines against, like a cushion or a chair, especially as was custom in the houses of the elite. Some have understood this as a reference to citrus fruit (utruj). As for the phrase, and gave each of them a knife, this implies that he provided each of them with a knife to cut and eat the fruit laid out in front of them, such as citrus or other similar fruits.

… and said, ‘Come out before them’—indicates that the wife of Potiphar ordered Joseph to appear before them. The phrasing here suggests that he had been kept out of their sight until this point, but that he was somewhere in the house; perhaps in an adjoining room. Had he been outside the house, she would have said: ‘Enter upon them’ (idkhil ʿalay-hinna).

The narrative suggests that her soiree was a counter-strategy to the schemes of the womenfolk, to vindicate herself in their eyes. Her plan was well-executed: she prepared seating, gave each a knife, kept Joseph hidden, and then suddenly revealed him, hoping the shock of his striking beauty would catch them off guard. The climax of this plan was their accidental cutting of their hands, not just one or two of them, but all of them together.

So when they saw him, they marvelled at him and cut their hands, and they said, ‘Good heavens! This is not a human being! This is but a noble angel!’—This encapsulates their captivation and awe and symbolizes their astonishment and loss of self-control. Furthermore, it aligns with the universal principle that the lesser yields to the greater. When one encounters overwhelming beauty or grandeur, it dominates their senses, pushing aside other thoughts and intentions, leading one to perform unintended acts.

Thus, when the women saw Joseph , the sight of him overwhelmed their senses, causing them to cut their own hands instead of the fruit they had intended to cut. The form of the verb qaṭṭaʿa (with emphasis on the middle radical, ṭ) indicates the repetitive or excessive nature of the action, much like saying, ‘The group was slaughtered ruthlessly’ (quttila) or ‘The drought killed them mercilessly’ (mawwata-hum—in both cases, there is an emphasis on the middle radical of the verb; t in quttila and w in mawwata).

… they said, ‘Good heavens! (hāsha li llāh)—this is a glorification of God concerning the matter of Joseph. This is akin to another verse, ‘It is not for us to say such a thing. You are immaculate! This is a monstrous calumny!’ (). It is a common style of speech amongst the eloquent that, when speaking about a matter that pertains to someone’s exoneration or exaltation, they begin by magnifying and glorifying God, then proceed with what they wanted to say. Thus, when they wanted to exalt Joseph by saying, ‘This is not a human being!’ they began by exalting God and then moved on to praising Joseph’s beauty.

In their statement, ‘This is not a human being! This is but a noble angel!’, they deny that Joseph could be a mortal man and declare him instead to be a blessed angel. This is based on the belief held by many, including the pagans, that angels are blessed beings, sources of all good and happiness in the world. From them emanates all life, knowledge, beauty, radiance, joy, and everything desirable. They embody both physical and moral beauty. When imagined, they are pictured as endowed with unparalleled beauty, and those who worship idols often envisage them in handsome, appealing human forms.

Perhaps this is why they said, This is but a noble angel!’ They did not just describe him in terms of facial beauty or appealing appearance, even though what first affected them was his indeed his outward presence. Instead, they called him a ‘noble angel,’ alluding to both his physical and moral beauty, and the beauty of his character and his appearance, both externally and internally.

The fact that this exclamation by the womenfolk comes before the wife of Potiphar said, ‘He is the one on whose account you blamed me’, indicates that they did not understand that their words excused her love for and infatuation with Joseph. On the contrary, their words were a spontaneous expression of admiration, an induced revelation of their own attraction to and infatuation with him. And this indeed exposed them, and the wife of Potiphar did not say, ‘He is the one on whose account you blamed me,’ until after they had unintentionally exposed themselves both through their deeds (cutting their hands) and through their words (praising his beauty). Therefore, they had no choice but to acknowledge the truth of her statement and to excuse her actions.

قَالَتْ فَذَٰلِكُنَّ الَّذِي لُمْتُنَّنِي فِيهِ ۖ وَلَقَدْ رَاوَدْتُهُ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ فَاسْتَعْصَمَ ۖ وَلَئِنْ لَمْ يَفْعَلْ مَا آمُرُهُ لَيُسْجَنَنَّ وَلَيَكُونًا مِنَ الصَّاغِرِينَ ٣٢

(12:32) She said, ‘He is the one on whose account you blamed me. Certainly I did solicit him, but he was continent, and if he does not do what I bid him, surely he shall be imprisoned and be among the abased.’

This verse appears to anticipate a question from the audience, namely: ‘What did Potiphar’s wife say to these women when this happened?’ She said, ‘He is the one on whose account you blamed me…’

Her response was based on the prior words and actions of her guests. She pointed to Joseph, the one for whom she had been blamed, depicting him as the very person responsible for her actions, the direct answer to their accusations of her having forsaken her household’s honor, her husband’s dignity, and her own chastity because of her infatuation with him. The most powerful way to clarify an issue is to present the actual object of contention for all to see. A similar mode of expression can be found in the verses, ‘Is this the one who speaks ill of your gods?’ (), and ‘Our Lord, it was they who led us astray…!’ ().

Subsequently, she confessed that she had attempted to seduce Joseph, informing the women that she did solicit him, but also that he held onto his virtue and sought God’s protection from such advances. She revealed to them what she had been concealing, especially when she saw their own hearts inclining towards him. She shared her frustrations with them, indicating to Joseph that she had not given up on him and that he should prepare himself to obey her wishes. This sentiment is encapsulated in her statement, ‘Certainly I did solicit him, but he was continent …’

She then informed them of her determination to force Joseph into compliance with her wishes by outlining the consequences of his continued intractability. She stated, ‘and if he does not do what I bid him, surely he shall be imprisoned and be among the abased (wa la-in lam yafʿal mā āmuru-hu la-yusjan-anna wa la-yakūnan min al-ṣāghirīn).’ Note that her declaration is adorned with multiple linguistic devices, such as oaths and particles of emphasis (underlined above), to indicate her absolute determination. She implied that she possessed the means to force Joseph into compliance and that if he continued to disobey her, he should expect imprisonment after comfort and abasement after honor. Embedded within her words is a type of boastful warning directed towards the women who had previously gossiped about her, as well as a more direct threat to Joseph himself.

This threat, encapsulated in the passage, ‘and if he does not do what I bid him, surely he shall be imprisoned and be among the abased,’ is even more severe than what she presented to her husband on the day she tried to seduce Joseph, where she stated, “‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’ ()

The distinction between the two threats lies in her earlier equivocation between imprisonment and severe punishment, while here she combines both consequences—namely imprisonment along with humiliation.

Secondly, here she made the threat herself, not by appealing to her husband. Her words are those of someone who is determined and unwavering in their resolve. She demonstrated that she has control over her husband’s heart, capable of directing him from what he wants to what she desires. Can she exert control over his affairs as she pleases?

قَالَ رَبِّ السِّجْنُ أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا يَدْعُونَنِي إِلَيْهِ ۖ وَإِلَّا تَصْرِفْ عَنِّي كَيْدَهُنَّ أَصْبُ إِلَيْهِنَّ وَأَكُنْ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ ٣٣

(12:33) He said, ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me. If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline (aṣbu) towards them and become one of the senseless.’

Elaborating on the term aṣbu (‘incline’), al-Rāghib writes: ‘When someone inclines (ṣabā, yaṣbū, sabwā, and sibwa) they are driven by desire, as children (ṣibyān, which is derived from the same root) might be.’

In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes that ṣibwa refers to ‘the subtleties of desire.’

Potiphar’s wife and the womenfolk were engaged in a conversation. They spoke together and elaborated their intentions, while Joseph stood before them as they tempted him. However, Joseph did not respond to them, nor did he address them, not even with a single word. Instead, he turned to his Lord, who possessed his heart entirely, with no room for anyone else and said, ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me …’

Note that his statement is not a plea for imprisonment or for God to shield him from their temptations by sending him to jail. Instead, it’s a candid expression of his situation to his Lord. Due to his divine upbringing, he considered the hardship of prison preferable to the pleasure of sinning and distancing himself from God. His words mirror what he told Potiphar’s wife when she was alone with him and tempted him, saying, ‘God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode. Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous’ () In both statements, there’s a denunciation of sin and an affirmation of trust in God. The only difference is that in one, he addresses Potiphar’s wife, and in the other, he speaks to his powerful and mighty Lord. However, neither of these statements is a supplication per se.

In his phrase, ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me…’, he sets the stage for his subsequent words, ‘If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline towards them …’ which takes the form of a supplication that is expressed as a statement of his situation.

The verse’s meaning is as follows: ‘My Lord, if I were to have to choose between going to prison and what they call me to do, I would prefer to go to prison. I ask You to protect me from their schemes. If You do not shield me from their plots, I might be drawn to them and become one of the ignorant. The only protection I seek from their evil is through the knowledge You have granted me. Without Your guidance, I would be lost, falling into the pitfalls of desire and passion.’

The context of the verse, aided by its surrounding narrative, makes the following points clear:

First of all, when Joseph says, ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me …’ it is not a supplication by Joseph asking God to be imprisoned. Instead, it is a statement of his disposition, signifying his intention to turn away from the women attempting to seduce him and revert to God. The phrase ‘… dearer to me …’ means that he would prefer it over what they are trying to entice him towards, given the choice. This does not imply that he found their invitation enticing for its own sake but only insofar as it appealed to the inherent human nature and the low self (al-nafs al-ammāra) that often incites to evil.

Furthermore, the verse, ‘So his Lord answered him …’ () refers to the answer to his plea, specifically the part where he says, ‘If You do not turn away their schemes from me …’—this is further corroborated by the subsequent phrase, ‘… and turned away their stratagems from him.’ Therefore, this was not a response to his plea to be imprisoned, as some mistakenly believe.

Evidence for this can also be found later, in the account of his imprisonment, where it says, Then it appeared to them, after they had seen all the signs, that they should confine him for some time (). If Joseph had supplicated to God for imprisonment and God had decreed that for him, the wording and meaning would not have been framed in this way.

Secondly, what is apparent is that these women, like the wife of Potiphar, attempted to seduce Joseph and lure him towards them. Whether these women invited him to themselves, or to the wife of the Potiphar, or both—where the nobleman’s wife invited him first, and then each woman privately tried to entice him—the verse remains silent. Yet, it can be inferred from his statement, ‘If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline towards them …’ This suggests that if there weren’t invitations from each of them, the obvious meaning of his potential inclination towards them would not make sense.

What substantiates this is the narrative of his conversation in prison with the king’s messenger: ‘Go back to your master, and ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands …’, continuing to where the wife of Potiphar confesses, ‘Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth’… ‘that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous’ (). These verses suggest that these women invited him to the wife of Potiphar, and they were involved in the plot. Note that he says ‘I did not betray him in his absence’ (singular) and neither simply ‘I did not betray him’ or ‘I did not betray him and others.’ Reflect upon this.

Nevertheless, it is highly improbable, given usual human behavior, that they witnessed something from him which astounded their senses and led them to cut their hands, only to then to leave him alone completely. More typically, having been so affected, they would not have left that gathering without being deeply infatuated with him, consumed by thoughts of him day and night, willing to give anything and employ all means at their disposal to achieve their desires with him.

Therefore, it is apparent from what God has narrated about Joseph in His saying: ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me. If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline towards them …’, that Joseph did not turn from addressing the women to a private supplication to his Lord, who knows his condition and hears his speech, except due to the extreme adversity he faced and the overwhelming trial and calamity that beset him on their account.

Third, the divine strength with which Joseph was fortified was something gradually bestowed upon him time and again by God, the Most Glorious. It was not something that was inherently present within him, or else there would have been no need for him to invoke God. That is why he expressed this as: ‘If You do not (present tense) turn away their schemes from me …’ rather than ‘If you had not turned (past continuous tense) their schemes from me …’ Even if the conditional statement is timeless, its conjugation has certain implications about time.

It is for this reason that God says, So his Lord answered him and turned away their stratagems from him. Here, the repelling of the evil from him is attributed to a new divine action of answering Joseph’s prayer and turning away the schemes of the womenfolk.

Fourth, this divine strength is in the realm of knowledge and thought. That is why Joseph said, ‘… and become one of the senseless (jāhilīn)’ not ‘I will become one of the wrongdoers (ẓālimīn)’, as he told the wife of Potiphar: Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous () or ‘I will become one of the treacherous (khāʾinīn)’, as he later tells the king: ‘Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous’ (). Note that there is a clear distinction in his address between them and his Lord. He addressed them concerning the outward aspect of the matter, on the basis of their level of understanding, by saying that it is a sin and wrongdoers are not felicitous, or it is an act of treachery and God does not guide the plots of the treacherous. Yet he addressed his Lord concerning the true nature of the matter, which is that inclination towards them stems from ignorance.

The true nature of the situation concerning these two matters will be elaborated upon below, in a dedicated study on this topic.

فَاسْتَجَابَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ فَصَرَفَ عَنْهُ كَيْدَهُنَّ ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ ٣٤

(12:34) So his Lord answered him and turned away their stratagems from him. Indeed He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.

This means that God responded to his plea to divert their schemes away from him when he said, ‘If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline towards them …’, and he explains this by invoking His divine names, the All-hearing and the All-knowing, to show that He is indeed the One who hears His servants speech and who is aware of their condition.

Discourse

The discussion “An Excursus on Religious Piety and its Degrees” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

Examining Narrations

1. Shaykh al-Ṣadūq reports in Maʿānī al-Akhbār from Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī from Imām al-Sajjād, in a narration that we already began to examine in the previous section:

‘Joseph was among the most beautiful people of his time. When Joseph reached adolescence, the wife of the king sought to seduce him, but he said, “God forbid, we, the people of the house, do not commit adultery.” She locked the doors and said, “Do not be afraid!” Then she threw herself at him. Joseph escaped and ran toward the door. She chased him and pulled his shirt from behind, tearing it off. Joseph escaped from her in his clothes. When they encountered her husband at the door, she said, “What is the punishment for someone who intended harm to your household? Shouldn’t it be imprisonment or a painful punishment?”

The king intended to punish Joseph, but Joseph said, “I didn’t intend any harm to your household. She sought to seduce me. Just ask this young boy who had tried to seduce the other. God made the boy speak to resolve the matter. He said, “O King, look at Joseph’s shirt. If it is torn from the front, he is the one who seduced her, and if it is torn from the back, she is the one who seduced him.”

When the king heard the boy’s words, he was greatly alarmed. He looked at the shirt, and when he saw it torn from the back, he said to her, “This is from your guile! Your guile is great indeed!” He told Joseph: “Let this matter alone and not to let anyone hear about it from you.” However, Joseph did not keep it a secret and spread it throughout the city. The women of the city began to say, “The chieftain’s wife solicits her slave boy!” When she heard this, she invited them, prepared food for them, and gave each of them a knife. Then she told Joseph to come out to them. When they saw him, they praised him and cut their hands. The women left, and each of them secretly sent a message to Joseph, asking to visit him. He refused and said, “ If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline toward them and become one of the senseless.” But God turned away their plot.

When the matter of Joseph, the nobleman’s wife, and the women became known in Egypt, the king decided to imprison Joseph after hearing the boy’s words. So, he was put in prison. Two young men were imprisoned with Joseph, and their story and Joseph’s story is what God has narrated in the Qurʾan.’ Abū Ḥamza said, ‘Then the narration of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn ended.’

Author’s comment: In his Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī narrates a tradition with the same meaning from Abū Ḥamza with slight differences. In his version, “God forbid, we, the people of the house, do not commit adultery” is an explanatory gloss which is inserted beside verse, Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode (). This supports what we have said regarding the verse, namely that the pronoun refers to God, not to Potiphar, as most commentators have suggested. Understand this.

Furthermore, when the Imām says, ‘He refused and said, “If you do not turn away …”’, this shows that he did not consider Joseph’s statement, ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me’ () a kind of supplication, which is also consistent with what we have previously said about the verse.

2. In ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā, it is reported from Ḥamdān, from ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-Jahm: ‘I attended a salon (majlis) of the Caliph al-Maʾmūn and with him was ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā. Al-Maʾmūn said to him, “O son of the Messenger of God, do you not assert that the prophets are infallible?” He said, “Yes.” Then the discussion continued until the Caliph said, “Then inform me about the meaning of God’s saying, She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord.” Al-Riḍā said: “She certainly made for him, and had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have certainly made for her, but he was infallible, and the infallible neither intends to commit a sin nor does he commit one.”

Surely my father told me from his father al-Ṣādiq that he said, “She made to do it, and he made not to do it.” Al-Ma’mun said, “May God bless you, O Abū al-Ḥasan!”’

Author’s comment: We have previously mentioned that this Ibn al-Jahm is not without issue when it comes to the reliability of his narrations. However, what al-Riḍā says at the beginning of the narration is consistent with what we have previously explained with regards to this verse. As for what he narrated from his grandfather Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, ‘She made to do it, and he made not to do it,’ perhaps the intended meaning is what Imām al-Riḍā had already mentioned, and this is an example of him applying this tradition to it. Or perhaps the intended meaning is that he made to kill her, as the following narration supports, which is consistent with some of the previous possible explanations of the verse.

3. In ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā, it is reported from Abū al-Ṣilt al-Harawī, who said: ‘When the Caliph al-Maʾmūn gathered for ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā the people of different theological schools from among the Muslims, and from representatives of different religions, including Jews, Christians, Magians, Sabians, and all the people who espoused different doctrines, no one stood up except that ʿAlī b. Mūsā had soundly defeated his argument, and the representative stood there dumbfounded, as if he had fed him a stone.

ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-Jahm stood up to him and said, “O son of the Messenger of God, do you say that the prophets are infallible?” He said, “Yes.” He said to him, “So what do you say about His saying about Joseph, She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her?” ʿAlī al-Riḍā said to him, “As for His saying, the Exalted, about Joseph, She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, she intended to commit a sin, but Joseph intended to kill her if she forced him to do what she wanted him to do. So, God turned away from him killing her and from immorality. This is His saying, the Mighty and Majestic, So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants. And evil refers to killing, while indecency is adultery.”’

4. In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī reports from Abū Naʿīm, who reported in his Hilya from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib about the verse, She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her: ‘She desired him, and he desired her, and his desire was that he intended to unbuckle his belt. So, she went to an idol adorned with pearls and rubies in a corner of the house. She covered it with a white cloth between her and it. He asked, “What are you doing?” She said, “I am ashamed before my god to see me in this state.” So, Joseph said, “You are ashamed of an idol that does not eat or drink, and I am not ashamed before my God, who is aware of every soul for what it has earned?” Then he said, “You will never get it from me.” And this is the proof that he saw.’

Author’s comment: This narration is fabricated. How can it be otherwise? The speech of Imām ʿAlī and of all of the Imāms of the Prophet’s Household is replete with discussions about the infallibility of the prophets, and their doctrine in this regard is well known.

Moreover, her covering the idol, his reaction to this, and the argument he made to her is not called beholding the proof of his Lord. This idea has been mentioned in several narrations from the Prophet’s Household, but these are solitary reports and, as such, they cannot be relied upon. Yes, it is not unlikely that the woman would go to cover an idol that was there, so Joseph’s self would be drawn to witnessing the signs of monotheism at that, so the veil between him and the field of divine majesty would be lifted, and he would see what would turn him away from all evil and immorality, as he had before. And God has said about him, He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants. If anything from these narrations is correct, let this be its meaning.

5. In al-Durr al-manthūr, Abū al-Shaykh reports from Ibn ʿAbbās: ‘Joseph stumbled three times: when he made for her, so he was imprisoned; when he said, “Mention me to your master”, so he stayed in prison for several years, and Satan made him forget the remembrance of his Lord; And when he said, “You are indeed thieves!” (), they said “If he has stolen; a brother of his had stolen before” ().

Author’s comment: This narration contradicts the explicit words of God, where He mentions that He chose him and made him exclusively for Himself, and that Satan has no way to those whom God has made exclusively for Himself. How can it be correct for someone who intended the worst sin, and Satan made him forget the mention of his Lord, then he lied in his statement so God punished him with prison, then with staying in it for several years, and accused him of theft, that God would consider him a truthful one of His chosen and beneficent servants, and mention that He gave him authority and knowledge, chose him, and completed His favor upon him? There are many weak narrations of this kind that al-Suyūṭī has reported in al-Durr Al-Manthūr, and some of them have been previously transmitted when clarifying the verses—nothing from them can be relied upon.

6. In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī cites Aḥmad, Ibn Jarīr, and al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil, who report from Ibn ʿAbbās, from the Prophet (s.a.w.): ‘Four spoke while they were infants: the son of Māshiṭa the Pharaoh’s daughter, Joseph’s witness, the companion of the wounded one, and Jesus son of Mary.’
7. In the Tafsīr of al-Qummī, he narrates from Abū al-Jārūd from Abū Jaʿfar, about the verse: He has captivated her love: ‘Her love for him veiled her from the people, so she did not understand anything other than him, and the veil is passion, and passion is the veil of the heart.’
8. In the same source, in a narration about the gathering of the women and their cutting their hands, he said: ‘Joseph did not end that day until every woman who saw him sent a message to him, inviting him to come to her. Joseph was annoyed that day and said, “My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me. If You do not turn away their schemes from me, then I will incline toward them and become one of the senseless” (). Therefore, his Lord responded to him and turned away from him their plot.’

---

1. Translator’s note: Hamm is translated in the verse as ‘to make for’, however, more broadly it can also be translated as ‘preoccupation.’ ↩︎