Tafsir of Yusuf 12:51

(He said): This is a resumption [of the narrative] predicated upon the implied question, as if it were said: "What transpired thereafter?" It is said: The King spoke after the messenger reached him with the news and brought [the women] forward: (What was your affair?)—that is, your state. It originates from al-amr al-'azim (a momentous matter) that, by its very magnitude, warrants much discussion and engagement. (when you enticed Yusuf)—meaning, when you sought to seduce him (for his soul), and tempted him to obey his mistress. Did you find in him any inclination toward you? They said: "God forbid!"—purifying him and expressing astonishment at his integrity, peace be upon him, and his chastity. (And we have not known about him any evil)—intensifying the negation of the genus of "evil" through the use of the indefinite noun and the addition of min.

Regarding the analysis by the author of al-Kashshaf concerning the nature of the implicit question in the discourse—that it was about finding any inclination in him—this is because the question was about their relationship with him during the enticement. The starting point is inclination, followed by what ensues from it. Taking this as the basis for the question presumes his total integrity; thus, the King's question is grounded in this, for what follows [the refusal] is impossible unless the inclination is granted. Their answer is consonant with this, as their astonishment at his integrity stems from their astonishment at the power of God Almighty to create someone as chaste as him, making their astonishment a metonymy, which is more eloquent. Furthermore, their absolute negation of knowledge—to the slightest degree of any "evil"—is profound, far beyond merely witnessing an absence of inclination among them.

The view held by Ibn 'Atiyyah—that the women answered with a good response, manifesting their own innocence and granting Yusuf, peace be upon him, partial exoneration—is that when the King confronted them with the fact that they had enticed him, they answered, defending themselves: "God forbid!" This could also apply to him. Their statement, "We have not known," etc., is not a full exoneration but rather an explanation of the story as it unfolded, so that the error is established on their part, stemming from negligence.

[The wife of al-'Aziz said]: She was present at the assembly. It is said that the women turned to her, urging her to confess. Another view is that she feared he would testify against her regarding what she said on the day they cut their hands. So she confessed, saying: (Now has the truth become manifest)—that is, it has appeared and become clear after being hidden. Al-Khalil said this is derived from al-hissah (the portion), meaning the portion of truth has been distinguished from the portion of falsehood; the intent is the separation of one from the other. Al-Zujjaz held this same view.

It is also said to be derived from "shaving the head" (hassa sha'rahu) until the skin is exposed. And it is said to mean the settling of a camel when it drops its chest to be mounted. The meaning in any case is the establishment and fixing of the truth. Al-Raghib and others mention that hassa and hash-hasa are like kaffa and kafkafa, or kab and kabkaba. It has been recited in the passive voice, meaning the truth was settled in its place.

("Now"): This is the name for the present time in its entirety—the time of the action’s inception at the moment of speaking—or a part of the present. As for its construction, it is a noun for the current time. Some grammarians argue it is built upon indeclinability because it contains the meaning of an indication (isharah), while others say it is due to the presence of the definite article al- which acts as a prefix, or that it is built because it is a "frozen" word that does not accept inflection.

(I enticed him for his soul)—not that he enticed me for his soul. She said this after her confession to confirm his integrity, peace be upon him, and likewise her statement: (And he is indeed among the truthful)—that is, in his statement when I falsely accused him: "She enticed me for my soul."

It is said that what drove her to do all this was the necessity of confronting the confession, as denial was of no avail. It is also said that when her love reached its peak, she no longer cared about the tearing of her veil or the exposure of her secret.

In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, it is noted that she did not intend by saying "Now," etc., merely the appearance of what was revealed by the testimony of the women regarding his general integrity, but rather she intended the appearance of what is objectively true and established regarding his integrity in the dispute, and her own betrayal. That is why she said: "I enticed him," etc.

Do you see any level of integrity above this, where adversaries could not help but testify to it in the most complete manner? "The best merit is that which is testified to by the adversaries." Would that those who attributed evil to him—far be it from him—possessed a tenth of a tenth of the fairness shown by those women who testified.