Yusuf (Joseph): (53) And I do not absolve myself...

Issues in the Verse

There are several issues concerning this verse:

The interpretation of this verse depends on who is speaking: Joseph (peace be upon him) or the wife of the 'Aziz (Potentate).

Case A: If this is the speech of Joseph (PBUH)

The literalists (Hāshwiyyah) rely on this interpretation. They claim that after Joseph said, "That is so 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 to remove your trousers." At that point, Joseph replied: "And I do not absolve myself; indeed, the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil, except what my Lord has mercy upon. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful."

• Meaning: "Indeed, the soul enjoins evil (i.e., adultery), except for whom my Lord has mercy (i.e., protected). Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving of the thought I intended, [and] Merciful (i.e., would have forgiven me had I done it)."

Critique of this view: This interpretation is weak, as we have already established that the preceding verse is conclusive proof of his innocence from the sin.

Our response to the literalists (if the speech is Joseph's):

1. First View (Self-Reproach for Self-Praise): When Joseph said, "That is so he may know that I did not betray him in [his] absence," it was akin to praising and purifying his own soul. Since the Almighty says, "So do not claim purity for yourselves" (An-Najm: 32), he corrected himself by saying, "And I do not absolve myself." The meaning is: I do not purify myself, for indeed the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil—inclined toward ugliness and desirous of disobedience.
2. Second View (Clarifying the Reason for Abstinence): This verse does not necessarily imply he was inclined to commit the sin. When Joseph said, "I did not betray him in [his] absence," he clarified that his abstinence was not due to a lack of desire or natural inclination. Since the soul persistently enjoins evil and nature yearns for such things, he indicated that his restraint was not due to a lack of desire, but rather due to the fear of God Almighty.

Case B: If this is the speech of the wife of the 'Aziz

1. First View (Confirming Joseph's Claim): "And I do not absolve myself" means: I do not absolve myself from tempting him (soliciting him). This serves to confirm Joseph's statement: "She solicited me against my will" (Yusuf: 52).
2. Second View (Confession of Her Own Guilt): After saying, "That is so he may know that I did not betray him in [his] absence" (Yusuf: 52), she then said, "And I do not absolve myself" from betrayal in general. She betrayed him by falsely accusing him and saying, "What is the penalty for one who intended evil against your household, other than imprisonment or a painful punishment?" (Yusuf: 25), which resulted in his imprisonment. It is as if she was seeking an apology for what had occurred.

Which attribution is more likely—Joseph or the woman?

Attributing it to Joseph is problematic because the preceding statement, "The wife of the 'Aziz said, 'Now the truth has become manifest...'" (Yusuf: 51), is connected continuously until the end. To claim that some of it is the woman's speech and some is Joseph's, separated by significant pauses in speech and setting, is remote.

However, attributing it to the woman is also problematic because the statement, "And I do not absolve myself; indeed, the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil, except what my Lord has mercy upon," is a statement that would only be fitting for someone who has guarded against sins, mentioning it as a form of self-abasement. This does not suit a woman who exerted all her effort in committing the sin.

Regarding the phrase, "except what my Lord has mercy upon" (إلا ما رحم ربى):

Some scholars suggest that the particle mā (ما) here means man (من), making the meaning: "except those whom my Lord has mercy upon." Both mā and man can sometimes substitute for each other, as in the verse, "Then marry those that please you of [other] women" (An-Nisā: 3) and "And among them are those who walk on four [legs]" (An-Nūr: 45).

This exception can be either connected (muttasil) or disjointed (munqati'):

1. Connected Exception:
   • First interpretation: It means "except the portion that my Lord has shown mercy to by protecting it," like the angels.
   • Second interpretation: It means "except the time of my Lord's mercy," implying the soul is an enjoiner of evil at all times except during the time of divine protection.
2. Disjointed Exception: It means, "But the mercy of my Lord is what averts the evil," similar to the verse, "...nor will they be helped, except by mercy from Us" (Yāsīn: 44).

The philosophers differed on what the "soul enjoining evil" (النفس الإمارة بالسوء) is.

The verified scholars state that the human soul is one entity possessing many attributes:

• When it inclines toward the Divine realm, it is the contented soul (النفس المطمئنة).
• When it inclines toward desire and anger, it is the soul enjoining evil (النفس الأمارة بالسوء).

The description of it as "enjoining evil" implies exaggeration (of its natural tendency). The reason is that from its very inception, the soul is accustomed to, delights in, and loves sensory experiences. Its awareness of and inclination toward the abstract realm is rare for an individual. That individual only achieves such detachment and unveiling during rare moments throughout their life. Since the dominant state is attraction to the corporeal world, and its ascent to the higher realm is rare, it is necessarily judged as being an enjoiner of evil.

Some scholars claim that the contented soul is the rational, speaking soul (النفس العقلية النطقية), while the appetitive and wrathful souls are distinct from it. The detailed discussion on establishing the truth in this matter is found in the works on rational sciences.

Our associates (scholars of Kalām) use the phrase, "except what my Lord has mercy upon," as proof that obedience and faith originate only from God. They argue that the verse indicates that the soul's turning away from evil only occurs through His mercy. The wording implies that whenever this mercy is present, that turning away occurs.

We argue that this mercy cannot be interpreted as granting intellect, power, or subtle favors (لطف), as the Judge (Al-Qāḍī) suggests, because all these are shared by both the disbeliever and the believer. Therefore, it must be interpreted as the preference given to the incentive for obedience over the incentive for disobedience. We have already established this preference through conclusive proof, and thus the desired outcome is achieved.