وَ قَالَ And said الْمَلِكُ the king ائْتُوْنِیْ Bring him to me بِهٖ ۚ Bring him to me فَلَمَّا But when جَآءَهُ came to him الرَّسُوْلُ the messenger قَالَ he said ارْجِعْ Return اِلٰی to رَبِّكَ your lord فَسْـَٔلْهُ and ask him مَا what بَالُ (is the) case النِّسْوَةِ (of) the women الّٰتِیْ who قَطَّعْنَ cut اَیْدِیَهُنَّ ؕ their hands اِنَّ Indeed رَبِّیْ my Lord بِكَیْدِهِنَّ of their plot عَلِیْمٌ (is) All-Knower قَالَ He said مَا What خَطْبُكُنَّ (was) your affair اِذْ when رَاوَدْتُّنَّ you sought to seduce یُوْسُفَ Yusuf عَنْ from نَّفْسِهٖ ؕ himself قُلْنَ They said حَاشَ Allah forbid لِلّٰهِ Allah forbid مَا Not عَلِمْنَا we know عَلَیْهِ about him مِنْ any سُوْٓءٍ ؕ evil قَالَتِ Said امْرَاَتُ (the) wife الْعَزِیْزِ (of) Aziz الْـٰٔنَ Now حَصْحَصَ (is) manifest الْحَقُّ ؗ the truth اَنَا I رَاوَدْتُّهٗ sought to seduce him عَنْ from نَّفْسِهٖ himself وَ اِنَّهٗ and indeed, he لَمِنَ (is) surely of الصّٰدِقِیْنَ the truthful ذٰلِكَ That لِیَعْلَمَ he may know اَنِّیْ that I لَمْ not اَخُنْهُ [I] betray him بِالْغَیْبِ in secret وَ اَنَّ and that اللّٰهَ Allah لَا (does) not یَهْدِیْ guide كَیْدَ (the) plan الْخَآىِٕنِیْنَ (of) the betrayers 12. Yusuf Page 242 وَ مَاۤ And not اُبَرِّئُ I absolve نَفْسِیْ ۚ myself اِنَّ Indeed النَّفْسَ the soul لَاَمَّارَةٌۢ (is) a certain enjoiner بِالسُّوْٓءِ of evil اِلَّا unless مَا [that] رَحِمَ bestows Mercy رَبِّیْ ؕ my Lord اِنَّ Indeed رَبِّیْ my Lord غَفُوْرٌ (is) Oft-Forgiving رَّحِیْمٌ Most Merciful
(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."
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.