Appearance
Verses 43–57
This section of verses contains the story of Joseph’s release from prison, his attainment of rank and prestige in Egypt prestige, and the factors that led to these developments. They also portray the King’s second inquiry into the accusations against him and the revelation of his complete innocence.
وَقَالَ الْمَلِكُ إِنِّي أَرَى سَبْعَ بَقَرَاتٍ سِمَانٍ يَأْكُلُهُنَّ سَبْعٌ عِجَافٌ وَسَبْعَ سُنبُلاتٍ خُضْرٍ وَأُخَرَ يَابِسَاتٍ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمَلأُ أَفْتُونِي فِي رُؤْيَايَ إِن كُنتُمْ لِلرُّؤْيَا تَعْبُرُونَ ٤٣
(12:43) One day the king said, ‘I saw seven fat cows (baqarāt simān) being devoured by seven lean ones (ʿijāf), and seven green ears and others dry. O courtiers, give me your opinion (aftūnī) about my dream, if you can interpret dreams (taʿburūn).’
This verse relates a dream of the king which he shares with his council. Evidence for this being a dream is found in his statement, ‘O courtiers, give me your opinion about my dream …’ and his words, ‘I saw’ (arā). The phrasing suggests that he is recounting a past event, and it is possible that this was a recurring dream, similar to the earlier statements of the prisoners: ‘I dreamed that I am pressing wine’ and ‘I dreamed that I am carrying bread.’
The word simān is the plural form of samīna, meaning ‘fat’, while ʿijāf is the plural of ʿajfā’, meaning ‘emaciated’ or ‘lean.’ In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says: ‘Arabic nouns on the pattern of faʿlāʾ are not made plural according to the pattern of fiʿāl, with the exception of ajfāʾ, which becomes ʿijāf. The pattern of conjugtion of ʿujf toʿajfāʾ is in the same manner as colors such as ḥumr to hamrāʾ, khuḍr to kharāʾ, and bayḍ to bayḍāʾ (the colors ‘red’, ‘green’, and ‘white’ respectively). Some scholars argue that this is a special case and the more regular plural is ‘ujuf.
The verb iftāʾ (from whence aftūnī is derived) is derived from fatwāʾ and futyā, on the pattern of Form IV (bāb al-ifʿāl). In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘Futyā means providing a judgment or response. Sometimes it refers to simply giving an answer, but this is not termed as futyā in this case.’
The verb taʿburūn is derived from ‘abara, which means ‘to interpret or explain a dream.’ It can also be termed as ta‘bīr. This usage is derived metaphorically from the act of crossing a river or similar, just as one crosses from the outward appearance of a dream to its underlying interpretation. It represents the reality of a situation that appears to the dreamer in a form that is familiar to him.
In Tafsīr al-Kashshāf, about the phrase, ‘seven fat cows’ (sabʿa baqarātin simānin), al-Zamakhsharī writes: ‘Were you to ask: Is there a difference between assigning the adjective ‘fat’ (simān) to the noun ‘cows’ (baqarāt) rather than the number ‘seven’ (sabʿa)? Could you not also say sabʿa baqarātin simānan (note the difference in case ending on simān, indicating that it qualifies sabaʿa rather than baqarāt). The answer is: If we take the word simān as an adjective for baqarāt, we are not specifying (tamyīz) the number ‘seven’ with ‘cows’ but of a specific type of cow, namely ‘fat cows.’ Now, if you assigned the adjective simān to the number ‘seven’, then you would be specifying the number ‘seven’ with the general category of cows, then describing the number ‘seven’ with the characteristic of being ‘plump.’
Then, if you ask, shouldn’t ‘seven lean ones’ (sabʿun ʿijāfun) in the possessive form (i.e. as sabʿun ʿijāfin)? The response is: ‘The purpose of specification (tamyīz, where by the noun qualifying a number takes the -in case ending) is to clarify the species of the thing being counted, and the adjective ‘lean’ (ʿijāf) does not, by itself, provide that clarity. If you then argue that one can say ‘three horsemen’ (thalātha fursān) or ‘five companions’ (khamsa asḥāb), the answer is that terms like ‘horseman’ (fāris), ‘companion’ (ṣāḥib), ‘rider’ (rākib), and the like behave like nouns. Thus, they adopt rules that may not be applicable to other adjectives. For instance, you don’t say, ‘I have three large’ or ‘four thick.’
Furthermore, if you ask: Does the verse provide evidence that the dry ears of grain were also seven, like the green ones? The answer is: The statement is constructed to lean toward this number with respect to the fat cows, the lean cows, and the green ears of grain. Therefore, it is necessary to assume the same meaning for the others, meaning seven. Thus, when it is said, ‘and others dry’, it implies ‘and seven others dry.’ If you then ask: Can the phrase ‘and other dry’ can be governed grammatically by the preceding phrase, ‘seven green ears’? The answer is no, as this would lead to a syntactical contradiction. This is because relating this phrase to ‘seven green ears’ implies that it shares the same rule with them, indicating that it also specifies the type of the number ‘seven’ that occurs at the beginning of the phrase (in which case the meaning would be ‘seven ears, both green and dry’). But the word ‘others’ implies a distinction from the seven. For example, when you say, ‘I have seven men standing and sitting’ (ʿindī sabʿa rijāl qiyām wa quʿūd), it is correct since you are specifying the number seven with men described as both standing and sitting (meaning you have a total of seven men, with some sitting and others standing). But if you say, ‘He has seven standing men and others sitting’ (ʿinda-hu sabʿa rijāl qiyām wa ākharīn quʿūd), it becomes contradictory and incorrect to read it in this way (in other words, there are seven men standing and others who are sitting). In conclusion, despite the intricate linguistic nuances, it remains speculative to assert that the dry ears of grain were also seven in number like the green ones. As for this being something strongly implied by the discourse, it is not conclusive.’
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: The king of Egypt said to his courtiers: ‘I see in my dream seven fat cows being eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears of grain, and other dry ones. O courtiers, interpret for me my dream if you can interpret dreams!’
قَالُواْ أَضْغَاثُ أَحْلامٍ وَمَا نَحْنُ بِتَأْوِيلِ الأَحْلامِ بِعَالِمِينَ ٤٤
(12:44) They said, ‘Confused nightmares (aḍghāthu aḥlām), and we do not know the interpretation of nightmares.’
The word aḥlām is the plural of ḥulum/ḥulm, which refers to what someone sees during sleep (i.e. ‘a dream’). Originally, this term referred to what a person perceived within their own mind without sensory input. From this comes the terming of intellect as ḥilm, which denotes rightness and stability of thought, and also the use of the term ḥulum in reference to a person’s age of maturity, as mentioned by God in the verse: When your children reach maturity … (), meaning the age of mental maturity (bulūgh al-ʿaql). Additionally, ḥilm can also mean forbearance, the opposite of rashness (ṭaysh), which involves restraining oneself and managing one’s emotions when experiencing anger and not being hasty to punish or lash out. Such restraint comes from a stability of thought. Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says that the root meaning is ḥilm, but this is somewhat difficult to establish conclusively.
Al-Rāgḥib says: ‘The word ḍighth refers to a bundle of herbs, grass, or twigs, and the plural of this is aḍghāth. God says, “Take a bundle in your hand …” (), and confused dreams whose realities are unclear are likened to a bundle in the verse They said, “Confused nightmares …”, as though there is a mixed bundle of dreams.’
Describing a single vision as ‘confused nightmares’ seems to emphasize its being a collection of scattered, mixed images, each of which requires a separate interpretation. When combined and intermingled, it becomes challenging for the interpreter to decipher them. Often, a person transitions from one vision to another during a single sleep, and if these parts become mixed, they are termed ‘confused nightmares’, making it hard to ascertain their true nature. The use of the indefinite form in the expression aḍghāth aḥlām further emphasizes this meaning.
However, the previous verse, namely, One day the king said, ‘I saw in a dream …’ is not explicit in indicating a single dream. For example, in the account found in the Torah, it’s mentioned that he saw the fat and lean cows in one dream and the green and dry ears of grain in another.
When the king’s courtiers told him, ‘…and we do not know the interpretation of nightmares (al-aḥlām)’, note that the term aḥlām (‘nightmares’) is prefixed with the definite article al-, which indicates specificity in this case. In other words, they are not knowledgeable about the interpretation of these particular dreams that are composed of mixed-up imagery. However, if we read al- is signifying generality, then this means that they are not well-versed in the interpretation of any kinds of dreams, not only ones that are mixed-up. Of course, there is no inherent contradiction between the king’s courtiers referring to his dream as ‘confused nightmares’ and then saying that they had no expertise in the interpretation of dreams. However, if they meant they had no skill in the interpretation of authentic dreams, then this renders the two parts of their speech entirely unrelated to one another.
The meaning of the verse is that the chief officials said to the king: ‘What you saw are but a mixed bundle dreams; a mishmash of various visions. We do not possess knowledge to interpret these kinds of dreams. We can only interpret favorable visions.’
وَقَالَ الَّذِي نَجَا مِنْهُمَا وَادَّكَرَ بَعْدَ أُمَّةٍ أَنَاْ أُنَبِّئُكُم بِتَأْوِيلِهِ فَأَرْسِلُونِ٤٥
(12:45) Said the one of the two who had been delivered, remembering after a long time (umma): ‘I will inform you of its interpretation; so let me go.’
The term umma typically refers to a group of people with a shared purpose, but here it refers to a span of years. This refers to the period during which the king’s cupbearer forgot to mention Joseph to the king, even after Joseph had asked him to. This forgetfulness was influenced by Satan, causing Joseph to remain in prison for several more years.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘The one who was saved from the prison of Joseph’s former cellmates remembered after a span of years what Joseph had asked him when interpreting his dream. He said, “I can tell you the interpretation of what the king saw in his dream. Send me to Joseph in prison, and he will provide the explanation.”’
The collective address in his statement, ‘I will inform you (plural)’, and ‘send (plural) me forth’, is meant to include those present with the king, notably the influential figures of the state who managed the affairs of the people. Further evidence for this can also be seen in the subsequent phrase: ‘… that I may return to the people …’ ().
يُوسُفُ أَيُّهَا الصِّدِّيقُ أَفْتِنَا فِي سَبْعِ بَقَرَاتٍ سِمَانٍ يَأْكُلُهُنَّ سَبْعٌ عِجَافٌ وَسَبْعِ سُنبُلاتٍ خُضْرٍ وَأُخَرَ يَابِسَاتٍ لَّعَلِّي أَرْجِعُ إِلَى النَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ ٤٦
(12:46) ‘Joseph! O truthful one, give us your opinion concerning seven fat cows who are eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears and others dry, that I may return to the people so that they may know.’
Notice that the verse abridges the narrative for the sake of brevity, the full meaning being: ‘So they sent him to Joseph in prison, and he said, “O Joseph, truthful one, explain to us the king’s dream!” Then he recounted the dream, noting that the people eagerly awaited its interpretation. This abbreviated style of narrative is one of the rhetorical features of the Qurʾan.
Joseph is referred to as ‘truthful’ (ṣiddīq) due to his consistent and fastidious honesty, as seen in his interpretation of his own dream, the dreams of his fellow inmates, and his actions and words during his imprisonment. God Almighty affirms Joseph’s truthful nature without any reservation or pause.
Note also that the dream was described without explicitly stating it was a dream. He said, ‘give us your opinion concerning seven fat cows who are eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears and others dry.’ This is because the imperative ‘give us your opinion’ (aftinā) asks for a judgment or interpretation, and given the previous interaction between the cupbearer and Joseph had revolved around dream interpretation, the context clearly indicates the nature of the request.
‘…that I may return to the people so that they may know’—the clause ‘that I may…’ introduces the reason for his request to Joseph for his interpretation, while the clause ‘so that they may…’ provides the reason for his desire to return to the people. In other words, he says to Joseph: ‘Interpret this vision for us, for after hearing your interpretation, I hope to return to the people and inform them of it. And, by doing so, I hope that they will understand the meaning of the vision and thereby be freed from their confusion and ignorance.’
From this, it becomes evident that when he said, ‘… that I may return …’ it signifies that he wishes to return with this knowledge. It is clear that if he received the interpretation of the vision and then returned to the people, he would come back as someone knowledgeable about the interpretation, well-informed about its implications. Therefore, his return would then be associated with the interpretation he received. Understand this context.
By first saying, ‘give us your opinion …’ and then, ‘… that I may return to the people …’ this suggests that he sought the interpretation on behalf of the king and the council, not just for his own personal understanding to then inform them. Instead, he made clear that he intended to convey it to them. This is why Joseph didn’t address him alone but directed his response to include others by saying, ‘You will sow …’ and so on.
Furthermore, by saying ‘to the people’ (and not merely ‘to the king’ or ‘to the courtiers’), it suggests that word of the king’s dream had spread among the people and that they too were awaiting its interpretation to lift their confusion and anxiety. It is also possible that the council was acting on behalf of the people’s concerns, or that the people themselves were deeply connected and concerned about the king’s vision. This is because dreams often reflect one’s main concerns in life, and kings are mostly concerned with affairs of the kingdom and the well-being of their subjects.
قَالَ تَزْرَعُونَ سَبْعَ سِنِينَ دَأَبًا فَمَا حَصَدتُّمْ فَذَرُوهُ فِي سُنبُلِهِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً مِّمَّا تَأْكُلُونَ ٤٧
(12:47) He said, ‘You will sow for seven consecutive years (sabʿa sinīna daʾban). Then leave in the ear whatever you harvest, except a little that you eat.
Al-Rāghib says: ‘Daʾb means to continue along a way. God says: He disposed the sun and the moon for you, constant in their courses (dāʾibīn). Daʾb refers to a consistent, unchanging pattern or habit, as God says: like the habit (daʾb) of Pharaoh’s clan (), meaning “like their pattern that they continuously followed.”’ Therefore, this means you will cultivate for seven years in a continuous and successive manner.
Some have said the daʾb refers to hard work (taʿb), meaning they should plant with great effort and dedication. It could also be seen as an adverbial phrase, suggesting that they should be consistently diligent or continuously hardworking in their cultivation.
Some have said that ‘You will sow …’ is presented as an assertion rather than a command, emphasizing the importance of compliance as if it is an established fact being reported. Often, commands are presented in the form of statements to stress the importance of obedience, as seen in God’s words: You have faith in Allah and His Messenger, and wage jihad in the way of Allah (). Supporting this interpretation is the subsequent statement, ‘Then leave in the ear whatever you harvest.’ It’s said that they were instructed to leave the grain in its ear because the ears don’t easily get infested by pests or deteriorate, even if stored for a long time. However, if the grain is threshed and cleaned, it deteriorates more quickly.
The meaning is: ‘Plant continuously for seven years. Whatever you harvest, leave it in its ear so that it does not perish. Preserve it in this manner, except for the small amount you consume during these years.’
ثُمَّ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ سَبْعٌ شِدَادٌ يَأْكُلْنَ مَا قَدَّمْتُمْ لَهُنَّ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً مِّمَّا تُحْصِنُونَ ٤٨
(12:48) Then after that there will come seven hard years (sabʿun shidād) which will eat up whatever you have set aside for them—all except a little which you protect (tuḥṣinūn).
Shidād (‘hard’) is the plural of shadīd, meaning ‘severe’ or ‘difficult.’ This pertains to the difficulty and distress the people will experience during years of drought and famine. Alternatively, it is derived from the verb shadda ʿalay-hi meaning ‘to attack.’ This latter interpretation aligns more closely with the subsequent description: ‘which will eat up whatever you have set aside for them.’ According to this reading, the passage paints a subtle metaphor: these seven years are like predatory beasts, preying on the people, consuming what they have stored. The people offer up their saved food, which these years then consume, sparing the people afterward.
The term ‘tuḥṣinūn’ means to preserve and save. The meaning, then, is: ‘After those bountiful years will come seven intense years that will be hard on you. They will consume all that you had prepared for them, except for a small portion that you protect and save.’
ثُمَّ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ عَامٌ فِيهِ يُغَاثُ النَّاسُ وَفِيهِ يَعْصِرُونَ ٤٩
(12:49) Then after that there will come a year wherein the people will be granted relief (yughāth al-nās) in which they will press (wa fī-hi yaʿṣirūn).
The verb ighātha (from whence yughāth is conjugated, and derived from ghawth) means ‘to aid’, it can also mean to have a downpour. If yughāth here means relief, it signifies that the people will be helped by God Almighty through the alleviation of distress, lifting the drought and famine, and bestowing blessings. If it’s understood as ‘rain’, it means they will receive rainfall, thus alleviating their drought.
This second meaning seems more fitting considering the subsequent phrase: ‘in which they will press.’ One shouldn’t be overly swayed by claims suggesting the first meaning of ‘relief’ is more apparent in the context of the verse, unless they read the term ‘they will press’ in the passive voice, in which case it implies ‘they will be rained upon’ rather than ‘they will press’.
Some orientalists have argued that the second meaning doesn’t apply to the context of the verse since the fertility of Egypt is primarily due to the Nile’s inundation and not rainfall, asserting that rains have minimal impact there.
However, this argument is to be rejected, because the Nile can only flood due to the rainwater that flows into its channels from the lands of Sudan.
However, it’s plausible that the verb yughāthu is derived from ghayth, meaning vegetation. As stated in Lisān al-ʿArab: ‘And ghayth is the vegetation that grows from the rainwater.’ This interpretation seems more fitting, especially when considering the phrase: ‘in which they will press.’
In the phrase ‘in which they will press (fī-hi yaʿṣirūn)’—yaʿṣirūn is derived from ʿaṣr, which means to extract juice or oil from something through the application of pressure, which as extracting juice from grapes, treacle from dates, or oil from olives or sesame seeds for consumption and other uses. Some have said that the verb ʿaṣr can also mean milking, as when one milks the udders of livestock.
The meaning is then that after this—the seven challenging years—their lands will once again produce crops, or rain will fall, or they will be granted relief, and they will press juices and oils from fruits and grains, or they might milk their livestock. This implies an abundance of blessings upon them, whether in the form of crops or cattle.
In his commentary, al-Bayḍāwī says: ‘These are glad tidings that foretell good times after the initial fat cows and green stalks of prosperous years, followed by thin cows and withered stalks representing years of drought. The lean ones consuming what was stored in the fruitful years during the drought. Perhaps this was known through revelation, or by understanding that drought will end with prosperity, or because it is God’s habit (sunna) to expand His grace upon His servants after a period of hardship.’
In his commentary al-Manār, Rashīd Riḍā has said: ‘This refers to a year of great abundance and favor, in which people will have everything they desire in terms of blessings and luxuries. This information is in addition to the interpretation of the dream, as it is possible that the first year after the years of hardship and drought might not be as such. This specific and detailed knowledge was only known to Joseph through a revelation from God and was not evident in the king’s dream nor was it a necessary implication of its interpretation.’
What I believe is that these schools took a lenient approach in their explanation of the verses recounting the king’s dream and Joseph’s interpretation thereof. When we contemplate the words of Joseph in his interpretation, especially his saying: ‘You will sow for seven consecutive years. Then leave in the ear whatever you harvest, except a little that you eat. Then after that there will come seven hard years which will eat up whatever you have set aside for them—all except a little which you preserve’, we see that he did not base his statement on the premise of informing them about what the future holds with seven prosperous years followed by seven drought years. If he intended that, it would have been appropriate to say something like: ‘You will experience seven prosperous years followed by seven hard years that will deplete your stored provisions.’ Then, if asked about how to mitigate this crisis and the means of salvation from this general calamity, he would have said, ‘You will sow for seven consecutive years …’ and so on.
Rather, He presented his explanation on the basis of specifying what actions they should undertake to ward off the impending crisis. He elucidated that his directive serves as a preparatory measure to evade the approaching famine and scarcity, as should be obvious. This is an indication that the dream seen by the king was a representation of the necessary precautions he should take to save the people from the catastrophe of drought. It highlights his role and responsibility toward his subjects: to fatten seven cows which would then be consumed by the lean cows, and to preserve the seven green ears of grain, keeping them intact without threshing or filtering.
It’s as if the king’s very soul had witnessed in the dream the actions he must take in response to the looming drought. The prosperous and famine-ridden years—the sustenance they will earn therein—were depicted in the form of cows. The first seven years of abundance were represented by the fat cows, and the subsequent seven years of scarcity by the lean cows. The consumption of their reserves during the second seven-year period, following the prosperous years, was symbolized by the lean cows consuming the fat ones. The imperative to safeguard their food reserves was portrayed through the dry ears of grain compared to the green ones.
Joseph’s interpretation did not deviate from this schema, except in three instances:
First, his exception when he said: ‘except a little that you eat.’ This wasn’t a part of the interpretation but a permission, clarifying the permissible extent to which they could use what should ideally be left in its sheaf.
Second, his statement: ‘all except a little which you preserve.’ This referred to the amount they must set aside for the year in which the people will be relieved and press oil or wine, using it as seed grain and additional provisions in anticipation. It seems that Joseph took this from the king’s description of his dream where he said: ‘eaten by (yaʾkulu-hunna) seven lean ones.’ He did not say ‘they ate them’ (akala-hunna) but rather conveyed their continuous action of eating by using the imperfect tense yaʾkulu-hunna, suggesting they wouldn’t completely consume them. Had their reserves been exhausted during the seven difficult years, he would have seen that the lean cows had entirely consumed the fat ones.
And the third instance is his statement: ‘Then after that there will come a year wherein the people will be granted relief and in which they will press.’ It appears evident that Joseph inferred this from the recurring number seven associated with the fat and lean cows and the green ears of grain. His statement ‘Then after that there will come a year…’, even if it foretells future events, it subtly suggests that in the year that comes after the seven challenging ones, the abundance of provision will be independent of people’s special efforts in cultivating and storing food, and no particular directives regarding provision for the people would be necessary.
Perhaps it is for these three aforementioned reasons that the phrasing was in the third-person: wherein the people will be granted relief and in which they will press rather than the direct address: ‘in which you will be granted relief and in which you will press’, which would have maintained the same tone as in the previous two verses. This hints that people during this year will not require your exertion in matters of their livelihood or your management of their provisions; rather, they will be granted relief and press juice and oils due to the blessings and abundance of a prosperous year.
This rebuts the argument quoted above from Rashīd Riḍā in his al-Manār, that this specific detail was known to Joseph, only through divine revelation from God, and that it was not explicitly part of the king’s dream, nor was it necessarily derived from its interpretation in such detail.
There is no doubt that the replacement of the drought years by a year of fertility is something that Joseph indeed deduced from the dream. As for its exceptional bounty in comparison to other fertile years, there is no explicit textual evidence to support it.
From our discussion, an interesting observation arises regarding the omission of the number ‘seven’ when describing the dry ears in the verse: ‘and seven green ears and others dry.’ It can be understood that the dream did not explicitly detail the years of abundance and scarcity but rather conveyed the practical measures that must be taken in response to these impending events. Hence, specifying the dry ears as ‘seven’ would be superfluous, unlike if it directly referred to the years of drought themselves.
Furthermore, from the aforementioned, it also becomes clear that the most appropriate reading of the people will be granted relief and in which they will press, refers to rainfall, the growth of pasture, and the milking of livestock. This interpretation aligns with what the king saw in his dream of the seven fat and lean cows, as this is the normative understanding. This context sheds light on the specific mention of rainfall and pressing in this verse.
وَقَالَ الْمَلِكُ ائْتُونِي بِهِ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُ الرَّسُولُ قَالَ ارْجِعْ إِلَى رَبِّكَ فَاسْأَلْهُ مَا بَالُ النِّسْوَةِ الَّلاتِي قَطَّعْنَ أَيْدِيَهُنَّ إِنَّ رَبِّي بِكَيْدِهِنَّ عَلِيمٌ ٥٠
(12:50) The king said, ‘Bring him to me!’ When the messenger came to him, he said, ‘Go back to your master, and ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands. My Lord is indeed well aware of their stratagems.’
This verse also displays the eloquence of the Qurʾan through the use of abridgment and brevity. From the tone and considering the context, it appears that the messenger, who was the cupbearer, informed the king about Joseph’s interpretation of the dream. After hearing it, the king commanded, ‘Bring him to me!’
Apparently, the news of seven consecutive years of drought was a grave matter. However, Joseph’s evident wisdom and insight seemed even more profound and surprising to the king, who was deeply concerned about his people and the affairs of his kingdom. What the king had heard alarmed and astonished him. Thus, he ordered Joseph to be brought forth to converse and gain more clarity on the matter. This is further evinced by the discussion that God relates from him, as introduced by the clauses, when the messenger came to him () and, when he had spoken with him ().
Therefore, the king’s command was not merely to bring Joseph as a prisoner but to release him from prison to that he might engage him in conversation. If it had been a mere summoning of a prisoner who would return to jail afterward, Joseph would have had no choice but to attend. However, it was a call for acquittal and release. Thus, Joseph had the liberty to attend and ask the king for justice. As a result of this assertiveness and inquiry, the king’s subsequent command was: Bring him to me, I will make him my favorite, rather than merely saying ‘bring him to me’ again.
Joseph demonstrated exquisite manners in his address to the messenger, saying, ‘Go back to your master, and ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands.’ Note that he did not refer to the wife of Potiphar in a disparaging manner. He merely pointed to the women who tried to seduce him, not mentioning any wrongdoing on their part except that which would vindicate him. The tribulations he went through were indeed profound.
Note also that the only instance in which he referred to them in a way that might be deemed negative was, ‘My Lord is indeed well aware of their stratagems.’ This can be viewed as a form of complaint to his Lord.
Notice the elegance in his phrasing at the beginning and end of the verse, where he first says to the messenger, ‘Go back to your master, and ask him …’ and then he states, ‘My Lord is indeed well aware of their stratagems.’ The phrasing he has chosen subtly conveys the truth. This should also serve as a clarification for those who claim that by ‘my Lord’ in his statement to Potiphar’s wife, ‘He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode’ (), he meant her husband, asserting that he referred to him as his ‘lord’ (rabb).
See how subtle is his statement: ‘ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands’—‘the affair’ refers to the important issue they were preoccupied with when they did this. It means: ‘What was the significant and grave matter that led them into their predicament?’ It was nothing but their infatuation and deep love for him that made them forget themselves, causing them to cut their hands instead of cutting the fruit. Therefore, Joseph wanted the king reflect on the enormity of the trial of dealing with such infatuated lovers. To resist their advances, especially when they were ready to give up their wealth and even their lives for him, is a monumental feat. Their persistent advances were not just once or twice, but continuously over days. Resisting and staying firm against such pressure is only possible for someone whom God has protected from evil and vice with manifest proof from Himself.
قَالَ مَا خَطْبُكُنَّ إِذْ رَاوَدتُّنَّ يُوسُفَ عَن نَّفْسِهِ قُلْنَ حَاشَ لِلَّهِ مَا عَلِمْنَا عَلَيْهِ مِن سُوءٍ قَالَتِ امْرَأَةُ الْعَزِيزِ الآنَ حَصْحَصَ الْحَقُّ أَنَاْ رَاوَدتُّهُ عَن نَّفْسِهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ ٥١
(12:51) The king said, ‘What was your business (khaṭbu-kunna), women, when you solicited Joseph?’ They said, ‘Heaven be praised! We know of no evil in him.’ The prince’s wife said, ‘Now the truth has come to light (ḥaṣḥaṣa al-ḥaqq)! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth.’
Al-Rāghib remarks: ‘Khatb refers to a weighty matter that causes much discussion. As God says, “What is your business, O Samiri?” () and “O messengers, what is now your errand?”’
He also says: ‘Ḥaṣḥaṣa al-ḥaqq means that the truth has become clear because what is apparent has been uncovered. Ḥaṣṣa and ḥaṣḥaṣa are conjugated like kaffa and kafkafa, and kabb and kabkaba. Ḥaṣṣa means to cut something, whether directly or by issuing a decree… a ḥaṣṣa also refers to a piece that is taken from a whole, undivided entity, and this can be used interchangeably with terms such as naṣīb.’
The phrase, The king said, ‘What was your business, women, when you solicited Joseph?’ answers an implicit question from the audience, based on what was omitted from the narrative for the sake of conciseness. Everything is understood from the context. This implicit question is: ‘What happened next? What did the king do?’ The response is: ‘The messenger returned to the king, relayed Joseph’s words, and sought his decree. The king summoned the women and questioned them about their intentions regarding Joseph, asking, , ‘What was your business, women, when you solicited Joseph?’ They replied, They said, ‘Heaven be praised! We know of no evil in him.’ They thus exonerated him from any wrongdoing, testifying that they saw no fault in him when they tried to seduce him.
Their use of the exclamation, ‘Heaven be praised!’ (hāsha lillāh) is akin to their initial exclamation when they first saw him, ‘Good heavens! This is not a human being…’, and indicates the pinnacle of Joseph’s integrity and chastity in what they knew of him, just as he was at the pinnacle of beauty in what they saw of him.
Regarding the phrase: The prince’s wife said …, it parallels the statement, ‘What was your business, women, when …?’ and They said, ‘Heaven be praised! We know of no evil in him.’ At that point, the wife of Potiphar, who was the original cause of this trial, spoke up. She admitted her guilt and confirmed Joseph’s innocence, stating: ‘Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth.’ She attributed the attempt of seduction to herself and negated any blame from him. She did not stop there but cleared him completely, stating that he neither responded to her advances nor complied with her in her attempts to seduce him.
This confession by the wife of Potiphar made clear Joseph’s innocence from every angle. In her statement and that made by the other women as well, there are multiple emphatic expressions that exonerate him. The phrase, ‘We know of no evil in him’ coupled with the exclamation, ‘Heaven be praised!’ in their statement, her confession of guilt with the words ‘It was I who solicited him’, and her testament to his truthfulness by saying ‘and he is indeed telling the truth’ and other expressions in her statement all clear Joseph of any wrongdoing, inappropriate advances, or any inclination toward her. His choices were indeed impeccable.
ذَلِكَ لِيَعْلَمَ أَنِّي لَمْ أَخُنْهُ بِالْغَيْبِ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي كَيْدَ الْخَائِنِينَ ٥٢
(12:52) ‘This, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous.’
Based on the context, this statement belongs to Joseph. It is as though Joseph is commenting on the women’s testimony of his innocence, the wife of Potiphar’s confession of her guilt, her testament to his truthfulness, and the king’s judgment of his innocence.
This form of quoting speech, where the verb ‘said’ is not explicitly used, is common in the Qurʾan, such as when it says, The Messenger has faith in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and all the faithful. Each has faith in Allah, His angels, His scriptures and His messengers: ‘We make no distinction between any of His messengers’ (). This means they say: ‘We make no distinction …’. Another example is when it says, ‘Indeed it is we who are the ranged ones. Indeed it is we who are those who celebrate Allah’s glory.’ ().
Based on this, the demonstrative pronoun ‘This’ in ‘This, that he may know…’ refers back to the messenger’s return to the king and his request for justice. The pronoun ‘he’ in ‘he may know’ and ‘him’ ‘I did not betray him’ refers back to Potiphar. The meaning is that Joseph had the messenger return to the king and asked for a judgment to be made so that Potiphar would know that Joseph did not betray him in his absence by attempting to seduce his wife, and that God does not guide the plotting of betrayers.
Joseph had two primary objectives for what he did, by returning the messenger and asking this:
First, to ensure Potiphar knew that Joseph did not betray him, so that Potiphar feels at peace and any suspicions or doubts about Joseph are removed.
Second, one must realize that a betrayer, in all circumstances, will never truly achieve his objectives through his treachery. In fact, it is inevitable that he will be exposed, for this is the divine ordinance of God that has always prevailed among His servants, and there is no change to God’s modus operandi. Betrayal is falsehood, and falsehood is ephemeral. Truth will ultimately prevail over it. If betrayers always succeeded, then the women who cut their hands and schemed or the wife of Potiphar with her actions and persistence would not have been exposed. Indeed, God does not guide the treacherous.
The underlying goal of Joseph’s statement, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous, is that by teaching this principle to the king, the king will necessarily realize that the Joseph is knowledgeable of this truth. Thus, if he has not betrayed any secrets and would never betray anything at all, he can be trusted with any responsibility, be it a person, a mission, or some wealth.
This distinction prepared the way for Joseph to make a request from the king, which he articulated after addressing him: ‘Put me in charge of the country’s granaries. I am indeed fastidious and well-informed.’
The verse clearly indicates that this king is different from Potiphar (al-ʿAzīz), the husband of the woman, who is referred to in the statements, they ran into her husband at the door () and The man from Egypt who had bought him said to his wife, ‘Give him an honorable place…’ ().
Some commentators have suggested that this verse and the following one are a continuation of the statement of Potiphar’s wife: ‘Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth.’ We will discuss this further below.
وَمَا أُبَرِّئُ نَفْسِي إِنَّ النَّفْسَ لأَمَّارَةٌ بِالسُّوءِ إِلاَّ مَا رَحِمَ رَبِّيَ إِنَّ رَبِّي غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ٥٣
(12:53) Yet I do not absolve my soul, for the soul indeed prompts to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful.’
This is the completion of Joseph’s speech in the previous verse. This is because his statement, ‘I did not betray him in his absence’ may seem like a self-righteous claim. However, Joseph, a dedicated monotheist, realizes that he has no power or capability apart from that which he has been granted by God. Hence, he was quick to deny any intrinsic power or capability in himself and attributed any good deed or admirable trait that appeared from him to the mercy of his Lord. He equated his soul to the souls of others, which, by their nature, tend to follow desires and are inclined toward evil. Thus, he said, Yet I do not absolve my soul, for the soul indeed prompts to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. His statement is akin to that of the Prophet Shuʿayb: ‘I only desire to put things in order, as far as I can, and my success lies only with Allah’
The statement: ‘Yet I do not absolve my soul’ calls back to his saying: ‘I did not betray him in his absence.’ He did not say this to exonerate himself or to self-aggrandize, but rather to proclaim the mercy he received from his Lord. He explained this by saying, ‘for the soul indeed prompts to evil’, meaning that by its very nature, the soul urges man toward its desires, regardless of how numerous or grievous the misdeeds involved might be. It is ignorant to claim immunity from inclining toward evil, when one can only refrain from following its malign instincts and temptations by virtue of mercy granted by God, who diverts it from wrongdoing and guides it toward righteous deeds.
From this, it is evident that his statement, ‘except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy’, conveys two implications:
First, it limits the general meaning of the statement, ‘for the soul indeed prompts to evil’, suggesting that the performance of good deeds, which emanate from the mercy of God, is also a natural inclination of the soul and not a result of external compulsion or imposition from Him.
Second, it highlights that his avoidance of betrayal of Potiphar was due to the mercy of his Lord.
He explained this statement by saying, ‘Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful.’ In other words, he linked God’s forgiveness with His mercy because forgiveness conceals a person’s flaws, while mercy brings out the beauty in their actions. God’s forgiveness not only erases sins and their consequences but also covers deficiencies and their repercussions. It is related to all kinds of flaws just as it relates to sins, as it is said: But should someone be compelled, without being rebellious or aggressive, indeed your Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful () This is something we have discussed in our commentary on the quoted verse.
One of the subtle aspects of eloquence in Joseph’s statement is his reference to God Almighty using the term ‘my Lord.’ He repeated it three times in the phrases, ‘My Lord is indeed well aware of their stratagems’ (), ‘except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy’ (), and ‘Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful.’ These statements imply a kind of favoritism shown by God specifically toward him. He praised God by associating Him with himself (‘my Lord’), emphasizing monotheism by recognizing God as his sole deity, in contrast to the polytheists. However, note that in the phrase, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous, he used the name ‘Allah’, and thereby dissociating this from himself.
As mentioned previously, several commentators have suggested that the two verses— This, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous, and Yet I do not absolve my soul, for the soul indeed prompts to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful—are actually part of the speech of Potiphar’s wife. According to this reading of the verses, when she confessed her guilt and testified to his truthfulness, she said, ‘This …’—referring to her own confession of attempting to seduce Joseph and her testimony of his honesty—’that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence.’ In other words, she confessed that the attempt to seduce came from her, and he was truthful, ‘and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous’, just as He did not guide her scheme when she tried various tactics to seduce Joseph and imprisoned him for several years until his truthfulness and purity were revealed, while she was exposed and shamed in front of the king and the elite. Similarly, God did not guide the plots of the other women in their attempts to seduce him. ‘Yet I do not absolve my soul …’ means she is not entirely free from evil, as she contrived to have him imprisoned in order to coerce him into obeying her wishes ‘…for the soul indeed prompts to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful.’
However, this reading is flawed for a number of reasons:
First, the statement: ‘This, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence …’, if it had been from the wife of the Potiphar, should logically be phrased as, ‘So that he should know that I did betray him in his absence,’ using an imperative form. Her use of ‘This; in this context alludes to her admission of guilt and her testimony to its truth. So, her saying, ‘I did not betray him in his absence,’ if it follows on from her confession and testimony and refers to it, renders the statement redundant and meaningless. Essentially, it would mean: ‘I confessed and testified so he would know that I confessed and testified to this in his absence.’ Moreover, it negates the value of the confession and the testimony, as it implies she confessed and testified just so Joseph would hear it and be aware, not to unveil the truth and clarify the reality of the situation.
If, on the other hand, it stands as an indication of her deeds during his long absence, when he was imprisoned for several years, it means she testified and confessed only to convey that she did not betray him throughout his absence. Yet, she did betray him when she almost entrapped him, leading to his imprisonment for several years. Additionally, her confession and testimony do nothing to prove her complete loyalty to him, which is obvious.
Secondly, it becomes meaningless for her to tell Joseph that ‘and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous.’ Joseph himself had mentioned this when she first tried to seduce him, as he said, ‘Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous’ ().
Thirdly, her statement, ‘I do not absolve myself; indeed, I deceived him into prison,’ contradicts her claim, ‘I did not betray him in his absence.’ This is an apparent contradiction. Furthermore, her saying, ‘for the soul indeed prompts to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful,’ given its profound monotheistic knowledge, is unlikely to come from a woman consumed by desires, and who worshipped idols.
Some scholars offer another reading of these verses, suggesting that the pronouns in that he may know’ and ‘I did not betray him’ refer back to her husband Potiphar. It is as if she is saying: ‘I confess to what happened so my husband would know that I did not physically betray him during my private moments with Joseph in his absence, and that all that transpired was my attempt to seduce Joseph, but he resisted. Thus, my husband’s honor remained intact and his dignity preserved. Even if Joseph is innocent of sin, I do not absolve myself from it, for the soul is inclined toward evil except for those upon whom my Lord has mercy.’
The problem with this is that if this statement was truly from Potiphar’s wife, intending to allay her husband’s concerns and remove any doubt from his heart, it would have produced the opposite effect. Her saying, ‘Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth’, only confirms that she tried to seduce Joseph. But her testimony that he resisted her and did not respond to her advances counts more against her than in her favor. It might be possible that she testified in his favor to soothe her husband and remove any lingering doubts he might have. However, her confession and testimony would not necessarily give Potiphar any certainty that she did not betray him in secret.
Furthermore, her saying, ‘Yet I do not absolve my soul…’ would then be redundant in light of her earlier admission of ‘it was I who solicited him.’ The apparent sequence of the narrative suggests otherwise. In addition to this, some of the criticisms related to the previous reading also apply here.
وَقَالَ الْمَلِكُ ائْتُونِي بِهِ أَسْتَخْلِصْهُ لِنَفْسِي فَلَمَّا كَلَّمَهُ قَالَ إِنَّكَ الْيَوْمَ لَدَيْنَا مَكِينٌ أَمِينٌ ٥٤
(12:54) The king said, ‘Bring him to me, I will make him my favorite (astakhliṣ-hu).’ Then, when he had spoken with him, he said, ‘Indeed today you will be honored (makīn) and trustworthy with us.’
The verb astakhliṣ-hu means ‘to make exclusive to oneself.’
Makīn denotes a person of rank and status (makāna).
The phrase, when he had spoken with him, contains another case of omission for the sake of brevity. The full meaning can be understood as: ‘When Joseph was brought before the king and he spoke to him, the king said: “Indeed today you will be honored and trustworthy with us.” Restricting the decree to ‘today’ hints at the rationale for the statement as a whole—in other words, today, due to the noble traits that Joseph has displayed in avoiding evil, illicit desires, betrayal, and oppression, and his patience in the face of adversity in the quest for self-purity, combined with his exceptional understanding, wisdom, and rationality, he is deemed worthy of a special position of trust. The unqualified use of the adjectives ‘honored and trustworthy’ suggests that the decree was general in scope.
Therefore, the meaning is that the king said: ‘Bring Joseph to me; I will make him exclusively for myself.’ When Joseph was presented and spoke with the king, the king told him, ‘Today, based on the excellent characteristics evident in you, you have an unparalleled status and trust with us, and we will grant you authority over whatever you desire and entrust you with all royal affairs.’ This points to the pre-eminence of Joseph’s position with the king.
قَالَ اجْعَلْنِي عَلَى خَزَائِنِ الأَرْضِ إِنِّي حَفِيظٌ عَلِيمٌ ٥٥
(12:55) He said, ‘Put me in charge of the country’s granaries. I am indeed fastidious and well-informed.’
When the king accorded a high status to Joseph by saying, ‘Indeed today you will be honored and trustworthy with us’, he uttered these words without reservation or qualification. In response, Joseph asked to be put in charge of the country’s treasuries, essentially entrusting him with their administration. The ‘country’ referred to here is, of course, all of Egypt. He did not make this request for any personal gain but rather to personally oversee the management of provisions and sustenance. This was so he could collect and store them for the seven forthcoming years of intense famine. He would then be responsible for distributing provisions among the people, ensuring each received their due share without injustice.
Joseph justified this request by stating, ‘I am indeed fastidious (ḥafīẓ) and well-informed (ʿalīm).’ These two qualities are essential for anyone who assumes such a position of responsibility. The king acceded to his request, and assigned the responsibilities he sought. This is evident from the context of the verses and the ones that follow.
وَكَذَلِكَ مَكَّنَّا لِيُوسُفَ فِي الأَرْضِ يَتَبَوَّأُ مِنْهَا حَيْثُ يَشَاء نُصِيبُ بِرَحْمَتِنَا مَن نَّشَاء وَلاَ نُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ ٥٦
(12:56) That is how We established (makkannā) Joseph in the land that he may settle (yatabawwaʾu) in it wherever he wished. We confer Our mercy on whomever We wish, and We do not waste the reward of the virtuous.
The verb tamkīn (‘to establish’, conjugated here as makkannā) means to establish him as powerful, while tabawwuʾ (‘to settle’) means to occupy a place.
The phrase ‘That is…’ at the beginning of the verse refers to all the previous events in the story, which culminated in Joseph’s ascendancy in Egypt. For instance, Potiphar’s wife had threatened Joseph with imprisonment, which God turned into a stepping stone to his attaining honor. In a similar pattern, when his brothers were envious of the affection he received from his father, they plotted against him, casting him into the well and subsequently selling him into slavery. However, this apparent degradation led him to be honored in Potiphar’s house. When Potiphar’s wife and the women of Egypt conspired against him, trying to force him into immoral behavior, God made plain his innocence. She then threatened him with imprisonment, which, in God’s plan, became the reason for his rise to power.
The reference to the prison, his confinement, and the loss of freedom to socialize is evident in God’s words: That is how We established Joseph in the land that he may settle in it wherever he wished. This passage signifies the removal of the confines of prison, which had deprived him of his freedom, and granting him the autonomy to go wherever he pleased. The tone of this verse parallels the moment when Joseph entered Potiphar’s house and Potiphar enjoined his wife to provide him with a place of honor, wherein God said: Thus We established Joseph in the land and that We might teach him the interpretation of dreams. Allah has command of His affairs ().
By this comparison, it is evident that God’s remark here, We confer Our mercy on whomever We wish, parallels His statement in that earlier verse, Allah has command of His affairs. The message is that when God wills to bestow His mercy on someone, nothing can obstruct His decree or prevent this mercy reaching its intended recipient. Had there been any force or factor that could negate God’s will, it would have acted against Joseph, as he faced these insurmountable challenges. Yet, despite all adversities that seemed destined to humiliate and degrade him, God elevated and honored him. The ultimate decree belongs only to God.
The phrase, and We do not waste the reward of the virtuous, alludes to the power and rewards given to Joseph and serves as a beautiful promise to all virtuous individuals that God will not let their efforts be in vain.
وَلَأَجْرُ الآخِرَةِ خَيْرٌ لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَكَانُواْ يَتَّقُونَ ٥٧
(12:57) And the reward of the Hereafter is surely better for those who have faith and are Godwary.
This verse pertains to God’s chosen servants or awliyāʾ. It is a beautiful promise for the Hereafter made specifically to His allies, and Joseph was undoubtedly one of them.
The evidence that this doesn’t apply to all believers universally is the subsequent phrase, and are Godwary. This indicates that such true faith is inherently paired with consistent, genuine piety. Equally, such piety cannot be realized without faith, as it represents a deeper level of faith and God-consciousness, which leads to God’s guardianship (wilāya). God has said: Look! The friends of Allah will indeed have no fear nor will they grieve. Those who have faith, and are Godwary. For them is good news in the life of this world and in the Hereafter ().
Examining Narrations
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, the narrative continues as follows: ‘Then the king had a dream, which he told to his ministers, , “I saw in a dream seven fat cows being devoured by seven lean ones, and seven green ears (sabʿa sunbulāt)”—Imām al-Ṣādiq recited the verse: sabʿa sanābil (with the same meeting)—“and others dry. O courtiers, give me your opinion about my dream, if you can interpret dreams” () However, they were unable to explain it.
It was then that the king’s cupbearer remembered the dream he had once seen and recalled Joseph after seven years. This is alluded to in the verse: Said the one of the two who had been delivered, remembering after a long time: “I will inform you of its interpretation; so let me go” ().
He came to Joseph and said, “O truthful one, give us your opinion concerning seven fat cows who are eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears and others dry” ().
Joseph replied, “You will sow for seven consecutive years. Then leave in the ear whatever you harvest, except a little that you eat” ()—meaning: “do not thresh it because it would spoil over the course of seven years. But if left in the ear, it will not spoil”—“ Then after that there will come seven hard years which will eat up whatever you have set aside (mā qaddamtum) for them during the previous years” ()—Imām al-Ṣādiq said: “It was sent down as mā qarrabtum (‘offered up’)”—”Then after that there will come a year wherein the people will be granted relief and in which they will press”—meaning there will be abundant rain.
And Imām al-Ṣādiq said that a man recited to the Commander of the Faithful the verse: “Then after that there will come a year wherein the people will be granted relief and in which they will press (fī-hi yaʿṣirūn)”—where yaʿṣirūn is in the active voice. He exclaimed: “Woe to you! What are they pressing? Are they pressing wine?” The man replied, “O Commander of the Faithful, how should I recite it then?” He said: “It was revealed as fī-hi yuʿṣarūn, in the passive voice, meaning “and send down water pouring from the rain-clouds (wa anzalnā min al-muʿṣirāt māʾan thajjājan).”
The man went back to the king and informed him of what Joseph had said. The king said, “Bring him to me!” When the messenger came to him, he said, “Go back to your master, and ask him about the affair of women who cut their hands. My Lord is indeed well aware of their stratagems.” ()
The king gathered the women and asked: “What was your business, women, when you solicited Joseph?” They said, “Heaven be praised! We know of no evil in him.” The prince’s wife said, “Now the truth has come to light! It was I who solicited him, and he is indeed telling the truth. This, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous”—meaning: “I do not lie about him now as I lied about him previously”—”Yet I do not absolve my soul, for the soul indeed prompts to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful” ().
Then the king said, “Bring him to me, I will make him my favorite.” Then, when he had examined Joseph, he said: “Indeed today you will be honored and trustworthy with us.” He asked Joseph what we wanted, and Joseph replied, “Put me in charge of the country’s granaries. I am indeed fastidious and well-informed”—Meaning over the grain silos and irrigation wells. And so, he was appointed, as the verse says, That is how We established Joseph in the land that he may settle in it wherever he wished ().’
Author’s comment: According to al-Qummī Imām al-Ṣādiq is reported to have recited ‘seven ears’ (sabʿa sunbulāt) as sabʿa sanābil, but al-ʿAyyāshī narrates from Ibn Abī Yaʿfūr from the Imām that he recited it sabʿa sunbulāt. As for Imām al-Ṣādiq that the verse was originally revealed as qarrabutum (‘offered up’) instead of qaddamtum, this means that qaddamtum is used here in the sense of qarrabtum. As for the tradition from Imām ʿAlī, which says: That yaʿṣirūn (‘to press’) was revealed in the passive voice, as yuʿṣarūn, meaning ‘to rain’, this shows that he understood the previous verb yughāth (translated as ‘to be granted relief’) to be from ghayth (‘downpour’) rather than ghawth (‘relief’). A tradition with the same meaning has also come down in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from ʿAlī b. Muʿammar, from his father, from Imām al-Ṣādiq.
The explanation “I do not lie about him now as I lied about him previously” is clear when we read the previous verse, This, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous () as belonging to the speech of Potiphar’s wife. This has already been discussed previously.
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Faryābī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Ṭabrānī, and Ibn Mardawayh narrate, via various routes, from Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: ‘The Messenger of God (s.a.w.) remarked, “I am amazed by the patience and nobility of my brother Joseph. May God have mercy on him for when he was asked to give his interpretation of the king’s dream. If I were in his place, I wouldn’t have give given it until I was released. I am amazed by his patience and nobility, that he was asked to come out but would not until he had proved his innocence. If it were me, I would have rushed to the door. However, he wanted his innocence to be known.”
Author’s comment: This has also been narrated through other chains, including some from the Household of the Prophet, as mentioned in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. Abān reports from Muḥammad b. Muslim from either Imām al-Ṣādiq or Imām al-Bāqir, that they said: ‘The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, stated: “If I were in Joseph’s position, when the king sent for him to inquire about his dream, I would not have spoken about it until I secured my release from the prison. I’m astounded by his patience concerning Potiphar’s wife until God revealed his innocence.’
This narration from the Prophet is not without its problems. I see two major issues with it. First, it sounds critical of Joseph’s principled strategy and his approach to being released from prison. Joseph’s strategy in this regard was impeccable. He did not merely desire to be released while Potiphar’s wife and the women of Egypt had no goal except to seduce him. After all, it was him who said, ‘My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me’ (). What he wanted was to be released under circumstances that would prove his innocence to all, and where Potiphar’s wife and the other women would be forced to give up their designs on him, and he would be given a position befitting his stature and status.
Therefore, while still in prison, he first informed them of what the king needed to do in response to his dream, which was to prepare for the impending famine, and the urgent need to store provisions, which led the king to say, ‘Bring him to me!’ But when the order for his release came, he insisted on a fair judgment to be made between him and the women. This took him to the king’s declaration, ‘Bring him to me, I will make him my favorite.’ This is the best possible strategy open to Joseph for achieving his goal of attaining an honored position in Egypt and spreading justice and benevolence throughout the land. This is in addition to what became apparent to the king and his court about Joseph’s incredible patience, resolve, tolerance of harm for the sake of truth, vast knowledge, and sound judgment, as a direct result of this strategy.
Another possible criticism pertains to the Prophet (s.a.w.). God forbid that he would say that if he were in Joseph’s place, he would have acted impulsively and not shown patience, even though he acknowledges that the right course of action was with Joseph in his patience. This would make his statement an implicit admission that he would not have had the patience in situations that require it. God forbid that the Prophet (s.a.w.), would instruct people to behave in one manner and then act differently from this himself. He exhibited patience and endured hardships for the sake of God both before and after his Emigration, and God praised him by saying, and indeed you possess a great character ().
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī cites al-Ḥākim al-Tirmidhī’s Tarīkh, as well as Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Daylamī, who narrate from Anas: ‘The Messenger of God (s.a.w.) recited this verse, “This, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence …”. When Joseph said this, Gabriel said to him, “O Joseph, remember how you made for her.” Joseph replied, “Yet I do not absolve my soul.”
Author’s comment: This meaning is narrated in several traditions with similar wordings. In a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās:, we read that when Joseph said it, Gabriel nudged him and asked, “Not even when you made for her?” In another narration from Ḥakīm b. Jābir, Gabriel asked him, “Not even when you loosened your trousers?” Similar narrations are there from Mujāhid, Qatāda, ʿIkrima, al-Dhaḥḥāk, Ibn Zayd, al-Sudayy, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Ibn Jarīr, Abū Ṣālih, and others.
As we have previously mentioned, reports such as these, which deviate from the explicit text of the Qurʾan are to be rejected. It is unthinkable for Joseph to make a false claim by saying, ‘I did not betray him in his absence’, and then correct his oversight due to a nudge from Gabriel. As al-Zamakhsharī mentioned in his al-Kashāf: ‘False stories were concocted by liars who claimed that when Joseph said, “ I did not betray him in his absence “, Gabriel said to him, “Not even when you made for her?” And the wife of Potiphar asked him, “Not even when you were about to take off your trousers, O Joseph?” This is tantamount to a slander against God and His Messenger.’
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Sumāʿa: ‘I asked him about the verse: “Go back to your master …”, he said “it refers to Potiphar.”’
- And in Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is narrated from al-Ṭabrisī’s Kitāb al-Nubuwwa, with its chain of narrators from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā, from al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Ilyās, that he heard that Imām al-Riḍā said:
‘Joseph took charge of the food supply during the seven years of abundance and stored it in the granaries. But when those years passed and the years of famine came, Joseph began to sell the food. He sold it during the first year for coins, both gold and silver, until there was not a single coin left in Egypt and its surroundings except that it was in Joseph’s possession.
In the second year, he sold them grain in exchange for jewelry and precious stones. By the end of that year, no jewelry or precious stones remained in Egypt and its surrounding lands save that it was in Joseph’s possession.
In the third year, he traded grain for livestock and cattle. By the end of the year, no beast or cattle remained in Egypt and its surroundings except that which was owned by Joseph.
In the fourth year, he traded grain for slaves and servant girls. By the end of the year, no slave or servant girl remained in Egypt and its vicinity without becoming part of Joseph’s dominion.
In the fifth year, he traded grain for houses and courtyards. By the year’s end, no house or courtyard remained in Egypt and its surroundings that wasn’t in Joseph’s possession.
In the sixth year, he exchanged grain for farms and rivers. By the end of that year, no river or farm in Egypt and its surroundings was left outside of Joseph’s ownership.
In the seventh year, he traded grain for their very freedoms. By the end of that year, no person, whether slave or free, remained in Egypt and its surroundings who wasn’t in servitude to Joseph.
Joseph thus possessed their free men, their slaves, and their wealth. The people said, “We have neither seen nor heard of a ruler endowed with such authority, wisdom, knowledge, and governance as this one.” Then Joseph said to the king, “What do you think of what God has entrusted to me in the form of dominion over Egypt and its surroundings? Advise me, for I haven’t reformed them to corrupt them, nor have I saved them from calamity to be a calamity for them. But God has saved them through me.” The king replied, “The decision is yours.”
Joseph declared, “I swear by God and I call you to witness, O king, that I have emancipated all the people of Egypt and returned their wealth and servants to them. I also return to you the crown, the seal, the throne, and the diadem, on the condition that you only act as I would and only rule as I dictate.”
The king replied to him, “It is my repentance and my honor to act only as you would and to rule only as you dictate. If not for you, I would not have entrusted you with this nor would I have been guided to it. My reign is esteemed and cannot be challenged. I bear witness that there is no god but God, alone without partners, and you are His messenger. Rule over what you’ve been entrusted, for you are esteemed and trustworthy in our eyes.”
Author’s comment: There are numerous narrations on this subject, most of which are not directly related to the interpretation of the verses. Therefore, we have refrained from citing them all.
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Sulaymān: ‘Sufyān said: “I asked Abū ʿAbd Allah: ‘Is it permissible for a man to praise himself?’ He responded, ‘Yes, if he is compelled to. Haven’t you heard the statement of Joseph: “Put me in charge of the country’s granaries. I am indeed fastidious and well-informed” () And the statement of the righteous servant, “I am a trustworthy well-wisher for you”?’”
Author’s comment: It appears that the ‘righteous servant’ referred to is the prophet Hūd, as he said to his people, ‘I communicate to you the messages of my Lord and I am a trustworthy well-wisher for you’ ().
- In ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā, al-Ṣadūq narrates via his chain from al-ʿAyyāshī, who narrated from Muḥammad b. Naṣr, from al-Ḥasan b. Mūsā, who said: ‘Our associates narrated from al-Riḍā that a man said to him, “May God reform you! How did you come into the situation you find yourself with al-Maʾmūn?” This seemed to be a criticism directed at him. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā responded, “Which is superior: a prophet (nabī) or a successor (waṣī)?” The man said, “Of course, a prophet.” Al-Riḍā then asked, “Which is superior: a Muslim or an idolater?” The man replied, “Of course, a Muslim.”
Al-Riḍā said, “The ruler of Egypt was an idolater, and Joseph was a prophet. Al-Maʾmūn is a Muslim, and I am a successor. Joseph asked the ruler of Egypt to put him in charge, saying, “Appoint me as an agent over the treasuries of the land; indeed, I am trustworthy and knowledgeable.” Meanwhile, al-Maʾmūn forced me into my current position.” Al-Ridha commented on the phrase “fastidious and well-informed,” explaining it means: “I protect whatever is in my hands, and I know every language.”
Author’s comment: His statement, “Appoint me as an agent over the treasuries of the land; indeed, I am trustworthy and knowledgeable.” paraphrases the meaning of the verse. Al-ʿAyyāshī reported this in his Tafsīr. The latter part of the narration is also reported by al-Ṣadūq in his Maʿānī al-akhbār, and also from Faḍl b. Abī Qurra, citing Imām al-Ṣādiq.
See Genesis 41:1–8 ↩︎