29. Ibn Is-h aq and others have said that the man who purchased Yusuf was known as Qitfir (Heb. Pothiphar), childless and probably a eunuch, Minister of finance under the king Rayyan of the `Amalique (Amalekites) - Ibn Jarir. Majid quotes, “‘Potiphar literally means eunuch as well as ‘court-official’, the most important offices having been in the Ancient Orient in the hands of royal slaves who were often eunuchs’ (Ebi. c. 3813).”

It has been pointed out by socme scholars however, that in Hieroglyphics, the ancient Egyptian system of pictorial writing, the word Poti-pher meant, the favored one of God, which sounds closer to the Qur’anic Al-`Aziz (Au.).

30. Although anyone has as good a chance as another for being correct, the several names of the ‘Aziz’s wife as reported are Zulaykha, Zalikha and Rahil (Rachael) - [Au.]

Sayyid adds, “The fact that the `Aziz wished to adopt him as a son leads us to believe that his marriage had past its peak and he had lost all hopes of getting a son through his wife. There is another indication in the Qur’an that his woman was at least above thirty of age, and in turn indicating that their fruitless marriage was pretty old. It is in the words of the Egyptian ladies who said, “‘Aziz’s wife seeks to seduce her page” (verse 30),” where the word “fata” (translated by us as page: Au.), could be in the sense of “boy”, meaning, an older woman seeks to seduce a lad.

31. Majid comments and quotes, “The officer and his wife were childless. Assuming that the husband was an eunuch, the need for adoption was obvious. `Cases are on record, in both ancient and modern times, of eunuchs being married’ (DB. IV, p. 23).”

32. Discourses include dreams (Ibn Jarir).

33. That is, although for all practical purposes Yusuf was in slavery, but the situation he was in was very conducive to the role he was being readied to play as a Prophet and an administrator. Belonging to a shepherd family, having never witnessed an organized state, and, consequently, completely unaware of the rules and principles of administration of a ministry, he needed to be positioned in a highly placed minister’s palace managing all his affairs, including finance, perhaps in close co-ordination with the state’s treasury, affording him an exceptional environment to develop his potent abilities. However, he could not have, from that position, become a vizier: being a foreigner. That required his moral and spiritual superiority to be proven whose passage lay through the prison, entry into which was facilitated by the intrigues of the `Aziz’s household. What human could have designed such a complicated course and assured success? Note Allah’s words in the verse under discussion, “Allah is the Prevailer in His affairs but most people know not” (Au.).

34. The form of the verb employed in “raawadat” implies repeated entreaties (Au.).

35. According to a report in Bukhari, Ibn `Abbas said that the original “hayta luck” has come into Arabic usage from the Hawrani language (Ibn Kathir).

36. Suddi, Mujahid and Ibn Nujayh have said that by saying “my lord,” Yusuf alluded to the `Aziz (Ibn Jarir). Most commentators of the past have treated the word in this sense. Such titles were allowed in olden times, but stand disallowed now, in the religion of Islamic strict monotheism. The Prophet has said, “Let no slave address his master as ‘my lord’” (Shafi`).

Although the possibility exists that Yusuf meant Allah when he said “rabbi,” but the usage as expressed in the translation and backed by the opinion of the Salaf, is not unusual in the Qur’an. In this very chapter it has used the word “rabbika” (your lord) in verse 42 alluding to the king, as also in verse 50.

37. The rendering follows Qurtubi’s explanation who demonstrates that the two “hamma” of the original have been used in different senses. The introduction of the article “qad” preceding the “hamma” of Aziz’s wife and its absence before that of Yusuf, makes for the difference which we have tried to reflect in the translation. Razi, Alusi and Shabbir have also pointed out the difference between the two “hamma(s)”.

Imam Ahmad has said that of “hamm” there are two kinds: (i) hamm of khatarat (passing thoughts) and (ii) hamm of israr (firm idea). Yusuf’s hamm was of the khatarat type, which he withdrew, and so was rewarded for a good act, and not questionable thereof, whereas that of the woman was of the israr type (Al-Mustadrak `ala fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qasim, p. 127).

38. The translation herewith follows the common understanding. Ibn Jarir traces dozens of narrations coming down from Ibn `Abbas that Yusuf, after having removed his clothes, was actually on the verge of committing the act - (so far allowed by Allah in order to demonstrate to him his place as a human being) - when, at the final moments Allah showed him some sign, or a kind of warning, he desisted. (However, there is no hadith to this effect).

And, although Ibn Jarir rules out any other interpretation, Ibn Kathir treats it as unworthy of consideration. He appears to believe that it was only a passing thought on the part of Yusuf and no more (similar to a fasting man’s thought of food and drink without any intention to break the fast: Alusi).

Shawkani departs from his usual habit of relying on narrations from the Salaf, and explains the text as meaning that Yusuf had almost made up his mind when he was shown a sign from his Lord after which he refused to budge from his mental position of refusal.

Zamakhshari comes down heavily on the classical interpretation, pointing that the traditional interpretation does not match with Allah’s words who said about Yusuf, “He was one of our chosen slaves.” He explains further, (in the words of Asad) that “the moral significance of ‘virtue’ consists in one’s inner victory over a wrongful desire, and not in the absence of such a desire.” Imam Razi is with Zamakhshari.

The scene of the episode, as constructed here also does not allow for room to believe that Yusuf would have committed what is alleged in the reports. The fact that he had his clothes on when the master encountered the two at the door discredits the report, which needs to be subjected to a thorough authenticity-check before any further discussion (Au.).

As regards the sign that Yusuf saw, some say he saw his father’s image - Ya`qub - biting his fingers, while others say he heard his voice chiding him.

There are several other opinions but none backed by a hadith (Au.).

Commenting upon the “kashf” of Yusuf, consisting in he seeing his father Ya`qub, Sufi Ashraf Ali Thanwi warns of the untrustworthiness of kashf, and also, that it is not the miracle of the person appearing in a kashf on occasions of report. In this case, if the story is true, Ya`qub (asws) had no knowledge of himself appearing before Yusuf at the moment the thought passed through his mind, and seeing him, he dismissed the thought. It may be noted that Ya`qub had no idea until then that Yusuf was in Egypt. So, it was Allah’s doing, that, without any information to Ya`qub, Yusuf was shown his image. In this connection, Thanwi points out (in Ashraf al-Tafasir) that he could recall that Mawlana Muhammad Ya`qub (an Indian Sufi and scholar) reported that once when he was in a certain problematic situation, he heard Haji (Imdadullah Muhajir Makki) Sahib’s voice telling him that he should attempt the affair in a particular way. He later remarked, “But I was sure that it was not the voice of Haji Imdadullah, because he definitely had no knowledge of his situation.” Similarly, someone mentioned to Sayyid Ahmad Barelawi that when he had lost his way in the forest, it was he (Ahmad Barelawi) who showed him the way. But Sayyid Ahmad strongly refused that it was he. He said, “I never knew that you were in a forest on that day. It seems Allah sent someone in my figure, to show you the way.” These events demonstrate, says Thanwi after quoting them, that Allah uses the images of his servants whenever He wishes, without those servants knowing anything about it.”

39. Visualizing the scene should not tax the mind. Nonetheless, Yusuf Ali offers help: “With his master’s wife in her mad passion, the situation became intolerable, and Joseph made for the door. She ran after him to detain him. She tugged at his garment to detain him. As he was retreating, she could only catch hold of the back of his shirt, and in the struggle she tore it. He was determined to open the door and leave the place, as it was useless to argue with her in her mad passion. When the door was opened, it so happened, that the `Aziz was not far off. We need not assume that he was spying, or had any suspicion either of his wife or Joseph. In his narrow limited way he was a just man. We can imagine his wife’s consternation. One guilt leads to another. She had to resort to a lie, not only to justify herself but also to have her revenge on the man who had scorned her love. Slighted love (of the physical kind) made her ferocious, and she lost all sense of right and wrong.”

40. Although several scholars of the past were of the opinion that it was an infant who testified, with a hadith also coming down to that effect, (but which Albani declared weak), another opinion that has come from Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Muj ahid, Sa`id b. Jubayr, Suddi and others, as in Ibn Jarir, is that it was a grown up man, a member of the household who had made the suggestion (Au.).

Sufi Thanwi is reported in Ashraf al-Tafasir that, going by this ayah (no. 27), Ibn Taymiyyah believed that a person could be punished on the basis of circumstantial evidences. But Thanwi disagreed with two other verses of the Qur’an: (i) “Do not indulge in what you have no knowledge of “ (17: 36) and, (ii) “So, when they did not bring the witnesses, then it is they indeed who are liars in the sight of Allah” (24: 13).

41. The Western world does not seem to have been very kind on women. The following from Majid can be offered in evidence. He writes: “Notice that this is not the dictum of Islam, but an observation of Potiphar - a view that has found favour with many non-Muslim savants and writers. ‘Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength, but on cunning; that is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie.’ (Schopenhauer, Essays, p. 66). See also P.III, n. 178. Compare the following Buddhistic aphorism: ‘Inscrutable as the way of a fish in water is, the nature of women, those thieves of many devices, with whom truth is hard to find.’ (ERE. V. p. 271) Compare also the observations of modern Western writers: ‘Everyone is acquainted with instances from life or from history of women whose quick and cunning ruses have saved lover or husband or child... It is inevitable, and results from the constitution of women, acting in the conditions under which they are generally placed.’ (Havelock Ellis, Man and Woman, p. 196). ‘... from folklore and myth, from national proverbs and traditions, and from the text-books of the oldest religions, therefore, we learn that woman is two-faced, or false, or treacherous, or disloyal... (Ludovici, The Woman, p. 304) ‘Women’s tendency to ruse and deception is a constant, positive and life-promoting instinct.’ (P. 307, n.) ‘Finally, among the great thinkers of Europe who have held the view that women are indifferent to truth, and incapable of rectitude, I would further mention Rousseau, Diderot, La Bruyere, and that great genius Kant.’ (P. 320 n.) Another notable observer, Mr. Ingleby Oddit, London Coroner for twenty-seven years, only so recently as December 1939 summed up his age-long experience in regard to the veracity of women in the following words: “I have come to the conclusion that most women are simply born liars and ca help themselves. I have seen women stand up in front of men and give the most detailed and precise information, every word of which has been a lie.’ (The Sunday Express, 17th Dec. 1939).”

A little above, Majid also quotes: “‘Lombroso and Ferrero actually regard deception as being “physiological” in women. They ascribe it to her weakness ... to her periodical functional disturbance .. they advance the testimony of such acute psychologists as Flaubert, Balzac, Zola, Schopenhauer, Weininger, Moliere, to support their contention that in woman lying is instinctive. We might add Shakespeare, Luther, Byron, Nietzsche, La Bruyere, and many others to the list.’ (Ludovici, Woman A Vindication, p. 281).”

We might once again emphasize as we have done earlier in this work, (ref., Al-Baqarah, note 607), that the above are entirely the opinions of Western scholars and writers, who seem to hold a unanimous opinion about women’s tendency to lie. There is nothing in the Qur’an or Sunnah, however, to support these views. In fact, the Qur’an explicitly (24: 23), and the Sunnah by implication, confirm the natural simplicity of Muslim women. As regards the hadith about they getting the better of males with the help of their guile, that could be true with reference to their sexual prowess and clever ways of achieving their objectives, about which there can be no two opinions (Au.).

42. That is, seek forgiveness from Yusuf for the moral failure (Ibn Zayd - Ibn Jarir), “the implication being,” adds Asad, “that the husband was prepared to forgive and forget.”

43. Perhaps the `Aziz had few alternatives to hushing down the whole issue (Au.).