Surah 12. Yusuf

---

Verses [Section]: 1-6[1], 7-20 [2], 21-29 [3], 30-35 [4], 36-42 [5], 43-49 [6], 50-57 [7], 58-68 [8], 69-79 [9], 80-93 [10], 94-104 [11], 105-111 [12]

---

Quran Text of Verse 50-57وَ قَالَAnd saidالْمَلِكُthe kingائْتُوْنِیْBring him to meبِهٖ ۚBring him to meفَلَمَّاBut whenجَآءَهُcame to himالرَّسُوْلُthe messengerقَالَhe saidارْجِعْReturnاِلٰیtoرَبِّكَyour lordفَسْـَٔلْهُand ask himمَاwhatبَالُ(is the) caseالنِّسْوَةِ(of) the womenالّٰتِیْwhoقَطَّعْنَcutاَیْدِیَهُنَّ ؕtheir handsاِنَّIndeedرَبِّیْmy Lordبِكَیْدِهِنَّof their plotعَلِیْمٌ (is) All-Knower قَالَHe saidمَاWhatخَطْبُكُنَّ(was) your affairاِذْwhenرَاوَدْتُّنَّyou sought to seduceیُوْسُفَYusufعَنْfromنَّفْسِهٖ ؕhimselfقُلْنَThey saidحَاشَAllah forbidلِلّٰهِAllah forbidمَاNotعَلِمْنَاwe knowعَلَیْهِabout himمِنْanyسُوْٓءٍ ؕevilقَالَتِSaidامْرَاَتُ(the) wifeالْعَزِیْزِ(of) AzizالْـٰٔنَNowحَصْحَصَ(is) manifestالْحَقُّ ؗthe truthاَنَاIرَاوَدْتُّهٗsought to seduce himعَنْfromنَّفْسِهٖhimselfوَ اِنَّهٗand indeed, heلَمِنَ(is) surely ofالصّٰدِقِیْنَ the truthful ذٰلِكَThatلِیَعْلَمَhe may knowاَنِّیْthat Iلَمْnotاَخُنْهُ[I] betray himبِالْغَیْبِin secretوَ اَنَّand thatاللّٰهَAllahلَا(does) notیَهْدِیْguideكَیْدَ(the) planالْخَآىِٕنِیْنَ (of) the betrayers 12. Yusuf Page 242وَ مَاۤAnd notاُبَرِّئُI absolveنَفْسِیْ ۚmyselfاِنَّIndeedالنَّفْسَthe soulلَاَمَّارَةٌۢ(is) a certain enjoinerبِالسُّوْٓءِof evilاِلَّاunlessمَا[that]رَحِمَbestows Mercyرَبِّیْ ؕmy LordاِنَّIndeedرَبِّیْmy Lordغَفُوْرٌ(is) Oft-Forgivingرَّحِیْمٌ Most Merciful وَ قَالَAnd saidالْمَلِكُthe kingائْتُوْنِیْBring him to meبِهٖۤBring him to meاَسْتَخْلِصْهُI will select himلِنَفْسِیْ ۚfor myselfفَلَمَّاThen whenكَلَّمَهٗhe spoke to himقَالَhe saidاِنَّكَIndeed, youالْیَوْمَ(are) todayلَدَیْنَاwith usمَكِیْنٌfirmly establishedاَمِیْنٌ (and) trusted قَالَHe saidاجْعَلْنِیْAppoint meعَلٰیoverخَزَآىِٕنِ(the) treasuriesالْاَرْضِ ۚ(of) the landاِنِّیْIndeed Iحَفِیْظٌ(will be) a guardianعَلِیْمٌ knowing وَ كَذٰلِكَAnd thusمَكَّنَّاWe establishedلِیُوْسُفَ[to] Yusufفِیinالْاَرْضِ ۚthe landیَتَبَوَّاُto settleمِنْهَاthereinحَیْثُwhere everیَشَآءُ ؕhe willedنُصِیْبُWe bestowبِرَحْمَتِنَاOur Mercyمَنْ(on) whomنَّشَآءُWe willوَ لَاAnd notنُضِیْعُWe let go wasteاَجْرَ(the) rewardالْمُحْسِنِیْنَ (of) the good-doers وَ لَاَجْرُAnd surely (the) rewardالْاٰخِرَةِ(of) the Hereafterخَیْرٌ(is) betterلِّلَّذِیْنَfor those whoاٰمَنُوْاbelieveوَ كَانُوْاand areیَتَّقُوْنَ۠God conscious

---

Translation of Verse 50-57

(12:50) The king said: "Bring this man to me." But when the royal messenger came to Joseph he said:⁴² "Go back to your master and ask him about the case of the women who had cut their hands. Surely my Lord has full knowledge of their guile."⁴³

(12:51) Thereupon the king asked the women:⁴⁴ "What happened when you sought to tempt Joseph?" They said: "Allah forbid! We found no evil in him." The chief's wife said: "Now the truth has come to light. It was I who sought to tempt him. He is indeed truthful."⁴⁵

(12:52) Joseph said:⁴⁶ "I did this so that he [i.e. the chief) may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not allow the design of the treacherous to succeed.

(12:53) I do not seek to acquit myself; for surely one's self prompts one to evil except him to whom my Lord may show mercy. Verily my Lord is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful."

(12:54) The king said: "Bring him to me. I will select him exclusively for my own service." So when Joseph spoke to him the king said: "You are now one of established position, fully-trusted by us."⁴⁷

(12:55) Joseph said: "Place me in charge of the treasures of the land. I am a good keeper and know my task well."

(12:56) Thus did We establish Joseph in the land so that he could settle wherever he pleased.⁴⁸ We bestow favour, out of Our Mercy, on whomsoever We please, and We do not cause the reward of those who do good to go to waste.

(12:57) Surely the reward of the Hereafter is better for those who believe and act in a God-fearing way.⁴⁹

---

Commentary

42. The narration from this point on till the king’s meeting with Joseph constitutes an important part of the Qur’anic account of the story. However, these events go altogether unmentioned in the Bible and the Talmud. According to the Biblical version:

Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon; and when he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came in before Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I have had a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it; and I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.” (Genesis 41: 14-15 — Ed.)

The Talmudic account is even more degrading. According to it, the king ordered that Joseph be brought before him. He commanded his officers to be careful not to frighten the young man lest he may misinterpret the dream. So the king’s servants brought forth Joseph from his dungeon and shaved him, clothed him in a new dress and presented him before the king. The king was seated upon his throne, and the glitter of gold and precious stones which adorned the throne dazzled Joseph’s eyes. Now, there was a seven-step stair to the throne. The custom in Egypt was that a prince or noble who held audience with the king, ascended to the sixth step and addressed the king from there. But when an ordinary private citizen was called into the king’s presence, the king descended to the third step and addressed him from there. In accordance with this custom Joseph stood and saluted the king by bowing. The king descended to the third step and talked to Joseph. (H. Polano, The Talmudic Selections, pp. 87-8.)

This is the Israelite image of a Prophet as great as Joseph. As we shall note, the image is quite unedifying. In sharp contrast to that is the image of Joseph that emerges from the Qur’anic account of the story. One is struck by the grace and dignity characterizing Joseph’s personality, especially the dignified portrayal of his attitude to the suggestion of his release from prison, and the manner of his meeting with the king. People may exercise their common sense and decide which of the two images is more consistent with and closer to one expected of a Prophet.

One more point is of significance. If Joseph was truly as degraded a character as the Talmud would have us believe, it does not make sense that the Egyptian king would have entrusted to him control over his whole dominion. In a civilized country one is elevated to such a high position only if one has established one’s mental and moral standing. Thus, the Qur’anic account seems considerably more plausible and consistent with reason and common sense than the Biblical and Talmudic ones.

43. Joseph pointed out that as far as his Lord - God — was concerned, He fully knew him to be innocent. He stressed, however, that before his release, their lord — the king of Egypt — should also thoroughly ascertain what had occasioned his imprisonment. For Joseph did not want to be released under circumstances that would warrant the continuance of any stigma on his character. Hence, before Joseph was freed, it was necessary to establish beyond doubt that he was absolutely innocent. For it was not Joseph who had committed any offence. The real culprits were the high officials of the state. It is they who had made him unjustly suffer imprisonment, despite the purity of his character. Ironically, he was imprisoned on the grounds of his alleged moral corruption of which their own ladies were guilty.

The way Joseph makes this demand clearly suggests that the Egyptian king knew well about the whole incident which had taken place in the banquet hall of the Egyptian chief’s wife. The incident seems to have been so well known that it was enough to merely allude to it.

Moreover, 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 honor were subjected to any slur.

44. So far as this query is concerned, it is possible that the ladies might have been brought to the palace where they were asked to answer this question.

Another possibility is that the king might have sent some reliable messenger to each of those ladies who might have put this question singly to each of them.

45. It can well be imagined how these pieces of evidence would have revived the incident that had taken place some eight or nine years earlier. It would have once again brought into full prominence the personality of Joseph who had languished in the oblivion of prison for several years. It would also have established the moral authority of Joseph both among the Egyptian élite and the general public. We have already noted that the Bible and the Talmud mention that the king made a public declaration through which he invited all the wise men and magicians of his realm. The men so assembled failed to interpret the king’s dream and the dream was interpreted by Joseph. (See n. 37 above and Genesis 41: 1 ff. — Ed.) This incident would have made Joseph the center of everyone’s attention.

Moreover, when the king summoned Joseph to the court, instead of rushing out of the prison, he sent back the king’s envoy with the request that his case may first be examined so that it be known whether he was guilty or innocent.

It is possible that such an attitude may have created, in the minds of some people, the suspicion that Joseph was perhaps overly ambitious and vain. They would have wondered at his not rushing out of prison as soon as the king had asked him to come out of it. However, people would subsequently have come to know that Joseph had set some preconditions for his release and for meeting the king. This would also have aroused curiosity among the people concerning the result of the inquiry that Joseph had proposed.

Naturally sometime after that the findings of the inquiry would have become known. This would certainly have aroused among the general public deep admiration for Joseph’s righteousness and purity of character. No one could have ignored the fact that those very persons who had once collaborated in having Joseph imprisoned now testified to his moral excellence.

If one remembers the situation obtaining at that time, it is amply clear that the circumstances were propitious for Joseph’s rise to the highest positions of authority. It is, therefore, not surprising that in his meeting with the king Joseph asked him to entrust to him the financial affairs of the kingdom. The readiness with which the king appointed him to this position becomes quite understandable if we consider the moral prestige that Joseph then enjoyed in Egypt. Had his prestige rested merely with the fact that a prisoner had rightly interpreted the king’s dream, Joseph could have expected, at the most, some reward from the king and his release from prison. It is quite unreasonable to assume that the mere ability to interpret dreams would have prompted Joseph to ask the king: ‘Place me in charge of the treasures of the land’ (see verse 55). Nor is it feasible that the king’s recognition of his ability to interpret dreams would have prompted him to place the treasures of Egypt in Joseph’s hands.

46. Probably this remark would have been made by Joseph after he was informed of the findings of the inquiry while he was still in prison. Some Qur’an-commentators, including such outstanding ones as Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Kathir, consider this not to be a remark made by Joseph, but one by the chief’s wife. The argument they put forward in support of this opinion is that it occurs in close sequence to the earlier remark by the chief’s wife. It is also pointed out that there does not occur any word in between that would indicate that the statement of the chief’s wife comes to an end with Jal Ja (‘He is indeed truthful’), and whatever follows thereafter is the Statement of Joseph.

They hold that if there is a two-part statement it would ordinarily be regarded as the statement of one person unless there is some strong reason to hold the contrary view. Such a view could be held, for instance, if there is explicit ascription of a part of the statement to another person. However, if there is no explicit statement to that effect, then there must be some circumstantial reason for believing that one part of the statement was made by one person, and another part by someone else. For it would only then be possible to distinguish between the statements of two persons. Since the above passage provides no such indication, it should be assumed that the whole passage starting from (‘Now the truth has come to light’) right up to the end of verse 53 is that of the chief’s wife.

It is indeed surprising that even a perceptive scholar such as Ibn Taymiyah should have overlooked the most important clue as to who made a statement.

Now, let us consider the first sentence in verse 51, (viz. ‘Now the truth has come to light. It was I who sought to tempt him. He is indeed truthful’). This undoubtedly befits the chief’s wife. That statement, however, is followed by another which has quite a different tenor: ‘I did this so that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not allow the design of the treacherous to succeed. I do not seek to acquit myself; for surely one’s self prompts one’s evil except him to whom my Lord may show mercy. Verily my Lord is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.’ It is crystal clear that such a statement 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, shamelessly saying to him: ‘Come on now’. (See verse 23 above.) We also know the other remarks made by the chief’s wife, such as: ‘On seeing her husband she said: ‘‘What should be the punishment of him who has foul designs on your wife?’’ (verse 25). Not only that but, she had also brazenly declared: ‘If he does not follow my order, he will certainly be imprisoned and humiliated’ (verse 32). But the remark under discussion is of quite a different nature. Such a statement could have been made only by one who had earlier made remarks such as the following: ‘My Lord has provided an honorable abode for me (so how can I do something so evil?’) (verse 23) and ‘My Lord! I prefer imprisonment to what they ask me to do. And if you do not avert from me the guile of these women, I will succumb to their attraction and lapse into ignorance’ (verse 33).

In sum, no sensible person can believe that such a noble and lofty statement was made by the chief’s wife rather than by Joseph unless there is a clear indication to the effect that the chief’s wife had undergone a basic change of manner and character; regrettably there is no indication to that effect.

47. This statement by the king clearly indicates that he considered Joseph worthy of every position of responsibility.

47(a). In light of the clarifications made earlier, it is evident that the present statement by Joseph 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. He had successfully faced a series of tests and trials. Also, things had happened in such a manner that everyone in Egypt, from the king down to the paupers, had become fully acquainted with Joseph. In the course of the tests to which he was put he had fully established that he was perceptibly above his contemporaries in such qualities as trustworthiness, truthfulness, forbearance, self-restraint, magnanimity, intelligence and far-sightedness.

These qualities in his personality were too manifest to be denied by anybody.

Everyone in Egypt bore witness to Joseph’s superb character. Thus Joseph had in fact won the hearts and minds of all including the Egyptian king.

Joseph’s remark that he was a good keeper and knew his task well was not merely a claim. It was an established fact which everyone recognized. The only thing that needed to be done, therefore, was that Joseph should express his readiness to accept the reins of power. Nothing more was required than that Joseph should communicate his readiness to assume power. For the king and his council were already convinced that he was the most appropriate person to administer Egypt. This requirement was completed by the above statement.

No sooner had Joseph expressed his readiness to assume governmental responsibility than the council happily agreed to hand over power to him. All this goes to prove that the situation had become fully ripe for Joseph to seize power and there was no resistance to it from any quarter. (According to the Talmud, the decision to hand over power to Joseph was not made by the king alone. It was rather a unanimous decision by the royal council.) 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 “treasures 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 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 parent to the throne beside himself (verse 100). This clearly indicates the extent of his 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).

As to the Biblical version, it also confirms that Joseph wielded total authority. The Bible mentions that Pharaoh said to Joseph: Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.

Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt. Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zephenath-paneah (Genesis 41: 39-45).

The Talmudic version presents the same picture. It identifies that when Joseph’s brothers returned to their father, they told him the following: The king of Egypt is a mighty potentate; over his people he is supreme: upon his word they go out and upon his word they come in; his word governs, and the voice of his master Pharaoh is not required.

Now let us turn to the other question as to why Joseph sought such power? Did he offer his services to an un-Islamic government, indicating his readiness to administer it in accordance with its un-Islamic laws? Or did he instead intend to shape the cultural, moral and political system according to Islamic principles after assuming power? This question has been best answered. in al-Zamakhshari’s Commentary on the Qur’an, al-Kashshaf, in these words.

When Joseph said: ‘Place me in charge of the treasures of the land’ (verse 55 above), what he really wanted was to make God’s commands operate, to establish the truth, and promote justice. He wanted to achieve the necessary authority for accomplishing the task for which Messengers are raised. He did not demand power out of any love for it or out of love for the world. Since he knew well that no one else could accomplish such a task, he presented himself for that. (See al-Zamakhshari’s comments on verse 55.) As a matter of fact, were this line of questioning to be pursued seriously, it would give rise to another question which is even more important and fundamental. The question is: ‘Was Joseph a Prophet or not?’ If he was a Prophet, then it must be asked: ‘Does the Qur’anic concept of prophethood warrant that a Prophet should offer his services for administering the affairs of an un-Islamic system in accordance with its ungodly laws?’ In fact, this question gives rise to an even more sensitive question: ‘Was Joseph at all a truthful person?’ Now, if we believe that Joseph was truthful, that raises still another question: ‘How can we reconcile Joseph’s truthfulness with the fact that he invited people to something quite different from that?’ For we know that Joseph had launched his Prophetic mission during his imprisonment by putting forth the question: ‘Is it better that there be diverse lords, or Allah, the One, the Irresistible?’ (see verse 39 above). We also know that Joseph had also repeatedly told the people that their ruler was one of those whom they had falsely taken as lords. Moreover, Joseph had also clearly expressed the idea, which was a basic ingredient of his message, that sovereignty belongs only to the One True God (see verse 40 above). Now, were we to accept that as soon as the opportunity offered itself Joseph sought and became a part of the system of government which was led by the Egyptian king and which operated on the premise that sovereignty belongs to the king rather than God, that would be totally inconsistent with all that he had taught.

The fact is that the above interpretation of the verse by scholars during a period of Muslim decline betrays the mentality displayed at some stage of Jewish history and is characterized by the Jews. When the Jews fell prey to degeneration, they found it too difficult to rise to the heights displayed by the noble characters from their ancestry. Instead, they almost brought down their great ancestors, including Prophets, to their own level so that they might rationalize their own degeneracy. They wished to serve un-Islamic regimes.

When they wished to so degrade themselves, they felt embarrassed by the heights to which the exponents of Islam had reached in the past. In order to overcome their embarrassment and to relieve their conscience of any guilt, they brought down a very noble Prophet — Joseph — to the degrading level of serving an un-Islamic system of government.

The Jews did so even though Joseph’s life offers the lesson that even a single righteous believer suffices to bring about an Islamic revolution by dint of his character and wisdom. Joseph’s life also illustrates that a believer’s moral strength — provided he knows how to use it well — can enable him, even without recourse to arms, to conquer a whole country, even an empire.

48. This means that now that Egypt was under his control, he could call every part of it his own. Joseph could go without any let or hindrance to any part of Egypt that he wanted. The above verse, thus, describes the total sway, the all-pervasive authority Joseph held over Egypt.

Early commentators of the Qur’an have understood this verse in this way.

For instance, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, citing Ibn Zayd, has explained this verse to mean that God had put Joseph i in charge of everything in Egypt. Joseph was free to do whatever he wished since the whole land was under his control. Such was his authority that had he wanted, he could even have placed himself above Pharaoh. Al-Tabari also quotes a statement from Mujahid, one of the earliest leading Qur’an-commentators, that the Egyptian king had embraced Islam at the hand of Joseph. (See al-Tabari’s comments on verse 56 — Ed.)

49. This is to warn people from assuming that worldly power and authority constitute the true reward of righteousness. The best reward of righteous conduct — and one which a believer must aim at — is what God will bestow on him in the Next Life.