Tafsir of Yusuf 12:24

(And she certainly desired him), that is, desired to associate with him, since "desiring" (hamm), whether used in the sense of intention and volition absolutely, or in the sense of resolute intent and firm resolve—which is the meaning intended here, for it does not relate to objects—signifies that she intended the association and resolved upon it with a firm resolve from which no deterrent could turn her, after she had initiated the preliminaries and done what she did of the things that God Almighty has recounted. Perhaps she even proceeded there to other actions, such as extending her hand toward him, intending to embrace him, and other things that compelled him, peace be upon him, to flee toward the door. The emphasis serves to repel what might be imagined—the possibility of her desisting from what she was upon—through the deterrents in his statement, peace be upon him.

(And he would have desired her): that is, he inclined toward associating with her by the requirement of human nature, like the inclination of a fasting person on a hot day toward cold water. Such a thing barely falls under legal responsibility, not that he, peace be upon him, intended her with a voluntary intent, for that is a blameworthy matter which the verses proclaim he, peace be upon him, was not characterized by. It was expressed as "desiring" (hamm) merely because it occurred in the company of her "desire" in the mention, by way of correspondence (mushakala), not because it was similar to it, as has been said. Its distinctness from her desire has been pointed out, as more than one has said: since they were not joined in a single collocation by saying, "And they both desired association," or "Each of them desired the other," and the first was emphasized while the second was not.

(Had he not seen the proof of his Lord): that is, His dazzling argument demonstrating the complete ugliness of adultery and the evil of its path. Seeing it means the perfection of his conviction regarding it and his witnessing of it—a witnessing reaching the rank of ‘ayn al-yaqin (the certainty of direct vision). It is said: the meaning of seeing the proof is the attainment of ethics and the remembrance of states that deter one from approaching the forbidden. It is also said: it refers to seeing "And do not approach adultery; indeed, it is an immorality and is evil as a way" (17:32) written on the ceiling. The response to "had he not" (lawla) is omitted, as indicated by the speech; that is: "Had he not witnessed the proof, he would have acted according to the requirement of his natural inclination; however, since he witnessed it, he continued in his state of upholding the proof." This is what some investigators have held regarding the meaning of the verse; it is an opinion affirming a hamm (desire) for him, peace be upon him, yet it is a desire that is not blameworthy.

In Al-Bahr, it is stated that no such desire for her occurred from him, peace be upon him, at all; rather, it is negated by the presence of the vision of the proof, just as you say, "You would have committed the sin, had God not protected you." We do not say that the response to lawla precedes it, although there is no proof for the impossibility of that, even though the explicit tools of conditional sentences that are operative are differed upon regarding the permissibility of their responses preceding them. The Kufans held the permissibility of it, and among the prominent Basrans are Abu Zayd al-Ansari and Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad. Rather, we say: the response to lawla is omitted because what precedes it indicates it, just as the majority of Basrans say regarding the Arabs' statement, "You are an oppressor if you do such and such," they estimate it as, "If you do [it], then you are an oppressor." Their statement "You are an oppressor" does not indicate the existence of oppression; rather, it is a positive statement upon the condition of the existence of the act. Likewise, here, the estimation is, "Had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have desired her," so the desire would exist upon the condition of the absence of seeing the proof, but he witnessed the proof, so the desire was negated. The "proof" refers to the knowledge he possessed, peace be upon him, indicating the prohibition of what she desired and that it is impossible to desire it, let alone fall into it. No attention is paid to the statement of al-Zajjaj: "Even if the speech were 'he desired her,' it would be far-fetched; how much more so with the omission of the lam?" He assumed that the Almighty's saying "he desired her" is the response to lawla, and we did not say that; we only said it is an indicator of the response. Furthermore, on the assumption that it were the response itself, it is said that the lam is not necessary; rather, it is permissible for the response to lawla, if it is in the past tense, to come with or without the lam. So it is said, "Had it not been for Zayd, I would have honored you," and "Had it not been for Zayd, I honored you." Whoever held that the mentioned [phrase] is the response itself has not gone far-fetched.

Likewise, no attention is to be paid to the statement of Ibn ‘Atiyya: that the statement of one who said that the speech concluded at the Almighty's saying, "And she certainly desired him," and that the response to lawla is in His, the Exalted's, saying, "And he desired her," and that the meaning is, "Had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have desired her," implying Yusuf, peace be upon him, did not desire her—is rejected by the tongue of the Arabs and the statements of the predecessors. Because there is research regarding the phrase "it is rejected by the tongue of the Arabs," those who held the permissibility have adduced evidence of its existence in the tongue of the Arabs. The Exalted said, "She nearly disclosed it had We not fastened her heart" (28:10). His statement, "She nearly disclosed," etc., is either the response according to what that speaker held, or it is an indicator of the response according to what we have established. As for the statements of the predecessors, what we believe is that nothing of them has been authentically attributed to them, for they are contradictory statements, some contradicting others, while being disparaging to some of the sinners of the Muslims, let alone those definitively granted protection from error (‘isma). Moreover, what is narrated is not supported by the speech of the Arabs because it entails the response being omitted without an indicator, for they did not estimate, based on that, "he would have desired her," and the speech of the Arabs does not indicate anything except that the omitted part be from the meaning of what precedes the condition, as that is the indicator for it.

Among those who held that a blameworthy desire occurred from him, peace be upon him, is al-Wahidi. He said in the book Al-Basit: "The commentators trusted for their knowledge, to whose transmission one returns, and who took their interpretation from those who witnessed the revelation, said: Yusuf, peace be upon him, also desired this woman a true desire, and sat with her in the position of a man with a woman. So when he saw the proof from his Lord, all desire for her ceased."

Abu Ja’far al-Baqir (may God be pleased with him) narrated through his chain of authority from Ali (may God honor him) that he said: "She coveted him, and he coveted her. His coveting her was that he intended to undo his waistband (tikka)."

From Ibn Abbas: "He undid the waist-band and sat in the position of the circumciser." Also from him: "She spread her legs for him, and he sat between her legs removing his clothes." They narrated various accounts regarding the "proof." Among them is what Abu Nu’aym extracted in Al-Hilya from Ali (may God honor him): "She stood before an idol adorned with pearls and rubies in a corner of the house and covered it with a white cloth between her and it. He, peace be upon him, said, 'What are you doing?' She said, 'I am shy before my god that it should see me in this obscenity.' He said, 'You are shy before an idol that neither eats nor drinks, and I am not shy before my God who is watchful over every soul for what it has earned?' Then he said, 'You shall never attain it from me,' and that is the proof he saw." Among them is what Ibn Jarir and others extracted from Ibn Abbas: "Jacob, peace be upon him, was made to appear to him, so he struck his chest with his hand." Among them is what he extracted from Qatada: "It was mentioned to us that Jacob was made to appear to him, biting his fingers, saying, 'O Yusuf, do you desire the work of the foolish while you are recorded among the prophets?'" Among them is what he extracted from al-Qasim ibn Abi Bazza: "It was called out, 'O son of Jacob, do not be like a bird that has feathers, and when it commits adultery, it sits down having no feathers.' So he did not respond to the call and sat down. He raised his head and saw the face of Jacob biting his finger, so he stood up terrified, out of shyness for his father," and other such accounts.

Imam al-Razi refuted what was mentioned by stating that this sin which they attributed to Yusuf—and far be he from it—is among the ugliest of sins, and if its like were attributed to the most corrupt of God's creation and the farthest from all good, he would be disgusted by it. So how is it permissible to attribute it to this noble saint? Furthermore, God, the Exalted, testified that the essence of evil and the essence of immorality were averted and turned away from him. With this testimony, how can one accept the statement attributing the greatest evil and immorality to him, peace be upon him? Furthermore, if this blameworthy desire had occurred from him, peace be upon him, as they alleged, and the verse contained it, then following that with the Almighty's saying, "Thus [it was] that We might avert from him evil and immorality" (12:24) would be outside of wisdom. For if we concede that it does not indicate the negation of sin, it at least indicates great praise. It is known that it does not befit God's wisdom to narrate his initiation of a great sin and then praise and extol him with the greatest praises and accolades. Furthermore, when great people, like prophets, commit a slip or lapse, they deem it great and follow it by expressing remorse, repentance, humility, and disavowal. If Yusuf, peace be upon him, had initiated this forbidden immorality, it would have been impossible for him not to follow it with that. If he had followed it, it would have been narrated. Since it was not, we know that no sin at all occurred from him in this incident. Furthermore, the group connected to this incident has made clear the innocence of Yusuf, peace be upon him, from sin, as is not hidden to anyone who has a heart or listens while he is present. Whoever looks at His, the Exalted's, saying, "Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants" (12:24), sees it as the most explicit witness to his innocence, peace be upon him. Whoever adds to it the statement of Iblis, "I will surely mislead them all, except Your chosen servants among them" (38:82-83), finds Iblis admitting that he did not mislead him and did not divert him from the path of guidance. How could he, when he, peace be upon him, is from God's chosen servants by God's testimony? And He excluded them from the generality of "I will surely mislead them all."

At this, it is said to the ignorant who attributed to Yusuf, peace be upon him, that heinous negligence: if they are among the followers of God, the Exalted, let them accept God's testimony regarding his, peace be upon him, purity; and if they are among the followers of Iblis, let them accept his testimony. Perhaps they will say, "We were at the beginning among his students, until we graduated, and we exceeded him in foolishness," as al-Hariri said: "I was a man from the army of Iblis, until my state ended so that Iblis became from my army. Had he died before me, I would have improved after him methods of corruption which he would not have perfected after me." Whoever examines the arguments deeply and is fair will conclude that there is nothing left in the hands of al-Wahidi and those who agree with him except mere boasting and counting the names of the commentators. He will not find with them any suspicion in their claim that contradicts what the manifest verses have testified to, save for weak narrations.

Al-Tibi (may God the Exalted bestow his mercy upon him) mentioned—after he transmitted what Muhyi al-Sunna related from some of the people of realities that the desire is of two types: a firm desire, which is accompanied by resolve, contract, and consent, like the desire of the wife of ‘Aziz; and a fleeting desire, which is the passing thought and inner conversation without choice or resolve, like the desire of Yusuf, peace be upon him—that this interpretation is what we must follow and take as a path, even if the commentators related what they related. For following the definitive text, the innocence of the protected one from that vice, and attributing the shortcoming to the narrators is worthier of adopting. Furthermore, the masters of transmission, the meticulous ones, did not relate anything elevated (marfu') in their books regarding that, and most of those narrations, rather all of them, are taken from the issues of the People of the Book. Yes, al-Hakim has authenticated some of the narrations upon which he who attributed that heinous thing to him, peace be upon him, relied, but al-Hakim’s authentication is judged as having no weight among those of consideration. In Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim, after mentioning a portion of them, it states that all of that is but myths and falsehoods which ears reject and minds and intellects refute. Woe to whoever chewed them and fabricated them, or heard them and believed them.

Furthermore, the Imam (upon him be mercy), in his interpretation of the noble verse after prohibiting its indication of the desire, mentioned in summary: "We concede that the desire occurred, but we say: it is necessary to imply a specific act that is the object of the desire, since entities are not suitable for it. What they alleged, that it was the commission of immorality with her, is not fixed; rather, we imply something else that differs from what they implied. We say: the meaning is that he desired to repel her from himself and prevent her from that ugliness, because that is what his state, peace be upon him, demands. It has come, 'I desired such-and-such,' meaning I intended him and repelled him. We imply in the first case the association and enjoyment and the like, because that is what is befitting her state."

If they say, "Then there is no benefit in His, the Exalted's, saying, 'Had he not seen the proof of his Lord'?" We say: "Rather, in it are the greatest benefits. Its explanation is from two aspects: First, that He, the Exalted, informed Yusuf that if he had desired to repel her, she would have done with him what would have caused his destruction; thus, in refraining from that was the protection of the self from destruction. Second, that if he had busied himself with repelling her, she might have clung to him, and his garment would have been torn from the front; and it was in God's knowledge that the witness would testify that if his garment was torn from the front, he was the perpetrator, and if it was torn from the back, she was the perpetrator. So He informed him of this meaning; therefore, he did not busy himself with repelling her and fled from her until the testimony became an argument for him regarding his innocence from the sin."

Some of the Sufi masters (may God the Exalted sanctify their secrets) held the estimation of repelling. In Al-Jawahir wa al-Durar by al-Sha’rani: "I asked our shaykh about His, the Exalted's, saying, 'And she certainly desired him, and he desired her.' What is this desire that is kept vague, for people have spoken about it in a way that does not befit the rank of the prophets, peace be upon them?" He said: "I do not know." I said: "The Greatest Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) has mentioned that the absolute tongue indicates the oneness of the meaning, but that is the majority, not the universal. The truth is that she desired him, peace be upon him, to coerce him into what she wanted from him, and he desired her to coerce her into repelling what she wanted from him. So the partnership is in the seeking of coercion from him and her, and the judgment is different. Therefore she said, 'I sought to seduce him from himself' (12:26), and it never came in the sura at all that he sought to seduce her from herself."

The Imam also permitted the interpretation of desire as appetite/lust and mentioned that it is used in common language, for a speaker says regarding that which he does not desire: "This does not concern/bother me," and regarding that which he does desire: "This is the most important of things to me." This is what we pointed out first, that he (upon him be mercy) carried the desire in both places upon that. He said afterward: "So the meaning of the verse is: she desired him, and he desired her, and had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have acted; and it is something for which there is no necessity, as there is no obstacle in attributing the blameworthy desire to her." The manifest view is that "desire" in this sense is metaphorical, as al-Sayyid al-Murtada stated in his Durar, not literal, as the apparent wording of the Imam's speech suggests. Abu Ali al-Jubba'i and others have held this interpretation, and it is narrated from al-Hasan. In sum, one should not rely on what is common in the reports and turn away from what the righteous investigators have held. Beware of desiring to attribute that heinous thing to that presence after God, the Exalted, has unveiled your insight, and you have seen the proof of your Lord without a veil.

(Thus [it was] that We might avert from him evil): it is said: betrayal of the master; (and immorality): adultery, because it is excessive in ugliness. It is said: (evil) is the preliminaries of immorality, such as kissing and looking with desire. It is said: it is the evil matter absolutely, so it includes the mentioned betrayal and others. The kaf (as), as it is said, is in the place of an accusative, and the reference is to the fixation necessary for the vision indicated by His, the Exalted's, saying, "Had he not seen the proof of his Lord"—that is, like that fixation, We fixed him (that We might avert), etc. Ibn ‘Atiyya said: "The kaf is related to an implicit [word], the estimation being: 'Our actions and decrees proceeded thus, that We might avert...'." Abu al-Baqa estimated, "We preserve him thus," and al-Hawfi, "We showed him the proofs thus." Everyone permitted it being in a place of a nominative, so it was said: that is, the matter, or his protection was like that. However, al-Hawfi said: "The accusative is better, for prepositions demand verbs or their meanings." In Al-Bahr, it was chosen that the reference is to the vision understood from "saw" or the opinion understood; the noun of opinion (ra'y) has come as vision (ru'ya), as in his saying: "And the sight of the eyes of the young man [sees] your father giving the abundant [wealth]; so upon you is that." The kaf is in an accusative place by what His, the Exalted's, saying "Had he not seen" indicated, etc.; and it is also related to "that We might avert"—that is, like the vision or opinion, he sees Our proofs, "that We might avert," etc. Others said otherwise. Among that which should not be paid attention to is what was said: that the prepositional phrase is related to "desired," and there is a prefix and suffix in the speech, and its estimation is, "And she certainly desired him, and he desired her, thus, had he not seen the proof of his Lord, We would have averted from him," etc. The indication in the expression in the glorious order, rather than "that We might avert him from evil and immorality," of the rejection of one who attributed to him what was attributed—we seek refuge in God Almighty—is not hidden. Al-A’mash read "that He might avert" with the ya of the third person, and attributing the averting to the pronoun of the Lord, the Exalted.

(Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants): An explanation for what preceded from the substance of the sentence by way of verification. The mukhlisun (chosen ones) are those whom God, the Exalted, chose and selected for His obedience by protecting them from that which is disparaging to it. The manifest is that the intended meaning is the judgment upon him that he is chosen for His, the Exalted's, obedience. It is possible, according to what has been said, that the intended meaning is that he is from the progeny of Abraham, peace be upon him, whom He, the Exalted and Majestic, said about: "Indeed, We had chosen them with a chosen [quality], the remembrance of the home" (38:46). Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr, and Ibn ‘Amir read al-mukhlisin (with a kasra on the lam) wherever it occurs, and they are those who purified their religion for God, the Exalted. The indication in the expression with the nominal sentence of his inclusion in the rank of those servants who were what they were from the beginning—not that this happened to him after he was not—is not hidden to those of understanding. In this, for those with intellects, there is that which severs the excuse of those clinging to the tails of those narrations which God, the Exalted, has not sent down any authority for.