Tafsir of Yusuf 12:26

[He said]—an inception and an answer to what might be asked: What did Yusuf, upon him be peace, say at that moment? It is said: He stated, {"She is the one who sought to seduce me from my self"}, meaning: She demanded of me to comply with her, not that I sought any evil with her as she has claimed. He, upon him be peace, only said this to exonerate himself from the accusation and to repel harm from himself, not to scandalize her.

The use of the third-person pronoun (she/her) instead of the second-person (you) or a demonstrative noun reflects good manners, while also signaling his aversion toward her. This is what they have said. Regarding this pronoun and its likes, there is discourse; Ibn Hisham mentions in some of his marginalia regarding Ibn Malik’s statement in his Alfiyyah: "As for what is for the third-person or the present..." and so on, it is to be examined in light of instances like "She is the one who sought to seduce me." "She" is a pronoun by consensus, yet it is not the standard case for someone who is present; rather, it is for the absent. The same applies to "O my father, hire him." This occurs in the attached pronoun and that in the detached. The same applies to the speech of someone addressing a person concerning another who is present with him, saying: "I told him: Fear Allah, and I commanded him to do good." It is sometimes said that the pronoun for them is lowered to the rank of the absent, and likewise in the reverse: something reaches you about an absent person, and you say: "Woe to you, so-and-so, do you do such-and-such?" lowering him to the rank of the present. Thus, it is said: The limit derived from what is mentioned pertains only to the pronoun in consideration of its placement.

Siraj al-Bulqini stated in his treatise titled Nashr al-'Abeer li-Tayy al-Dameer: "The pronoun [used in place of] the third-person pronoun is either made explicit or [its meaning] is exceptioned by the presence of its referent, either sensibly or conceptually. The sensible is like His saying, the Almighty: 'She is the one who sought to seduce me' and 'O my father, hire him,' as Ibn Malik mentioned." Our teacher Abu Hayyan challenged this, arguing that it is not as [Ibn Malik] illustrated, because these two pronouns refer back to what preceded them. The pronoun in "She is the one who sought to seduce me" refers back to "the family" in her statement: "What is the recompense of one who intended evil for your family?" And because he alluded to her [the woman herself] through that, and did not say "for me" instead of "for your family," he—upon him be peace—alluded to her with the third-person pronoun. Thus he said, "She is the one who sought to seduce me," and did not address her with "You sought to seduce me," nor did he point to her with "This one sought to seduce me." All of this is by way of refinement in speech and modesty in address, which is unfitting for prophets—upon them be peace—to abandon. Thus, he brought forth the name in the form of a third-person pronoun out of courtesy toward the Aziz (the ruler) and out of shyness before him. The pronoun in "hire him" refers back to Musa, so its explainer is explicit in its wording. It is as if Ibn Malik imagined this to be a place for a demonstrative because the possessor of the pronoun was present before the addressee, so he believed that the explainer is dispensed with by the presence of its referent sensibly, so the pronoun ran in the manner of a demonstrative noun. The investigation is what we have mentioned—this is his statement.

In my view, what Ibn Malik said is more sound than what the Sheikh said. This is because if two people have a dispute before a judge, the plaintiff says to the judge: "I have such-and-such against this one." The defendant then says: "He knows that he has no right over me." The pronoun in "He" is due to the presence of its referent sensibly, not for the statement: "I have," as is readily understood. Furthermore, what is raised against what [the Sheikh] mentioned regarding the pronoun in "hire him" is that Musa, upon him be peace, had no previous mention when he was present with the daughter of Shu'ayb, upon him be peace, and she said: "O my father, hire him." Her intent with the pronoun was the man present whose great strength and trustworthiness had become apparent to her. Furthermore, whoever disputes with his wife and says to the people present from her family or others: "She is divorced," his wife becomes divorced due to the existence of what Ibn Malik established, and it does not flow according to what the Sheikh established, as is not hidden. In summary, the interpretation he mentioned for the two verses, even if conceded in those two, hardly flows for others. So understand this.

{"And a witness from her family bore witness"}—the majority went to the view that he was her cousin and that he was an infant in the cradle, whom Allah, the Almighty, caused to speak of the innocence of [Yusuf], upon him be peace. It has been reported from him, upon the Almighty be peace, that four spoke in the cradle while they were young: the son of the hair-dresser of Pharaoh’s daughter, the witness of Yusuf, upon him be peace, the companion of Jurayj, and 'Isa son of Maryam, upon them be peace. Al-Tayyibi challenged this by saying: It is refuted by the implication of exclusivity in the Sahihayn from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "None spoke in the cradle except three: 'Isa son of Maryam, the companion of Jurayj, and an infant who was nursing from his mother..." al-Jalal al-Suyuti refuted him, saying: "This is from him according to his usual habit of not being informed of the paths of the hadiths. The aforementioned hadith is authentic, extracted by Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, who authenticated it from the hadith of Ibn Abbas. Al-Hakim also narrated it from the hadith of Abu Hurairah and said it is authentic according to the conditions of the two Sheikhs." In the hadith of the Sahihayn referred to just now, there is an addition to the four: the infant who was nursing from his mother, so they became five, and they are even more than that. In the Sahih, the infant spoke in the story of the People of the Trench. I have gathered those who spoke in the cradle and they reached eleven, and I composed them, saying: "Spoken in the cradle were the Prophet Muhammad, Yahya, 'Isa, the Friend [Ibrahim], Maryam, the clearer of Jurayj, then the witness of Yusuf, the child of the People of the Trench (narrated by Muslim), and the child who passed by the nation who are said to commit adultery, and the hair-dresser in the time of Pharaoh's child, and in the time of the blessed Hadi it is concluded." In this, it is [clear] that he refutes the attacking of the hadith mentioned, as [Tayyibi] imagined. He only meant that there is a contradiction between the hadith indicating [the child of the nursing incident] and others that requires reconciliation. In al-Kashf, after mentioning the hadith of the four and what was refuted [against it] from the aforementioned Tayyibi, it states that al-Zamakhshari reported a fifth in Surat al-Buruj. If this is also established, then the way is to make "in the cradle" a restriction and confirmation for it being in the beginnings of infancy, whereas in this [other] narration, it is taken in the absolute sense—meaning whether in the beginnings or shortly thereafter, such that his speech is of the miraculous. It is not hidden that this is a far-fetched reconciliation.

It is also said: He was her cousin who was with her husband by the door, and he was a man with a beard. This does not contradict the statement of Qatadah: that he was a wise man from her family, possessing judgment, whom the King would take counsel with and consult. It is permissible that he was some member of her family and was with them in the house without them realizing it, so he saw what took place between them, and Allah angered him on behalf of Yusuf, so he spoke the truth. From Mujahid, it is said that the witness is the torn shirt, which is of no substance, as is not hidden. Allah, the Almighty, made the witness "from her family"—it is said—so it would be more indicative of his innocence, upon him be peace, more negating of the accusation, and more binding upon her. This is specified [for the case] where the witness was not the infant whom Allah caused to speak—He who causes all things to speak. As for if it was that [infant], then his mention as being "from her family" is to state the reality, for the testimony of an infant is a decisive proof, and there is no difference in it between relatives and others. It is challenged by the fact that the testimony of a relative is absolutely stronger—that is something in which there should be no doubt. He was named a "witness" because he performed his performance in that Yusuf’s statement was proven by his words, and her statement was invalidated. It is said: He was named such because he pointed to the evidence, which is the tearing of the shirt. Mujahid, in what Ibn Jarir extracted from him, interpreted the "testimony" as a "ruling," meaning: and a ruler from her family ruled.

{"If his shirt is torn from the front"}—meaning from in front of Yusuf, upon him be peace, or from the front of the shirt. "If" (In) is conditional, "is torn" (kana... qudda) is the conditional verb. His saying, the Almighty: {"then she has told the truth"} is the response to the condition, which is in the estimation of "has" (qad), otherwise the fa would not enter into such a structure. From Ibn Kharuf, such a case is based on an elided subject and the sentence is the response to the condition, not the past tense alone. In al-Kashshaf, the conditional "if" here is like your saying: "If you have done good to me, you have done good to me before," to someone who boasts to you of his kindness, for it is in the sense of: "If you boast to me, I boast to you." Likewise here, the intent is that it be known that his shirt was torn and the like, otherwise the [argument] that it is for the future and "was" (kana) contradicts it. It is said: This is based on what some have gone to, that "was" is strong in its indication of [past] time, so the conditional particle does not turn its past tense into the future. Otherwise, every past tense upon which a condition enters turns it into the future without need for interpretation. This is challenged by the fact that there must be an interpretation here, and that the occurrence of knowledge and the like are made the two parts of the conditional, as if it were said: "If it is known or appears to be such, then the truth has appeared." A similar example is cited in the other Sharia-related verse. And it is said: Even if "was" is of the type that the conditional particle turns its past tense into the future like all past verbs, because the meaning is not on suspending truth or falsehood in the future upon the shirt being such-and-such, but rather upon suspending the appearance of one of the two matters—truth and falsehood—upon the occurrence of knowledge that it is such, and that is evident. Is this interpretation a matter of estimation or something else? There is a dispute. What the speech of some of the precise scholars points to is that in such cases, knowledge of a thing is placed in the position of its future because of the correlation between them, as it was said: "What thing is hidden?" And it was said: "That which does not occur." So understand this. Then, the object of truth is what her speech indicated, that Yusuf intended evil, and it is the object of falsehood attributed to her later. Both, just as they relate to the proposition contained in the speech in consideration of its explicit wording, relate to the proposition it contains in consideration of what it entails. It is as if it were said: "If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth" in her claim that Yusuf intended evil for her, {"and he is of the liars"} in his claim that she sought to seduce him from his self.