81. Ibn `Abbas has remarked that had Yusuf left the prison then and there, `Aziz would have always harbored doubts about his integrity (Ibn Jarir).

And the Prophet has said (in a hadith of the Sahihayn: Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir),

وَلَوْ لَبِثْتُ فِي السِّجْنِ طُولَ مَا لَبِثَ يُوسُفُ لَأَجَبْتُ الدَّاعِيَ

“Had I been in prison for as long as Yusuf was, I would have instantly responded” (Ibn Jarir).

The above has been taken from Bukhari.

It may also be noticed that Yusuf - out of respect for his old master - avoided using the name of his wife. In Mawdudi’s words, “... while asking that the king might inquire about the incident, Joseph refers only to the ladies present in the banquet to the exclusion of the chief’s wife. This is further proof of his dignified character. For although the chief’s wife had attempted to harm him, her husband had been very kind to Joseph. He acted, therefore, with unusual sensitivity and circumspection lest his name and honour were subjected to any slur.”

82. “Did you find him inclined to evil?” the king seemed to ask (Alusi).

83. The beauty of the textual word “hass-hasa” may not be missed. It has its root in “hissa” which is for a part (of a whole). What it implies is, as the wife of ‘Aziz put it, the story has many parts that are ambiguous and, consequently, each part bears its own doubt, that everyone who knows only that part bears in consequence. Now, at this moment, all the parts have become clear and the doubt that every carrier of a part of the whole bore, has been cleared and the truth behind the episode has become evident (Manar, reworded).

84. In the opinion of Mujahid, Qat adah and Ibn Is-haq, these are words of Yusuf (Ibn Jarir).

This is also the opinion of Mujahid, Sa`id b. Jubayr, ‘Ikrimah, Ibn Abi Hudhayl, Dahhak, Hasan and Suddi (Ibn Kathir).

Yusuf said these words when he finally arrived at the king’s place (Qurtubi).

Mawdudi writes: “It is crystal clear that such a statement (as above) is altogether out of tune with the tenor and character of the chief’s wife. The content of the statement is sufficient to prove that it was made by Joseph rather than by the chief’s wife. Clearly, the virtues of righteousness, magnanimity, modesty and God-consciousness which underlie the statement are not at all in harmony with the character of the woman who had earlier tried to seduce Joseph...”

Alusi and others have written that this is a typical Qur’anic example of “ijaz.” It dropped the details about when exactly Yusuf said these sentences: either in the prison itself, or later, when released and seated in the court.

Nevertheless, despite noting the opinion of the Salaf, Ibn Kathir prefers the opinion of his mentor Ibn Taymiyyah who said that these are the words of the wife of ‘Aziz! Shawkani however states that the great majority of commentators have thought that these words fit Yusuf’s tongue.

Faryabi, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu al-Sheikh and Bayhaqi (in his Sho`ab al-Iman) have said that when Yusuf said “This, so that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence; and that Allah does not guide the guile of the betrayers (to success),” Jibril asked him in a whisper, “Not even when you desired after her?” So Yusuf added the words, “Yet I do not absolve myself (altogether)” - Shawkani.

The above report is from Ibn `Abbas, Sa`id b. Jubayr, Abu Hudhayl, Hasan and Abu Saleh. According to another report it was ‘Aziz’s wife who whispered, “not even when you ...?” Another opinion is that the king whispered these words to him. Yet another report is that Yusuf himself thought of that situation and added these words. This last report is attributed to Ibn `Abbas also (Ibn Jarir); but none is supported by a hadith (Au.).

85. (Yusuf thought it necessary to clear the doubt, so that it would not hang on him for ever). Hence we find that when a two men passed by our Prophet while he was speaking to a woman at night, he called them back saying,

تَعَالَيَا إِنَّهَا صَفِيَّةُ بِنْتُ حُيَيٍّ قَالَا سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ يَجْرِي مِنْ الْإِنْسَانِ مَجْرَى الدَّمِ وَإِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَنْ يُلْقِيَ فِي أَنْفُسِكُمَا شَيْئًا

“Come, this is my wife Safyah bint Huyayy.” They said, “Glory to Allah, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Shaytan runs through the body of a man like blood. I feared that he will cast something in your hearts.”

Zamakhshari too used to observe this precaution. He had lost one foot (which went cold in a cold season and had to be amputated). He had obtained a certificate from the court to that effect. He used to carry the certificate to places he traveled and displayed it so that people would not imagine that it was chopped off by the law-keepers for a crime he had committed (Alusi, under verse 50); despite the fact that it was the right foot that had been amputated while it is the left foot which is amputated for a crime (Au.).

86. Referring to the textual term “ammaaratun-bis-su’” (the inciting base self), Imam Razi raises the question about what it is, and then elaborates that although the “nafs” (soul, spirit, base self) is one entity, it has many facets of existence. When it is inclined toward the spiritual world and its realities, then it becomes the “nafs al-mutma'innah”, (the comforted soul, the soul in peace, or the satisfied soul). When it is inclined toward carnal desires and base emotions, then it becomes the “ammaaratun-bis-su’”, (inciting to evil). Further, the form may be noted. It is the intensive or hyperbolic form. That is, when base desires overtake it, then the “nafs” is all-persistent, all-powerful in its incitement.

Thanwi adds that a third kind of “nafs” is “nafs al-lawwaamah” (the reproachful soul) which is in between the two and is the name given to it when it is in the state of reproach and repentance.

87. Yusuf Ali comments: “Now that Joseph’s innocence, wisdom, truth, and trustworthiness had been proved, and confirmed by the splendid tribute of the courtier’s wife, and Joseph’s own manly bearing before the king, the king was much impressed and took him specially to serve about his own person as his trusty and confidential Wazir. If, as is probable, the ‘Aziz had by this time died (for he is never mentioned again) Joseph succeeded to his office, and he is addressed as ‘Aziz in verse 78 below.”

88. Obviously many discussions held in several sessions would have preceded this decision by the king (Au.).

What in truth was Yusuf’s position? Yusuf Ali writes: “He was given plenary powers and the fullest confidence that a king could give to his most trusted and best-proved Wazir or Prime Minister, with access to his Person, like a Grand Chamberlain.”

Majid adds: “According to ancient tradition, ‘the king who made Joseph his prime minister and committed unto his hands the entire administration of Egypt was Apepia’ (Rawlinson, Ancient Egypt, p. 145). ‘Two of the Al-Amarna tablets show that a Semite held a position in Egypt quite analogous to that attributed to Joseph ... The Pharaoh by whom Joseph was made the practical ruler of Egypt was one of the Hykas kings’ (JE. VII, p. 252) ... (a little further down) ... ‘He was appointed superintendent of the royal granaries with viceregal powers’ (VJE, p. 326).”

89. Imam Razi points out that the “hafiz” of the original could also be understood as someone who keeps the law, that is, follows it in its true spirit.

90. Many commentators have pointed out that Yusuf was not boasting of himself, which is prohibited in Islam, rather, making a statement of fact.

People who manage finance usually volunteer their service when there is a lot of money to handle. The credit for its management goes to the manager, whose short-comings and failures are quickly forgiven and forgotten, because there is plenty. But Yusuf proved his worth by volunteering to manage the finance at a time when, according to his own prediction, there was going to be a severe famine for seven long years, crossing the boundaries of the kingdom and hitting across towns and villages from the Western flank of Egypt to the Eastern flank of Syria (Based on Thanwi and Sayyid Qutb with addition).

Imam Razi raises the legitimacy question of Yusuf seeking control of the granaries when our own Prophet has disapproved for his followers that they should seek governmental positions. He told ‘Abdul Rahman b. Samurah:

لا تسأل الإمارة

“Do not ask for leadership (meaning, a role in the government).”

Iman Razi then explains that when one sees that he is the right person for a job, which, if not handled properly, could lead to large scale suffering, then one might seek it.

In Qatadah’s opinion Yusuf’s example shows that it is allowed for a Muslim to be in the employment of a fasiq (someone of corrupt faith and practice) especially when one sees that the best way of preventing a tyrant from committing aggression is to be on his side. It was especially true in Yusuf’s case whose prime duty as a Prophet was to improve the people’s lot. Many of the Salaf also accepted such employments (Zamakhshari).

Obviously, it is conditional to not doing wrong to anyone, such as, ordering someone’s execution for no fault of his, or confiscating property wrongfully, or breaking the rules of the Shari`ah (Au.).

Al-Mawardi has said that two opinions prevailed regarding employment with a fasiq. First, it is allowed so long as wrongs are not committed, but second, that such employment is disallowed in all cases. Yusuf did it for special reasons and seemed to have been given power to rule as he wished, at least in his own department. In certain areas, of course, employment should be allowable, such as, collection of Zakah and its distribution (Qurtubi). When a person feels that if he did not take up a job of essential nature, then somebody else, unfit for it, might take it up, then it is advisable to accept it (Shafi`).

A contemporary commentator wrote: “... it is evident that the present statement made by Joseph (i.e., I am a good keeper, knowledgeable: Au.) was not at all in the nature of an ambitious job-hunter applying to the king for a government post at the first available opportunity. This statement was in fact the last in a series of efforts made by Joseph to push open the door to the desired transformation of the entire system. Thus, this marked the culmination of Joseph’s rise to moral authority which had proceeded apace for a period of ten to twelve years.

“The time was thus quite ripe and all that Joseph had to do was to push gently, and the door to the desired transformation would be flung open. For Joseph had come a long way.”

Further down he writes, “Now, what was the nature and extent of the power that Joseph sought and which was entrusted to him? Those who are not fully familiar with Joseph’s true story tend to interpret the expression ‘treasurer of the land’ quite literally. They tend to assume that Joseph was perhaps appointed as the treasury or revenue officer, or minister of finance, or minister of food.

“However, in the light of the Qur’anic, Biblical and Talmudic accounts of the story, there is no disagreement on the point that Joseph was handed total control (in Roman terminology, dictator) of the Egyptian empire. He enjoyed absolute authority over the affairs of Egypt. According to the Qur’an, when Jacob reached Egypt, Joseph was seated on his throne so that he ‘raised his parents to the throne beside himself’ (verse 100). This clearly indicates the extent of authority. The Qur’an also recounts Joseph’s remark to the effect that: ‘My Lord! You have bestowed dominion on me’ (verse 101). Likewise, the officials describe Joseph’s cup as the king’s cup (see verse 72). Referring to Joseph’s rule over Egypt, the Qur’an describes it, ‘Thus did We establish Joseph in the land and he had the authority to settle wherever he pleased’ (verse 56).”

Comments from the contemporary Mufassir end here, to which we might add: Many scholars objected to the use of the word “dictator” for a Prophet. Technically too it is perhaps incorrect to assume that - even if he was not one - Yusuf commanded the power of a dictator. The Qur’an tells us that following the law of the land, Yusuf could not have taken his brother into Egypt. So, after all, it was the king’s law that prevailed and not that of Yusuf! The author was under pressure to explain Yusuf’s employment with a non-Islamic government (something he had once declared unlawful), and so was eager to prove that Yusuf established an Islamic system in Egypt, and, therefore, he enjoyed absolute rule. That could be, but, what kind of Islamic system it was, if the people were not Muslims? The Qur’an tells us by implication that the Egyptians had not become Muslims. Several centuries later, a believer, pleading Musa’s case, said to the Pharaoh and his courtiers, (40: 34), “And Yusuf came to you earlier with clear signs, but you ceased not to doubt what he had brought, until, when he died at length, you said, ‘Allah will never raise a Messenger after him.’”

The author argues that Yusuf was implementing the Shari`ah gradually and so it took him time to alter the laws. But he also states that Yusuf was all-powerful. If he was all-powerful, surely a law that did not allow foreigners to settle in the kingdom could not have come in the way of him retaining his brother Bin Yamin: if not by law, then, as an exceptional case. All he would have needed was to drop a word in passing to the king. In fact, law or no law, he could have retained him, if he had the powers of a dictator.

There are other difficulties in assuming that Yusuf was all-powerful in Egypt. It is inconceivable that the king should have invested all powers with an inexperienced and untried Yusuf, brushing aside his ever-intriguing long time courtiers and experienced viziers, seeing that the ruling class is not mighty fond of moralistic men occupying a position between them. A partial answer lies in Mujahid’s statement that the king had become a Muslim. That is, having embraced Islam, perhaps secretly, he had appointed Yusuf with special powers, for a special jurisdiction created for him, not disturbing others of his ministers, who perhaps enjoyed their own freedom under their separate jurisdictions. As to the difficulty in explaining the king’s imposition of his own law in place of the Divine law, Thanwi answered that perhaps he had embraced Islam but fearing the general populace, kept it secret, and therefore was unable to declare the centuries old law of the land, null and void. This simple approach saves the need for a lot of contrived explanations (Au.).

Sayyid Qutb follows a different line of thought. After quoting some of the prophetic reports concerning the undesirability of seeking leadership role, and, vying for it, as Yusuf did when he said, “I am a good keeper, knowledgeable,” Sayyid comments that these rules are not universal to be incorporated into every Revelation of every age. Possibly, they were not in force at the time of Yusuf. Impatient with those who indulge in legalities of minor importance, Sayyid launches a criticism against the “fuqahaa’” for cold-blooded discussion of issues of least importance as if the religion of Islam is nothing but a set of do’s and don’t do’s devoid of the warmth of a revolutionary movement out to change life and civilization. He writes, “We do not wish to attempt explanations to the objections raised, although these objections do not seem to be entirely groundless. But we believe that the primary issues are different and more serious: in their nature and implications, with aspects of grave importance that must be looked into for a proper understanding of the way in which arguments and evidences are presented, and in order to restore meaning to the ‘principles of jurisprudence,’ the rules that issue forth from that quarter, their true spirit, and give it back the warmth that should go with it - a warmth which has cooled with time and has solidified in the minds of the jurists and in the system that governs it, inherited from the days of slumber and inaction.

“The fact may not be lost sight of that the Islamic jurisprudence did not develop in a vacuum, nor does it exist today in a vacuum. The Islamic jurisprudence that was developed by the Muslim society, faced in its time real situations of life. Also, the Islamic jurisprudence did not develop the Muslim society. It was the Muslim society that developed the Islamic jurisprudence: as it passed during its own development process through real situations of life dealing with real problems, and not imaginary ones. These historic realities should be an accessory to understanding the spirit of Islamic jurisprudence and the dynamics contained in the rules of its law.

“Those who lift the rulings from the books of law prepared by the past generation of jurists, without understanding the above facts, and without reference to the situations in which those rules were formulated, the realities that they faced at that time, and the conditions in which they lived, those who do that, try to impose the rules now as if they were developed in a vacuum, and, as if, today also they could be applied to a situation of vacuum. Such men are not “fuqahaa’” for, they understand nothing of the nature of this religion.

“The dynamic jurisprudence of the past differs greatly from the ‘paper-work jurisprudence’ of today. This fact must not be lost sight of by today’s jurists who have to, per force, draw from and depend on the rules and principles labored out in the past.

“Dynamic jurisprudence considers the realities of the situation in which the principles were once laid down, and believes that those realities were part and parcel of the rules that were then developed, such realities as cannot be separated from them without destroying their very fabric.”

He writes further down, “Those who ruminate over the ‘Islamic System’ today, and consider its forms, or those who write on these topics, wander into a trackless region. That is because they try to apply the Islamic rules with their juristic details, worked out long ago, to a vacuum. They try to implement them in the present day Jahiliyy society, as it exists. But today’s Jahiliyy society can be considered a vacuum so far as application of Islamic laws are concerned. None of those rules can be applied to it today with any success. Its construction is in complete contradiction with a true Islamic society. The present day society will have to come out from its present day environs and enter into that of Islam wholly, and be ready to face the pressures and persecutions that every Islamic society has to face during its formation, offer sacrifices, undergo tribulations and demonstrate patience and perseverance - from the point of start to the point of culmination - to benefit from these Islamic laws.”

91. Some commentators have thought that the ‘Aziz (reported to be a eunuch) being dead by then, Yusuf and Zulaykha got married, but this is not supported by any hadith (Alusi, Shabbir).

92. Sufyan b. ‘Uyayna has said that a believer is rewarded for his good deeds both in this world as well as in the next, in contrast to the unbeliever who is recompensed for his good deeds in this world alone (Kashshaf).