Tafsir of Yusuf 12:27

The explicit mention in the place of the implied in the second conditional sentence is to indicate independence, while also providing additional clarity. The two sentences, "and he is among the liars" and "and he is among the truthful," are emphasized because from his saying "then she has lied," his truthfulness is known, and from his saying "then she has told the truth," his falsehood is known.

The way in which the tearing of the shirt from behind proves her lie is that she pursued him, pulled his garment, and tore it. As for the indication of it being torn from the front to prove her truthfulness, there are two aspects: First, that if he were pursuing her and she were defending herself against him, his shirt would be torn from the front due to the struggle. Second, that he would rush toward her to catch her, stumble in the length of his shirt, and tear it. This is as stated in al-Kashshaf.

Ibn al-Munayyir critiqued the first aspect, stating that what was posited regarding him pursuing her is equally possible if she were pursuing him. For she would only tear his shirt from the front on the assumption that he, peace be upon him, grabbed her until they were face to face, and then she pushed him away. This is exactly as possible if she were the one pursuing—that she grabbed him until they were face to face and then pulled his shirt toward her from the front. Indeed, this is more apparent, for the cause of tearing a shirt is usually pulling, not pushing. Regarding the second aspect, he noted that the same can be said if she were the pursuer and he were fleeing from her, such that his shirt would tear in his haste to escape.

An answer was provided to his first point, stating it is invalid because such a rapid situation only permits the easiest and quickest action. And upon the assumption of her pursuing him, the tearing from behind is necessary, as it is the easier of the two pulls. Furthermore, we do not assume that the fugitive would turn to push her, or that as soon as he caught her he would pull her—such an assumption has no basis there. Thus, once its indication for this case is established, it is confirmed. As for the second point, the obvious interpretation—assuming she was the pursuer—is that if the fugitive trips, the pursuer clings to him, and if they are both loose after that, the possibility remains.

The learned critic mentioned that the truth in this matter is: if the witness mentioned was a child whom Allah caused to speak in the cradle, as stated in some traditions, then the verse refers to his mere speech; even if he had simply said, "Joseph is truthful and she has lied," it would have sufficed as a proof of his truthfulness, peace be upon him, just as the mere report of Jesus, peace be upon him, in the cradle was a proof of Mary's truthfulness. Therefore, no correlation should be sought between the sign set forth and what was based upon it, because the essential point in proofs is their establishment, not their correlation.

If he were a relative of hers who saw her from where she did not perceive, then by Allah, the Almighty, it was his right to declare what he saw, thereby confirming the truthfulness of Joseph, peace be upon him, and exposing her. But he desired not to be the one to expose her, and he trusted that the tearing of the shirt from behind was only because it was from behind, so he set it up as a sign for his truthfulness and her lie. Then he mentioned the other case—tearing from the front—with the knowledge that it was not torn in that manner, so as to deflect the accusation of testifying with the intent of scandal, and to be fair to both of them. That is why he mentioned the sign for her truthfulness—the falsity of which was known—just as he mentioned the sign for his truthfulness—the existence of which was known—and he presented them both in the same manner. He used the passive voice for "torn" (qudda) in both instances to veil the tearer, and he placed the sign of her truthfulness in the discourse to remove suspicion, trusting that the second sign was the one that occurred, so its delay would not harm him.

In sum, the crux of this witness's testimony is the final sign only, and the correlation in it is verified. As for the first sign, it is not the intended point; rather, it is like an appendage mentioned as a preamble to the second, so no correlation like the previous one is sought for it.

If, however, he were the sage whose opinion the King relied upon, then a correlation must be sought for both parts, as that is the essence of a sage. The most plausible aspect of the correlation is that the tearing of the shirt from behind is evidence of his retreating from her, and the tearing from the front is evidence of his advancing toward her with his face. It is not hidden that such an aspect does not befit the focus of a sage who looks only to certainties. Therefore, it is better to say: it is possible that this sage knew the truth of the situation through one of the possible ways. This is easily explained if we say he was her cousin, so he was certain of the non-existence of the antecedent of the first conditional and the existence of the antecedent of the second. Consequently, it is a necessity to conclude the negation of the consequent of the first and the occurrence of the consequent of the second. Thus, he is reporting her lie and his truthfulness, peace be upon him, yet he delivered his testimony in a manner safe from wounding or criticism, by framing it in the form of a conditional that ostensibly wavered between her benefit and his, whereas in reality, there was no wavering at all, as alluded to.

The scholar Ibn al-Kamal held that the first conditional was not essentially intended, chiding the negligence of Judge al-Baydawi, where he said: "The saying of the Almighty, 'If his shirt is torn from the front,' etc., is of the type of the 'spaciousness' in one part of the speech to establish the other, in the view of the speaker, by treating the possible as the apparent." Because the tearing by pulling in this part is also possible, and whoever neglected this said: "Because it indicates that he intended her and she pushed him away," to the end of al-Baydawi's phrasing.

The summary of this, as determined by some of our masters—may they have mercy upon them—is that the speaker knows with certainty the occurrence of the tear from behind, but he mentioned the tear from the front—even though it is possible that she pulled him toward her, just as it is possible that he pushed her away—treating this possibility as the apparent, as an emphasis and exaggeration for the truth of what the second conditional indicated regarding her lying and his truthfulness. It means: "We judge by her lie and his truthfulness merely by the occurrence of the tear in the front, even if it is possible for reasons other than her pushing him away." But in fact, this tear did not occur at all, and so there is no truth in her claim. This is like being told: "You conveyed such-and-such speech to Zayd today," and you replied: "If I spoke with Zayd today, then [so-and-so]," your saying this is true, even though your speaking with him today generally does not indicate the truth of their claim, due to the possibility that you spoke with him words other than that speech. You said that to verify your non-conveyance of that speech to him.

Furthermore, the shaykh of our masters, the scholar Sibghat Allah al-Haydari—may Allah the Almighty perfume his resting place—mentioned: "The apparent is that the indication of each of the two tears for what they indicate is in terms of their agreement with what their owner claimed. She used to say: 'He sought me, advancing toward me, and I saved myself from him by pushing or fleeing,' while he used to say: 'She is the one who sought me, and I fled from her, and she followed me and grabbed my garment, and tore it.' Thus, the occurrence of the tear in the back indicates his retreating from her, not advancing toward her, and the opposite for the opposite." He then inferred from this that what Ibn al-Kamal mentioned was a neglect of the dispute through mutual argument. This is a subtle orientation of the noble verse, although the claim of the occurrence of the dispute through mutual argument in the style he mentioned—may Allah have mercy on him—is something for which there is no witness, and the burden of proof is on the claimant. Furthermore, it is rationally unlikely that she would say, "He sought me, advancing toward me, so I saved myself from him, and his shirt was torn from the front," and that is what his claim requires, for it is apparent that the indication of each of the two tears, etc., is because the appearance of her lie is then at its fastest.

It is said that the probabilities weakening this witnessing are many: from what you have learned, and what you would know with the slightest attention. Hence, they said that this is a case of considering a sign (amara). Therefore, the verse was used as an argument, as Ibn al-Faras said: "Whoever among the scholars sees the judgment by signs and marks in cases where clear evidence is absent, such as lost property, theft, deposits, the foundations of walls and ceilings, and the like."

The Imam mentioned that the signs of the woman's lie were not reaching the level of certainty, so they added this other sign to them, not in order to rely upon it alone in the judgment against her, but so that it would proceed in the manner of strengtheners and corroborators. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Al-Hasan and Abu 'Amr, in one narration, read "from before (min qabli) and from behind (min dubri)" with the sukūn of the bā' in both, and the tanwīn, which is the dialect of the Hijaz and Asad. Abu Ya'mar, Ibn Abi Ishaq, al-'Utaridi, Abu al-Zinad, and others read it with three dammahs. The first two and al-Jarud, in a narration from them, read with the sukūn of the bā' in both while building them upon the dammah, treating them like qablu and ba'du after deleting the possessor (mudaf ilayhi) while intending its meaning. Abu Hatim critiqued this, saying that this is poor in Arabic, for it only occurs after the building in adverbs (zuruf), and these two words are fully declinable nouns (ismān mutamakkinān), not adverbs. From Ibn Ishaq, it is reported that he read "from before (min qabla)" and "from behind (min dubra)" with the fat'hah. It is said that he treated them as proper nouns for the two directions, thus prohibiting them from being declined (diptote) due to the nature of being a proper name and the feminine gender, considering the direction.