Appearance
Verses 35–42
The verses contain the next segment of Prophet Joseph’s story, particularly his imprisonment and his confinement therein for several years. This serves as a prelude to gaining favor with the king and his eventual rise to power in Egypt. The verses also show how he preached monotheism while in prison and presented it in a remarkable manner. For the first time, it is revealed that he belongs to the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
ثُمَّ بَدَا لَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا رَأَوُا الْآيَاتِ لَيَسْجُنُنَّهُ حَتَّىٰ حِينٍ ٣٥
(12:35) Then it appeared to them (badā la-hum), after they had seen all the signs, that they should confine him for some time.
Badāʾ refers to a new perspective or opinion arising after a certain event. To them refers to Potiphar, his wife, and their close associates who were privy to the situation. The signs refer to the evidence and proof that affirmed Joseph’s innocence and continence. This includes the testimony of the young boy, the shirt torn from the back, and their simultaneous arrival at the door. It may also include the women cutting their hands upon seeing him, his refusal to yield to their advances, and Potiphar’s wife confessing to them that she had indeed tried to seduce him.
… that they should confine him (la-yasjununna-hu) for some time—The lām in la-yasjununna is for the swearing of an oath, which explains what new opinion occurred to them. For some time is connected to this, and it suggests a period of waiting. The meaning is thus that they resolved to imprison him until the widespread rumors of seduction in the city died down and were forgotten by the people.
The verse’s meaning, then, is that after witnessing these signs that affirmed Joseph’s innocence and purity, Potiphar, his wife, and their advisers arrived at a new decision: to imprison Joseph for some time until the scandalous rumors circulating in the city were forgotten. They swore together to do this.
This indicates that their decision was made in the interest of Potiphar’s household, to protect his family from the disgrace and shame of the accusation. They may have also intended to maintain public safety, preventing people, especially women, from being tempted by Joseph’s beauty. The beauty that captivated the nobleman’s wife and the noble ladies of the city and caused them to react as they did was likely to cause chaos in the city.
However, Joseph’s statement in prison to the king’s messenger, ‘Go back to your master, and ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands …’ (), and the subsequent dialogue between the king (‘What was your business, women, when you solicited Joseph?’), the women (‘Heaven be praised! We know of no evil in him.’), and Potiphar’s wife (‘Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth’, ), all suggest that the Potiphar’s wife later misled her husband about Joseph’s innocence. She may have caused him to doubt the evidence or even believe the opposite of what the signs indicated. This likely resulted from her complete influence over him and her control over his heart and mind.
Therefore, Joseph’s imprisonment may have been facilitated or ordered by her to deflect the accusations from herself and to punish Joseph, hoping he would yield to her and comply with her commands, as she had threatened him in front of the women, saying, ‘… and if he does not do what I bid him, surely he shall be imprisoned and be among the abased’ ().
وَدَخَلَ مَعَهُ السِّجْنَ فَتَيَانِ ۖ قَالَ أَحَدُهُمَا إِنِّي أَرَانِي أَعْصِرُ خَمْرًا ۖ وَقَالَ الْآخَرُ إِنِّي أَرَانِي أَحْمِلُ فَوْقَ رَأْسِي خُبْزًا تَأْكُلُ الطَّيْرُ مِنْهُ ۖ نَبِّئْنَا بِتَأْوِيلِهِۖ إِنَّا نَرَاكَ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ ٣٦
(12:36) There entered the prison two servants (fatayān) along with him. One of them said, ‘I dreamed that I am pressing grapes.’ The other said, ‘I dreamed that I am carrying bread on my head from which the birds are eating.’ ‘Inform us of its interpretation, for indeed we see you to be a virtuous man.’
Fatā means a slave (ʿabd), and the context of the verse indicates that they were two servants of the king. This is what has come down in narrations, which we will discuss later.
One of them said, ‘I dreamed that I am pressing wine (arānī aʿṣiru khamran)’—The phrase one of them said serves to separate the statement, There entered the prison… from the account of the prisoner’s dream, as indicated by the context and the statement, ‘I dreamed…’, which he spoke to his cellmate.
Some commentators have said that the phrase arānī is used to describe an earlier state of affairs; ‘… pressing wine’ means pressing grapes in order to make wine; the Qurʾan uses the word khamr instead of grapes in consideration of their end purpose.
The meaning is that one of awoke from his sleep and told Joseph, ‘I have dreamed that I was pressing grapes to make wine.’
The other said, ‘I dreamed that I am carrying bread on my head from which the birds are eating’—meaning that the birds are pecking at it; this is another dream mentioned by the second prisoner.
‘Inform us of its interpretation, for indeed we see you to be a virtuous man’—In other words, the two of them ask Joseph to inform them of the significance of their dreams. Note that the Qurʾan does not explicitly use the verb, ‘they said’, and this is an example of its stylistic elegance. The phrase, ‘its interpretation’ refers to each of their dreams, as the context suggests.
‘For indeed we see you to be a virtuous man’ explains why they are asking Joseph to interpret their dreams. ‘We see you’ means ‘we believe you to be virtuous based on the marks of virtue we perceive in you.’ In other words, the only they have told him their dreams and asked for their interpretations is because of his moral character, as common folk generally believe that righteous people with pure hearts and souls have a clearer insight into the true nature of circumstances than others and are a source of reliable wisdom and advice.
قَالَ لَا يَأْتِيكُمَا طَعَامٌ تُرْزَقَانِهِ إِلَّا نَبَّأْتُكُمَا بِتَأْوِيلِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَأْتِيَكُمَا ۚ ذَٰلِكُمَا مِمَّا عَلَّمَنِي رَبِّي ۚ إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ مِلَّةَ قَوْمٍ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَهُمْ بِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ كَافِرُونَ ٣٧
(12:37) He said, ‘Before the meals you are served come to you I will inform you of its interpretation. That is among things my Lord has taught me. Indeed I renounce the creed of the people who have no faith in Allah and who disbelieve in the Hereafter.
When the two prisoners approached Joseph asking for the interpretation of their dreams, given the high regard they held him in due to the marks of moral rectitude they saw in him, he seized this opportunity to convey the secrets of monotheism and to call them to his Lord, the Exalted, who had taught him the interpretation of dreams. He informed them that he was knowledgeable in these matters by the teaching of his Lord, well-acquainted with the interpretation of events, and used that as a means to reveal the essence of monotheism and reject the association of any partners with God. Then he began interpreting their dreams.
‘Before the meals you are served come to you—while you are in prison—I will inform you of its interpretation—meaning the interpretation of that food, its nature, and what its matter leads to, for I have experience in this matter. Let this be a sign of the truth of what I invite you both to in the monotheistic religion.
This reading is based on the assumption that the pronoun ‘it’ in ‘its interpretation’ refers to the food. In this context, it represents a mark of his prophethood, similar to Jesus’s saying to the Children of Israel, And I will tell you what you have eaten and what you have stored in your houses. There is indeed a sign in that for you, should you be faithful (). Some narrations from the Household of the Prophet also support this interpretation, as will be discussed when we come to our study of the narrations that pertain to this section.
However, if the pronoun in ‘its interpretation’ refers to what they saw in their dreams, then his statement, Before the meals you are served come to you … is a promise to interpret their dream quickly. Yet, this interpretation seems somewhat unlikely when considering the overall context.
‘… That is among things my Lord has taught me. Indeed I renounce the creed of the people who have no faith in Allah and who disbelieve in the Hereafter (wa hum bi al-ākhira hum kāfirūn).
وَاتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ آبَائِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۚ مَا كَانَ لَنَا أَنْ نُشْرِكَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ فَضْلِ اللَّهِ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَى النَّاسِ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَشْكُرُونَ ٣٨
(12:38) I follow the creed of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not for us to ascribe any partner to Allah. That is by virtue of Allah’s grace upon us and upon all mankind, but most people do not give thanks.’
Joseph explains that his knowledge of the interpretation of dreams and his ability to derive signs and portents from them does not belong to the category of ordinary, acquired knowledge, but rather from what God taught him. He then gave his rejection of the idolaters beliefs and his adherence to the faith of his forefathers as the reason for this, meaning he rejected idolatry and professed the religion of monotheism, and because of this God gifted him the ability to interpret dreams.
As we have discussed previously, idolaters believe in God and affirm a Day of Recompense by subscribing to reincarnation. However, the monotheistic belief dictates that one who associates partners with God, whether in terms of worldly influence or being deserving of worship, does not truly believe in God. Furthermore, the belief that souls, after death, return to this world in other bodies to experience pleasure or pain as a result of their past actions does not cohere with belief in the Resurrection. Hence, Joseph denies that such people believe in God or the Hereafter and emphasized their disbelief in the afterlife by repeating the pronoun hum (‘they’) in and who disbelieve in the Hereafter. This is because someone who does not believe in God is more likely not to believe in the return of souls to Him for the Final Judgment.
Then God recounts Joseph’s words, ‘I follow the creed of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’—This was the first time since coming to Egypt, that Joseph had spoken openly about his lineage and that he belonged to the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
‘It is not for us to ascribe any partner to Allah. That is by virtue of Allah’s grace upon us and upon all mankind, but most people do not give thanks’—This means that God, in His majesty, has not given us, the Household of the Prophet, any means to associate anything with Him, and He has protected us from doing so. This protection is a favor and blessing from God upon us, the Household, and upon all people. However, most people do not recognize or appreciate this divine favor. Instead, they deny it.
As for the assertion that God made them in such a way that they could never associate partners with Him, this does not mean He compelled them (ijbār) in this, but rather that He guided (tasdīd) and supported (taʾyīd) them. They were blessed with prophethood and divine messengership, and God knows best where He places His message. Therefore, they sought God’s protection against idolatry and held fast to monotheistic belief.
The reason this is counted a divine favor upon them and upon the people is that they were supported with the truth, which is the greatest of favors. This, in turn, means that the people have the opportunity to turn to them, achieve salvation by following them, and find divine guidance in their teachings.
However, the fact is that most people are ungrateful is because they deny these blessings, particularly prophethood and divine messengership. They either disregard it, not following its bearers, or they deny the blessing of monotheism by associating partners with God, be these angels, jinn, or humans, and worshipping them instead of God.
This is the explanation most commentators and exegetes have given for this verse.
However, there remains an additional point: namely that monotheism and the negation of associating partners with God is not something derived from prophetic teachings alone. It is something innate, know both by reason and innate human nature. To call this a divine favor for people in terms of their following the prophets misses the mark; in the matter of monotheism, both the people and the prophets are on an equal footing and both of them follow the same divine law. If people reject monotheism, it’s due to their failure to heed the call of their natural disposition, not due to their failure to follow the prophets.
It’s essential to understand that just as it is incumbent for God in His divine care to equip humanity with a rational capacity to discern good from evil, piety from impiety, and to grasp the tenets of religion and divine laws—which are paths of prophethood and revelation, as we’ve clarified in our previous discussions—it is also incumbent for Him in His divine care to endow certain individuals with pure souls, sound hearts, and an inherent disposition toward His oneness. These individuals steadfastly uphold monotheism, ensuring its continuity through the ages and reviving the spirit of human flourishing and felicity from one generation to the next. The evidence for this is the same as the evidence for prophethood and revelation. An ordinary individual might forget the innate principle of monotheism or be prone to falling into idolatry, and what is possible for one might be possible for all. If everyone were misled into polytheism, it would be the ultimate corruption of humanity and would negate the divine purpose of creation.
It is imperative that within a society, there are individuals deeply imbued with a devoted commitment to monotheism, who uphold its principles, defend it, and awaken people from the twin slumbers of heedlessness and ignorance by presenting arguments for it, presenting the evidence for it, and teaching its signs. There exists between these individuals and the public a bond of teaching and learning, not one of driving forward or following.
If such souls exist, they are surely the souls of the prophets and the Imāms. Their creation and divine mission are a favor from God, exalted be He, to them and to all of humankind. These are a favor to them because He has taught them His oneness, and they are a favor to other people because, by creating them, God has appointed someone who reminds them of the truth that is intrinsic to and deeply rooted in their nature. This favor defends the truth against their negligence and misguidance. People’s engagement in material pursuits and sensual matters lures them toward worldly pleasures, prompting them to cling to the material world. This distracts them from spiritual matters and makes them forget the divine knowledge ingrained within them. Without divinely inspired individuals constantly reminding people of the eternal home, the earth would be consumed by blindness, the connection between earth and heaven would be severed, the purpose of creation would be nullified, and the earth would be ruined along with its inhabitants.
From this, it becomes clear what the verse means when it says: ‘It is not for us to ascribe any partner to Allah. That is by virtue of Allah’s grace upon us and upon all mankind, but most people do not give thanks.’ In other words, through God’s support, we have no way to associate anything with Him and this security from idol worship is a grace bestowed by God upon us, because it is the guidance from which flows mankind’s happiness and supreme success. And this same security we enjoy is a grace bestowed by God on humankind, because it serves to remind people of the truth when they forget it, alert them to it when they are negligent of it, educate them about it when they are ignorant of it, and correct them when they deviate from it. However, most people do not express gratitude to God; instead, they deny this blessing, taking no heed of it, refusing to accept it, and turning away from it.
Some scholars have said with regard to the meaning of the verse that what is alluded to by That is by virtue of Allah’s grace upon us … is the knowledge of interpreting dreams. However, as should be clear, this is far removed from the context of the verse.
يَا صَاحِبَيِ السِّجْنِ أَأَرْبَابٌ مُتَفَرِّقُونَ خَيْرٌ أَمِ اللَّهُ الْوَاحِدُ الْقَهَّارُ ٣٩
(12:39) O my prison mates! Are different masters (arbāb mutafarriqūn) better (khayr), or Allah, the One, the All-paramount?
The term khayr (‘better’), in this context, linguistically, refers to a choice between two entities where one is superior in a desired attribute, and therefore, is chosen over the other one. The khayr of two actions is the more desirable one that should be performed; the khayr of two things is the one that is more desirable from the perspective of its benefit and utility. Just like the khayr of two properties is in terms of comfort, the khayr of two people is in terms of companionship, and the khayr of two deities is in terms of worship. Literary scholars have noted that the original term for khayr is actually akhyar, in the comparative form. In essence, it’s a verbal adjective implying superiority in a specific context.
Based on what has already discussed, when Joseph said, ‘Are different masters better, or Allah, the One, the All-paramount?, he was setting forth an argument emphasizing the obligation of worshipping the One God, especially when faced with the choice between Him and all other entities which are claimed to be gods apart from Him. This is not merely an affirmation that He is the only true existing entity in contrast to other so-called lords, or that He is the supreme deity to which everything ultimately returns, but it signifies that something is considered ‘better’ or ‘preferred’ when it is sought after and chosen, and in this context, it is preferable to choose the True Lord, and this means to worship Him alone.
Notice that Joseph referred to their deities as arbāb mutafarriqūn (‘different masters’) because they worshipped angels, whom they believed to be God’s attributes, or particular sacred manifestations through which blessings and prosperity in the world are channeled. They differentiated (yufarriqūn) between these attributes, organizing and venerating each one for its particular domain—be it the god of knowledge, power, heaven, earth, beauty, love, security, fertility, and so on. They worshipped jinn, considered as sources of evil in the world, representing death, decay, poverty, ugliness, pain, sorrow, and more. They also revered certain holy men, tyrannical rulers, kings, and others. All of these were distinct both in their essence and in the idols and statues that were made to represent and connect with them.
In contrast to these separate entities, Joseph evoked the name of God, exalted be His name, and described Him as the One, the All-Paramount, asserting, ‘or Allah, the One, the All-paramount?’ And this statement, by its very meaning, stands in stark opposition to ‘different lords’ due to the juxtaposition inherent in the structure of the sentence.
God represents the ultimate dominant force, signifying the sacred divine essence that is undeniable and an existence that is untouched by nothingness or decay. An existence of this nature can’t be limited or extended, because anything limited is non-existent beyond its limit, and anything extended is void after its extension. Thus, He is an infinite entity, an endless existence. Given this nature, it’s inconceivable to assign to Him attributes that are separate from His essence, as that would imply His limitation and need for attributes. It’s also impossible to differentiate between His intrinsic attributes, like life, knowledge, and power, as that would introduce internal divisions, making the essence and attributes distinct and multiple. Such notions, including the belief in bounded and diversified gods, are recognized characteristics of idolatrous beliefs based on our understanding of them.
One of the axiomatic beliefs of intelligent persons who affirm the existence of God is that God exists inherently, stable in His essence, and that He alone possesses this quality. The attributes of perfection He possesses are innate and not additional to Him. They are not parts of Him but are Him entirely. He is knowledge, power, and life in and of Himself.
God is, in His essence, singular in both His being and attributes. This means He is the sole existence, unique in His essence, without anything comparable existing independently. He’s singular in His attributes, meaning there isn’t a real attribute of His that isn’t intrinsically Him. He is the one who dominates over everything, and nothing can dominate Him.
It is this understanding led the Prophet Joseph to refer to God as ‘the One, the All-paramount.’ This implies that God is one, but not in terms of number, such that it is possible to count Him. If another is added to Him, it doesn’t make Him two. He is one in such a way that no other essence can be presumed to exist independently beside Him. Similarly, no attribute can be presumed for Him without it being intrinsically Him; otherwise, it becomes invalid. All this because He is an entity without boundaries or an end.
The Prophet Joseph’s argument against his interlocutors is solidified in this question when he describes the multiple deities as diverse, and God as ‘the One, the All-paramount’. This is because it is the very nature of God to be singular and dominant, and this negates any division—no matter what kind of division is posited—between His essence and His attributes. The divine essence is the divine attributes, and the divine attributes are each other. So, whoever worships the essence, worships both the essence and the attributes. If one worships His knowledge but not His essence, then he worships neither His knowledge nor His essence, and the same analogy applies to all the other divine attributes too.
Thus, if one was given a choice in worship between multiple deities and the One All-paramount God, they would necessarily choose the latter, for one cannot posit the existence of multiple deities or division in worship. However, a point remains, which is invoked upon by the majority of idolaters: they argue that God is too sublime and transcendent for our minds to comprehend or our intellects to grasp. Therefore, we cannot directly worship or approach Him. What we can do is worship some of His noble creations who have a role in the order of the universe, hoping they bring us closer to Him and intercede with Him on our behalf. Joseph addressed this in the following part of his statement, meaning his words, ‘You do not worship besides Him but names …’, and thereby refuted this claim.
مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِهِ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءً سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنْتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُمْ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِنْ سُلْطَانٍ ۚ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ ۚ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ٤٠
(12:40) You do not worship besides Him but names that you and your fathers have coined, for which Allah has not sent down any authority. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah. He has commanded you to worship none except Him. That is the upright religion, but most people do not know.
Note how Joseph began by addressing his two cellmates in prison, but then addressed everyone, because the rule here applies equally to them and to others who worship idols.
Denying that the act of worship is directed toward anything but mere names implies that there are no actual entities behind these names. Therefore, worship is placed in opposition to these names, like the deity of the sky, the deity of the earth, the deity of the sea, the deity of the land, father, mother, the son of the deity, and the like.
The assertion that there are no real entities behind these names is strengthened by his saying, ‘you and your fathers.’ It is meant to be exclusive, implying that no one has established or assigned any validity to these names except you and your ancestors. He then reinforces this by saying, ‘for which Allah has not sent down any authority (sulṭān)’ Here, the term sulṭān refers to evidence that is compelling to reason. This means God has not revealed any evidence that would indicate the existence of real entities behind these names or that they have any divine attributes, which would justify worshipping them.
It’s possible that the phrase ‘for which’ refers to the act of worship itself, implying that God has not sent down evidence to support the veneration of these idols, the idea that they have power to intercede with Him, or the notion that they exercise independent influence in the world. In any case, the matter ultimately belongs to God, as indicated by His statement: Sovereignty belongs only to Allah.
The statement, Sovereignty belongs only to Allah, is undoubtedly true. For a decree about something to go aright, it must come from the one who has absolute control of the matter. Truly, the only one who has control and governance over worldly affairs and the guidance of His servants is God. Thus, there is no true ruling except from Him. This statement serves as a rationale for the previous and subsequent statements. Regarding the previous statement, ‘for which Allah has not sent down any authority’, its significance has already been made clear. As for its significance in relation to the subsequent statement, ‘He has commanded you to worship none except Him,’ it emphasizes that God’s decree, both in affirmation and negation, is always decisive. So, when it is said, ‘for which Allah has not sent down any authority’, it leads one to question: ‘Then what did He decree concerning worship?’ The answer is, “‘He has commanded you to worship none except Him,’ That is why this statement begins with a verb rather than a conjunction linking it to the previous statement, which makes it like a new sentence in response to this implicit question.
Therefore, the overall meaning of the verse appears to be: ‘What you worship other than God are mere names that you and your forefathers have fabricated, without any authoritative proof from God Himself to indicate that they have the power to intercede with God on your behalf or any independent influence over the affairs of this world. Therefore, it is not valid for you to worship them, to seek their intercession, whether out of hope to win some benefit for them or out of fear that they might do you harm.’
As for Joseph’s statement: ‘That is the upright religion (dhālik al-dīn al-qayyim), but most people do not know’, the demonstrative pronoun dhālik (‘that’) refers to the aforementioned transcendent oneness of God and the negation of any partners that might be associated with Him. The term qayyim (‘upright’) refers to that which is firmly established (qāʾim) and capable of managing its affairs or that which stands (qāʾim) on its own without wavering or submission. This means that the religion of monotheism is the only religion capable of managing a society and guiding it to a state of felicity and human flourishing. Monotheism is the firm religion without any deviation, embodying true divine guidance and utterly devoid of any form of falsehood. However, most people, due to their immersion in the sensory world and indulgence in its fleeting allure and evanescent vanities, are deprived of a pure heart and a clear mind. They only understand the superficial aspects of this worldly life, and they turn away from the Hereafter as a result.
As for monotheism being a rational religion that aligns with reality, the arguments established by Joseph are sufficient demonstrate this: It is capable of managing human society because a society thrives when its norms and lifestyle regulations are founded on truths that align with reality. It doesn’t flourish if built upon baseless myths without any steadfast foundation.
It’s evident from the above explanation that the entire set of verses, beginning with ‘O my prison mates …!’ until ‘… to worship none except Him’, serve as a single argument for monotheism in worship. The essence of this argument is that if the worship of a deity is due to its intrinsic divinity and its inherent necessity of existence, then God, in His existence, is singular and overpowering. It’s inconceivable for Him to have a second or another entity influencing alongside Him. Hence, the concept of multiple gods is baseless. If one wishes to worship other deities because other entities besides God are considered as His partners, interceding on His behalf, there’s no evidence to affirm their intercession from God Himself. On the contrary, both reason and the words of the Prophets decree that none but Him should be worshipped.
This makes clear the flaw in al-Bayḍāwī’s explanation of these verses, in which he follows the path trod by al-Zamakhsharī in al-Kashshāf. He proposed that the two verses provide two proofs for monotheism. The first verse, which states, ‘Are different masters better, or Allah, the One, the All-paramount?’ serves as a rhetorical proof, while the second verse, which reads, ‘You do not worship besides Him but names that you and your fathers have coined’ is a logical argument.
Al-Bayḍāwī says: ‘This represents a gradation in the call to faith, first emphasizing the superiority of monotheism over polytheism through rhetorical means, and then proving that what they call gods and worship are not worthy of divinity. For the justification of worship is either intrinsic or extrinsic, and both justifications are absent for them. He then explicitly mentions what is the upright truth and the straight religion, which reason cannot dictate otherwise, and knowledge cannot accept anything but it.’
Perhaps what led al-Bayḍāwī to adopt this reading of the verse was the use of the word ‘better’ (khayr) in the first verse, from which he inferred a rhetorical hue. However, he overlooked the qualifier ‘the One, the All-paramount?’ Furthermore, we have already explained how the two verses constitute a single unified argument, and the meaning he extracted from the second verse is, in fact, the implication of both verses combined, not the second one alone.
Another possible reading of the two verses can present two proofs for monotheism in a different manner. The summary of these proofs is as follows: God, the One, dominates with His power over all distinct causes that act in the universe, harmonizing their diverse effects so that they together form a cohesive, non-contradictory system. This observable unity and harmony of causes is superior to multiple, discordant deities from which, due to their disparity and opposition, various inconsistent systems and contradictory directives would emerge, leading to the disintegration of the universal order and corruption of the unified cosmic order.
Furthermore, the deities worshipped apart from God are merely names, with no evidence supporting the existence of the entities they refer to, neither rationally nor through revelation. Reason only points to monotheism, and the prophets, by divine instruction, were only commanded to worship God alone.
This reading, as you can see, aligns the first verse with the meaning of the saying of God, Had there been gods in them other than Allah, they would surely have fallen apart (). The second verse generalizes the negation of the divinity of any deity other than God, both in essence and in terms of God’s permission for their having the power of intercession.
However, this reading can be rejected for the following reasons: First, it qualifies the absolute meaning of ‘the All-paramount’ without there being any explicit verbal qualifier. Indeed, God, in His glory, not only overpowers causes in their effects on the cosmos but also dominates everything in its essence, attributes, and consequences too. He has no equal in His existence, and no second in His independent essence or in His power. Given His unchallenged unity, it is inconceivable to propose something that exists independently of Him, or a matter that operates independently of His will. A deity that is posited other than Him is either entirely independent in its essence and all its effects or merely independent in the effects of its essence. Both propositions are untenable, as is self-evident.
Second, this explanation makes a general claim based on the specific meaning of the second verse without providing a general basis for it. The verse—as you know—associates the divinity of other entities with God’s permission and His decree, as is evident in the phrase: ‘for which Allah has not sent down any authority. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah.’ It is clear that this divinity, which is contingent upon His permission and decree, is a divinity of intercession and not an intrinsic divinity of essence, which is what He possesses. It refers to divinity by virtue of another, not something more general than this, which would be divinity in essence and by another combined.
يَا صَاحِبَيِ السِّجْنِ أَمَّا أَحَدُكُمَا فَيَسْقِي رَبَّهُ خَمْرًا ۖ وَأَمَّا الْآخَرُ فَيُصْلَبُ فَتَأْكُلُ الطَّيْرُ مِنْ رَأْسِهِ ۚ قُضِيَ الْأَمْرُ الَّذِي فِيهِ تَسْتَفْتِيَانِ ٤١
(12:41) O my prison mates! As for one of you, he will serve wine to his master, and as for the other, he will be crucified, and vultures will eat from his head. The matter about which you inquire has been decided.’
The meaning of the verse is clear, and the context clearly indicates that the phrase ‘As for one of you …’, interprets the dream of the one who said, ‘I dreamed that I am pressing wine.’ And the phrase ‘and as for the other …’ interprets the dream of the other, who saw birds eating bread from his head.
When Joseph says, ‘The matter about which you inquire has been decided …’, this suggests that one of the two companions, or perhaps both, disavowed the veracity of the dream he had previously claimed to have. Perhaps it was the latter who, upon hearing the interpretation of his dream about crucifixion and birds eating from his head, called it false. This is supported by the narration from the Imāms of the Household of the Prophet, in which the latter said, ‘I lied about the dream I related to you.’ To which the Prophet Joseph replied, ‘The matter about which you inquire has been decided.’ This means that the interpretation you sought is definite and inevitable.
وَقَالَ لِلَّذِي ظَنَّ أَنَّهُ نَاجٍ مِنْهُمَا اذْكُرْنِي عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ فَأَنْسَاهُ الشَّيْطَانُ ذِكْرَ رَبِّهِ فَلَبِثَ فِي السِّجْنِ بِضْعَ سِنِينَ ٤٢
(12:42) Then he said to the one whom he knew (ẓanna) would be delivered from among the two: ‘Mention me to your master.’ But Satan caused him to forget mentioning it to his master. So he remained in the prison for several years.
The pronouns in ‘he said’, ‘he knew’, and ‘he remained’ refer to Joseph. Joseph said to the prisoner that he knew would be saved of the two: ‘Mention me to your master in a manner that might evoke his mercy, so perhaps he would release me from prison.’
Some have said that the use of the verb ẓanna (‘to think’) here, in conjunction with his clear statement that the matter is determined and that it was God who taught him the interpretation of dreams, suggests that it is being used here to mean ‘to believe’ in a general sense (without considering the level of certainty behind that belief), as per the verse: those who believe that they will encounter their Lord ()
As for the claim made by others that the use of ẓanna here to express belief indicates that Joseph’s interpretation was merely a result of his own reasoning, this is refuted by what we previously highlighted: that he explicitly stated his knowledge to them in his words in the previous verse, ‘The matter about which you inquire has been decided’, and God further confirmed this by saying, that He would teach him ‘the interpretation of dreams’ (). This counters the idea that Joseph’s interpretation of their dream was based on his own reasoning or independent thought..
Some have also allowed the possibility that the subject of the verb ẓanna here is not Joseph but the relative pronoun ‘the one who’, meaning that he said to the companion of the two who now believed himself saved on the basis of Joseph’s interpretation of their respective dreams. This reading is plausible, especially if it is supported by the context.
Regarding the statement, But Satan caused him to forget mentioning it to his master, the two pronouns ‘him’ and ‘his’ refer to back ‘the one who’, meaning that Satan made the one who was saved forget to mention Joseph to his master. As a result, Joseph remained in prison for several years, with several (biʿḍ) referring to a number less than ten. The construction of mentioning it to his master in Arabic is dhikr rabbi-hi (lit. ‘the mention of his master’), but this is akin to linking a verb’s infinitive to its object, to which it would usually be linked by a preposition, or to its adverbial qualifier, in a kind of figurative construct.
Some commentators have read the two pronouns as referring to Joseph, suggesting that Satan caused Joseph to forget the mention of God, in the sense that he relied upon someone other than God for his release from prison, and, as a result, was punished by being left in prison for several years. This reading might be derived from a tradition to this effect.
However, such an explanation of the verse goes against the explicit text of the Qurʾan. For God explicitly declares Joseph to be among his exclusive and devoted servants, and He has established elsewhere that Satan has no sway over such people. This is in addition to the other praises that God has bestowed upon Joseph in this chapter. Therefore, it is not possible for Satan to have caused him to forget God.
Furthermore, being exclusively devoted to God does not necessitate abandoning the pursuit of worldly means to achieve one’s goals; indeed, thinking otherwise is a great misconception, as this would be tantamount seeking something unattainable. On the contrary, what is required is not to place undue trust in these worldly means or to depend on them in place of God. And there’s nothing in his statement, ‘Mention me to your master’, that suggests this in the least.
Furthermore, God’s statement after two verses, Said the one of the two who had been delivered, remembering after a long time (), serves as a strong indicator that the one who forgot was the cupbearer rather than Joseph.
Examining Narrations
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, exegesis, it is narrated by Abū al-Jārūd from Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir regarding the verse, Then it appeared to them, after they had seen all the signs, that they should confine him for some time (): ‘The word “signs” here refers to the testimony of the boy, the shirt that was torn from the back, and their rushing to the door until the sound of their altercation was heard by the one beside the door. After Joseph rejected her advances, the wife of Potiphar did not let her husband alone until Joseph was imprisoned.
In prison with him were two young men, who are said to have been servants of the king; one was a baker, and the other was a cupbearer. The one who lied and did not have the dream was the baker.’
ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī quotes the tradition: ‘The king had assigned two men to watch over Joseph. Upon entering the prison, they asked him about his profession, to which he replied that he was an interpreter of dreams. One of the assigned men had a dream, as he said, of pressing wine. Joseph interpreted this as follows: “You will be released and serve the king his wine, and your position with him will be elevated.” The other man claimed, “I see myself carrying bread above my head, from which birds eat”, even though he hadn’t truly seen such a dream. Joseph told him: “The king will execute you, and you will be crucified, with birds pecking at your head.” The man laughed and denied having such a dream, so Joseph responded as God narrated: O my prison mates! As for one of you, he will serve wine to his master, and as for the other, he will be crucified, and vultures will eat from his head. The matter about which you inquire has been decided ().
Regarding the words of the two men imprisoned with Joseph, ‘for indeed we see you to be a virtuous man’ (), Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣādiq said: ‘Joseph used to attend to the sick, provide for the needy, and was generous to the prisoners. When the one who had the dream of pressing wine was about to be released from the prison, Joseph told him, “Mention me to your master.” But, as God recounts, Satan caused him to forget mentioning it to his master.’
Author’s comments: This narration displays some signs of lexical confusion. The apparent meaning suggests that the two men with Joseph in the prison were not prisoners but were assigned to him by the king. This interpretation contradicts the obvious meaning of God’s verses: Then he said to the one whom he knew would be delivered from among the two … () and Said the one of the two who had been delivered … ().
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, according to Sumāʿa, regarding God’s verse, ‘Mention me to your master’ (), he said: ‘The master refers to Potiphar (al-ʿAzīz).’
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī relates from the Kitāb al-ʿUqūbāt of of Ibn Abī Dunyā, Ibn Jarīr, al-Ṭabrānī, and Ibn Mardawayh, all of whom narrate from Ibn ʿAbbās: ‘The Messenger of God, said, “Had Joseph not uttered the word—the reason he remained in prison as long as he did—where he sought relief from someone other than God Almighty, his duration would have been different.”
Author’s comments: This was also narrated by Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and Ibn Mardawayh from Abū Hurayra, who said, quoting the Prophet: ‘May God have mercy on Joseph. Had he not said, “Mention me to your master”, he would not have remained in prison for as long as he did.’ Similar narrations come from ʿIkrima, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and others.
Something similar is narrated in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from Ṭarbāl, from Ibn Abī Yaʿqūb, from Yaʿqūb b. Shuʿayb, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh that God said to Joseph: ‘Aren’t you the one who I made dear to your father, and favored with beauty above all others? Wasn’t it the caravan that I sent that saved you and brought you out of the well? Wasn’t I the one who protected you from the cunning of the womenfolk? What prompted you to seek assistance or call upon a creation other than Me? Remain for a few years because of what you said.’ However, it should be noted that such narrations contradict the explicit text of the Qurʾan.
Similarly, in al-Durr al-manthūr, it is narrated from Ibn Mardawayh, from Ibn ʿAbbās: ‘Joseph made three errors: 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 that he may know that I did not betray him in private” () Gabriel then said to him, “Not even when you made for her?” To which Joseph replied, “I do not absolve my own soul” ().’ However, in this narration, deceit and clear lying are attributed to the Prophet Joseph.”
In some of these narrations, his three errors are presented as his making for the wife of Potiphar, His saying, ‘Mention me to your master’, and his saying ‘Your are thieves.’ However, God, the Exalted, absolves him from these false accusations in the clear text of His Book.
The author has combined this part of verse 37 with verse 38 which follows, in the original Ar. text. (Ed.) ↩︎