Yusuf (Joseph): (24) And she desired him, and he desired her...

Know that this verse is one of the important matters that requires careful investigation. In this verse, there are several issues:

Issue 1: Did peace be upon him (Joseph) commit a sin or not?

There are two opinions on this matter:

The First Opinion: That Joseph (peace be upon him) intended the indecent act (fahisha).

Al-Wahidi, in his book Al-Basiṭ, states that the reliable commentators, whose knowledge is trusted and to whom reference is made in narration, held that Joseph also truly intended this woman, sat with her in the manner a man sits with a woman. When he saw the proof from his Lord, all desire left him.

Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him), citing his chain of narration from Ali (peace be upon him), said: "He desired her, and she desired him." His desire for her was that he intended to untie his belt. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "He untied his sash and sat with her in the posture of a betrayer." From him also is the narration that she lay down for him, and he sat between her legs, removing his clothes.

Al-Wahidi then elaborated with many useless words on this topic, without citing any verse as proof or any sound Hadith to rely upon for validating this view. After deeply considering those fruitless words, it is narrated that when Joseph (peace be upon him) said: {That he may know that I did not betray him in [his] absence} (Yusuf: 52), Gabriel (peace be upon him) said to him: "Not even when you intended it, O Joseph?" At that, Joseph said: {And I do not absolve myself} (Yusuf: 53). Then he (Al-Wahidi) said: "Those who affirm this action for Joseph were more knowledgeable of the rights of the Prophets (peace be upon them) and their high status with Allah than those who deny it from them." This is the summary of his speech on this matter.

The Second Opinion: That Joseph (peace be upon him) was innocent of the wrongful act and the forbidden intention. This is the view of the sound scholars among the commentators and theologians, and it is our position. We are guided by it.

Know that the proofs indicating the necessity of the infallibility ('iṣmah) of the Prophets (peace be upon them) are numerous. We have detailed them in Surah Al-Baqarah concerning the story of Adam (peace be upon him), so we will not repeat them here, except that we will add some points here:

The First Argument: Adultery is one of the gravest sins (munkarāt al-kabā'ir). Betrayal concerning a trust is also among the reprehensible sins. Furthermore, responding to great favor with a grievous offense that leads to complete disgrace and severe shame is also among reprehensible sins. Also, if a boy is raised in someone's care, his sustenance provided, and his honor protected from his youth until his manhood, for this boy to commit the ugliest form of offense against that great benefactor is among the reprehensible actions.

If this is established, we say: The sin attributed to Joseph (peace be upon him) possessed all these four characteristics. Such a sin, if attributed to the most wicked of God's creation, the furthest from all good, they would shrink from it. How then can it be permissible to ascribe it to the Messenger (peace be upon him), supported by overwhelming and clear miracles?

Moreover, the Almighty said concerning this incident: {Thus, that We might turn away from him evil and immorality} (Yusuf: 24). This indicates that the essence of evil (sū’) and immorality (faḥshā’) was turned away from him. There is no doubt that the sin attributed to him is the greatest type of evil and the most indecent form of immorality. How fitting is it for the Lord of the Worlds to testify in the very context of this incident that he was innocent of evil, while he had committed the greatest type of evil and immorality?

Furthermore, the verse indicates our position from another angle. We say: Suppose this verse does not negate this sin from him. Nevertheless, it undoubtedly conveys great praise and the highest commendation. It is not fitting for the wisdom of Allah Almighty to recount a person committing a great sin, and then immediately praise and commend him with the greatest praise right after recounting that great sin. This is like if a Sultan recounts the ugliest sins and most indecent deeds of one of his servants, and then immediately mentions him with great praise and high commendation—this is highly objectionable. So it is here, and Allah knows best.

The Third Argument: Whenever a slip or error occurred from the Prophets (peace be upon them), they greatly magnified it and followed it up by showing remorse, repentance, and humility. If Joseph (peace be upon him) had committed this heinous major sin here, it would be impossible for him not to follow it with repentance and seeking forgiveness. If he had repented, Allah would have narrated it from him, as in other instances. Since none of that is mentioned, we know that no sin or transgression occurred from him in this incident.

The Fourth Argument: Everyone connected to that incident testified to Joseph's (peace be upon him) innocence of sin.

Know that those connected to this incident are Joseph (peace be upon him), that woman, her husband, the women, the witnesses, and the Lord of the Worlds. The Lord of the Worlds testified to his innocence of sin, and Iblis (Satan) also admitted his innocence of transgression. If this is the case, then a Muslim should have no hesitation on this matter.

As for Joseph (peace be upon him) claiming innocence of sin, it is in his statement: {She is the one who sought to seduce me from myself} (Yusuf: 26), and his statement: {My Lord, prison is more beloved to me than that to which they invite me} (Yusuf: 33).

As for the woman's admission, it is in her statement to the women: {And indeed he sought to seduce me from myself, but he resisted} (Yusuf: 32). Also, she said: {What is the matter with you when you sought to seduce Joseph concerning himself? They said, "God forbid!"} (Yusuf: 51).

As for the husband's admission, it is in his statement: {Indeed, it is from your cunning; indeed, your cunning is great. * O Joseph, ignore this. And [you, O woman], ask forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were of the sinful} (Yusuf: 28-29).

As for the witnesses, it is in the Almighty's statement: {And a witness from her household testified, "If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth, and he is of the truthful. * But if his shirt is torn from the back, then she has lied, and he is of the truthful"} (Yusuf: 26-27). (Note: The text quotes verse 26 and then jumps to the implication of the next verse).

As for Allah's testimony, it is in His statement: {Thus, that We might turn away from him evil and immorality. Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants} (Yusuf: 24). Allah testified to his purity four times in this verse:

1. His statement: {that We might turn away from him evil} (li-naṣrifa ‘anhu as-sū’), where the lām (for) emphasizes and exaggerates.
2. His statement: {and immorality} (wa al-faḥshā’), meaning: thus We turned away from him evil and immorality.
3. His statement: {Indeed, he was of Our servants} (innahu min ‘ibādinā), especially since Allah also said: {And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth humbly, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace"} (Al-Furqan: 63).
4. His statement: {the chosen ones} (al-mukhlṣīn). There are two readings: as an active participle (one who chooses/purifies himself) and as a passive participle (one who is chosen/purified by God). The active participle indicates he was performing acts of obedience and drawing near [to God] with the quality of sincerity. The passive participle indicates that Allah chose him for Himself and selected him for His presence. In either case, it is among the most indicative phrases of his being purified from what they attributed to him.

As for Iblis's admission of his purity, it is in his statement: {By Your might, I will surely mislead them all, * Except Your chosen servants among them} (Ṣād: 82-83). He admitted that he cannot mislead the chosen ones, and Joseph is among the chosen ones because of the Almighty's statement: {Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants}. This was an admission from Iblis that he did not mislead him nor lead him astray from the path of guidance.

Given this, we say: These ignorant people who attribute this disgrace to Joseph (peace be upon him)—if they follow the religion of Allah, they must accept Allah's testimony to his purity. If they follow Iblis and his soldiers, they must accept Iblis's testimony to his purity. Perhaps they will say, "In the beginning, we were students of Iblis until we surpassed him in foolishness," as Al-Khwarizmi said:

I was a man from Iblis's army, then time elevated me Until Iblis became one of my soldiers. If he died before me, I would perfect after him Ways of wickedness that he could not perfect after me.

Thus, these proofs establish that Joseph (peace be upon him) is innocent of what these ignorant people claim.

If you understand this principle, we say that the discussion on the apparent meaning of this verse falls into two stages:

The proof for this is the Almighty's statement: {And she desired him, and he desired her, had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord}. The response to law lā (had it not been) here is placed earlier. It is like saying: "You would have been among the doomed had someone not saved you."

Al-Zajjaj criticized this interpretation on two grounds:

1. The precedence of the response to law lā is unusual and not found in eloquent speech.
2. Law lā is typically answered with the particle lām (then). If the matter were as they claim, it would have been: "And she desired him, and he desired her, then had he not seen the proof..."

Others besides Al-Zajjaj mentioned a third objection: If the intention (hamm) did not occur, then the statement {had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord} would have no purpose.

Know that what Al-Zajjaj mentioned is far-fetched. We concede that delaying the response to law lā is good and permissible, but its permissibility does not prevent the precedence of this response. Moreover, Sibawayh is reported to have said that they bring forward what is most important. The matter he was concerned with was the most important, so the issue of permissibility of precedence and delay is tied to the intensity of the concern. Furthermore, specifying certain words as forbidden is not fitting for wisdom. Also, answering law lā with lām is permissible, but this does not mean that answering without lām is impermissible. We cite another verse that proves Al-Zajjaj's view wrong in these two objections: {And she almost yielded to him, and he would have yielded to her, had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord} (Al-Qaṣaṣ: 10).

As for the third objection—that if the intention did not occur, the statement {had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord} would be pointless—we say: Rather, it contains the greatest benefit. It clarifies that his refraining from intending it was not due to a lack of desire for women or inability to act upon it, but rather because the signs of God's religion prevented him from that act.

Then we say: What indicates that the response to law lā is what we mentioned is that law lā requires a response, and what is mentioned here serves as a response. Therefore, we must rule that it is the response. One should not say that we imply a response and omit it, as omitting the response is common in the Qur'an. We say: There is no dispute that it is common in the Qur'an, but the principle is that it should not be omitted. Furthermore, omitting the response is only appropriate if the text contains something indicating its specific nature. Here, even if the response were omitted, there is nothing in the text to indicate which specific response is intended, as there are various possibilities for implication, and implying one is no more preferable than implying another. Thus, the difference is clear. And Allah knows best.

We say that {and he desired her} cannot be taken literally, because attaching intention (hamm) to the essence of the woman is impossible, as intention is a type of purpose (qaṣd), and purpose does not relate to permanent essences. Therefore, it must be that a specific implied verb is intended, and that verb is not mentioned. They claimed that the implied verb is committing the indecent act with her. We imply something else that differs from what they mentioned, in several ways:

The First Way: It means that peace be upon him intended to repel her and prevent her from that ugly act. This is because intention is purpose, and in the case of everyone, it must be interpreted according to the purpose befitting them. The purpose befitting the woman is seeking pleasure, enjoyment, and gratification. The purpose befitting the Prophet sent to mankind is to deter the sinner from his sin and enjoin good and forbid evil. It is said: Hamamtu bi-fulān (I intended [to do something to] so-and-so), meaning, I intended to strike him or repel him.

If they say: Under this interpretation, the statement {had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord} loses its purpose.

We reply: Rather, it contains the greatest benefits, in two ways:

1. Allah Almighty informed Joseph (peace be upon him) that if he intended to repel her, she might have killed him, or she would have ordered those present to kill him. So Allah informed him that refraining from striking her was better for preserving his life.
2. If he had occupied himself with repelling her, she might have clung to him, causing his garment to tear from the front. It was in Allah's knowledge that the witness would testify that if his shirt was torn from the front, Joseph was the betrayer, but if it was torn from the back, the woman was the betrayer. So Allah informed him of this matter, and consequently, he did not busy himself with repelling her but fled from her, so that the witness's testimony became proof of his innocence of sin.

The Second Way: Interpreting hamm as desire (shahwah). This usage is common in the vernacular language. A speaker says about something he does not desire: "This does not concern me (mā yahummunī)," and about something he desires: "This is the most important thing to me (ahamm al-ashyā’ ilayya)." So Allah named Joseph's desire (shahwah) as hamm. The meaning of the verse is: "She desired him, and he desired her, but had he not seen the proof of his Lord, that act would have come into existence."

The Third Way: Interpreting hamm as the inner discourse of the soul (ḥadīth an-nafs). This is because when a woman of supreme beauty and grace adorns herself for a young, strong man, there must inevitably be struggles between natural disposition/desire and the soul/intellect. Sometimes the call of nature and desire prevails, and sometimes the call of intellect and wisdom prevails. Hamm here refers to the attractions of nature, while seeing the proof refers to the attractions of servitude (‘ubūdiyyah). An example is a righteous, fasting man on a scorching summer day who sees a cold drink with ice; his nature urges him to drink it, but his religion and guidance prevent him. This does not indicate the occurrence of sin; rather, the stronger this state, the more complete is the strength in fulfilling the requirements of servitude.

Thus, by the grace of Allah, the correctness of the position we have taken has become clear. All that Al-Wahidi has left is mere stubbornness and listing the names of commentators. If he had presented any evidence in support of his position, we would have answered it, but he did nothing more than narrate from some commentators.

Know that some Ḥashawiyyah narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "Abraham (peace be upon him) only told three lies." I said: "The first is that we do not accept such reports." He became stern, expressing disapproval, saying: "If we do not accept it, we must accuse the narrators of lying." I said to him: "O ignorant one, if we accept it, we must accuse Abraham (peace be upon him) of lying. If we reject it, we must accuse the narrators of lying. And the preservation of Abraham (peace be upon him) from lying is certainly preferable to preserving a group of unknown people from lying."

If you know this principle, we say to Al-Wahidi: Who guarantees us that those who transmitted this saying from these commentators were truthful or liars? And Allah knows best.

Issue 2: What is meant by that proof (burhān)?

The sound scholars who affirm infallibility have interpreted seeing the proof in several ways:

1. It is the proof of Allah Almighty regarding the prohibition of adultery and the knowledge of the punishment awaiting the adulterer.
2. Allah Almighty has purified the souls of the Prophets (peace be upon them) from blameworthy characteristics. Rather, we say that Allah has purified the souls of those connected to Him, as He says: {Allah only intends to remove from you the impurity, O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [complete] purification} (Al-Aḥzāb: 33). Thus, seeing the proof means the attainment of those characteristics and the remembrance of the states that deter them from committing reprehensible acts.
3. He saw written on the ceiling of the house: {And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way} (Al-Isrā’: 32).
4. It is the Prophethood itself, which prevents the commission of indecencies. The proof is that the Prophets (peace be upon them) were sent to prevent people from ugly and disgraceful acts. If they forbade people from them, yet committed the ugliest types and most indecent forms themselves, they would fall under the Almighty's saying: {O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is the hatred of Allah that you say what you do not do} (Aṣ-Ṣaff: 2-3). Also, Allah chastised the Jews by saying: {Do you order righteousness in the people and forget yourselves?} (Al-Baqarah: 44). What is a defect for the Jews cannot be attributed to the Messenger supported by miracles.

As for those who attributed the sin to Joseph (peace be upon him), they mentioned several things regarding the interpretation of that proof:

1. They said: The woman stood before an idol adorned with pearls and rubies in the corner of the house and covered it with a cloth. Joseph asked: "Why did you do that?" She replied: "I am ashamed before this god of mine to be seen committing a sin." Joseph said: "Are you ashamed before an idol that cannot think or hear, yet I am not ashamed before my Lord who oversees every soul for what it has earned? By Allah, I will never do that!" They said: This is the proof.
2. They narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that Jacob appeared to him, biting his fingers and saying: "Do you commit the deeds of the wicked while you are recorded among the line of Prophets?" So he felt shame from him. This is also the view of 'Ikrimah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Qatadah, Al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Muqātil, and Ibn Sīrīn. Sa'id ibn Jubayr said: Jacob appeared to him and struck his chest, and his desire came out through his fingertips.
3. They said he heard a voice in the air saying: "O son of Jacob, do not be like a bird that has feathers, but when it commits adultery, its feathers fall off."
4. They narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that Joseph (peace be upon him) was not deterred by seeing the image of Jacob until Gabriel (peace be upon him) kicked him, and all desire left him, and nothing remained of the desire except that it exited.

When Al-Wahidi narrated these reports, he became stubborn and said: "This which we mentioned is the saying of the Imams of Tafsir who took interpretation from those who witnessed the revelation." We say to him: You only present us with this stubbornness that has no benefit. Where is the evidence and proof in this? Furthermore, the convergence of proofs on one matter is permissible. He (peace be upon him) was already refraining from adultery based on the fundamental proofs, and when these deterrents were added, his restraint strengthened and his caution became complete.

It is strange that they narrated that a lizard entered the chamber of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and remained there without doing anything, and they said: Gabriel (peace be upon him) refrained from entering upon him for forty days. Yet here, they claim that Joseph (peace be upon him), while engaged in the indecent act, was visited by Gabriel (peace be upon him). The strangest part is that they claim he was not deterred from that act by the presence of Gabriel (peace be upon him). If the most wicked and infidel person were engaged in indecency, and a righteous-looking man entered upon him, he would feel shame and leave that act. Here, he saw Jacob (peace be upon him) biting his fingers and paid no attention. Then Gabriel (peace be upon him), despite his high status, entered upon him, yet he was not deterred from that ugly act by his presence until Gabriel (peace be upon him) had to kick him on the back! We ask Allah to protect us from error in religion and failure in seeking certainty. This is the sincere discourse on this issue, and Allah knows best.

Issue 3: The difference between As-Sū’ (Evil) and Al-Faḥshā’ (Immorality).

There are several views on this:

1. As-Sū’ is a physical transgression (janāyat al-yad), and Al-Faḥshā’ is adultery.
2. As-Sū’ refers to the preliminaries of adultery, such as kissing and looking with desire, and Al-Faḥshā’ is the adultery itself.

As for His statement: {Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants} (al-mukhlṣīn):

• If the lām is opened (with a fatḥah), it means those who purified their religion for Allah Almighty.
• If the lām is closed (with a kasrah), it means those whom Allah purified from evils.
• It is also possible that it means he is from the progeny of Abraham (peace be upon him), concerning whom Allah said: {Indeed, We purified them with a pure quality} (Ṣād: 46).

Issue 4: Recitation of Al-Mukhlṣīn.

Ibn Kathir, Ibn 'Amir, and Abu 'Amr recited {Al-Mukhlṣīn} (with a kasrah on the lām) throughout the entire Qur'an, while the rest recited it with a fatḥah on the lām.

{And they both raced to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back, and they found her husband at the door. She said, "What is the recompense of one who intended evil for your wife except that he be imprisoned or a painful punishment?" * He said, "It was she who sought to seduce me from myself." And a witness from her household testified, "If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth, and he is of the truthful. * But if his shirt is torn from the back, then she has lied, and he is of the liars." * And when he saw his shirt torn from the back, he said, "Indeed, it is from your cunning; indeed, your cunning is great. * O Joseph, ignore this. And [you, O woman], ask forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were of the sinful." (Yusuf: 25-29)