ﱜ ﱝ ﱞ ﱟ ﱠ ﱡ ﱢ ﱣ ﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧ ﱨ ﱩ ﱪ ﱫ ﱬ ﱭ ﱮ ﱯ ﱰ ﱱ
And she certainly determined [to seduce] him, and he would have inclined to her had he not seen the proof of his Lord. And thus [it was] that We should avert from him evil and immorality. Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants.
Tafsir
Verse range: 12:24
"Ham" (desire/intent) in a matter means to intend and resolve upon it. It is said: "I intended (hamamtu) but did not act, and I nearly did so." From this is the saying: "I will not do that, nor do I intend it," meaning: I do not even come close to doing it, nor do I resolve to do it. Sibawayh narrated this. Likewise, the Humam (the noble/resolute one) is he who, when he intends a matter, executes it and does not falter.
The meaning of {And she desired him} is: She desired to engage with him. {And he desired her}: He desired to engage with her. {Had he not seen the proof of his Lord}: The response to the conditional (jawāb lawlā) is omitted. The implied meaning is: "Had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have engaged with her." It is omitted because the preceding phrase {And he desired her} points to it, just as one says: "I intended to kill him, had I not feared God," meaning: "Had I not feared God [I would have killed him]."
If you ask: How is it permissible for a Prophet of God to intend a sin and resolve upon it? I say: The meaning is that his soul inclined toward the engagement and yearned for it due to the vigor and intensity of youth—an inclination resembling intent and resolve, as necessitated by the nature of that situation which nearly strips away reason and resolve. He suppressed this and repelled it by contemplating the "proof of God"—the obligation imposed upon the accountable to avoid forbidden things. Had that intense inclination (called "intent" due to its severity) not existed, its possessor would not be praiseworthy before God for abstaining; for the greatness of patience in trial is proportional to the greatness and intensity of the trial. If his intent had been like hers—a firm resolve—God would not have praised him as being among His "sincere servants" (mukhlasin).
It is also possible that by {And he desired her}, it is meant that he was on the verge of desiring her, just as a man says: "I killed him, had I not feared God," meaning he was on the verge of killing him and had begun the act.
If you ask: Is {And he desired her} included under the oath in {And she desired him}, or is it outside of it? I say: Both are permissible. If the reader considers it outside the oath, he should pause at {And she desired him} and begin with {And he desired her...}. This also highlights the difference between the two intents.
If you ask: Why is the response to lawlā omitted, and why is it not placed before it? I say: Because the response to lawlā cannot precede it, as it functions like a condition (shart), and the condition must come at the beginning of the sentence. It and its clause are like a single word; one cannot place part of a word before another. However, omitting part of it when the evidence points to it is permissible.
If you ask: Why is lawlā linked only to "he desired her" and not to the whole phrase {She desired him and he desired her}? I say: Because intent does not relate to substances, but to meanings. One must imply "engagement," and engagement requires two people. It is as if it were said: "They both desired engagement, had a barrier not prevented one of them." But God brought the two intents separately to detail them. Thus, the implication is: "She desired to engage with him, and he desired to engage with her—had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have refrained from seeking his share of the desire." Therefore, lawlā is rightly linked only to his desire.
Regarding the "proof" (burhān): Some narrate that Joseph loosened his garment and sat in the position of one having intercourse, or that he loosened his trousers and sat between her four limbs while she lay on her back. They claim the "proof" was a voice saying, "Beware of her," which he ignored, then a second, then a third, until Jacob appeared to him biting his finger. Others claim he struck his chest and his desire exited through his fingertips. Others claim he was told: "O Joseph, do not be like the bird that had feathers, but when it committed adultery, it sat featherless." Others claim a hand appeared between them with no arm or wrist, inscribed with {And indeed, [appointed] over you are keepers, noble and recording}, then {Do not approach adultery}, then {Fear a day when you will be returned to God}. They claim Gabriel descended to stop him, or he saw the image of the Aziz, or the woman covered an idol, saying she was ashamed of it, to which Joseph replied that he was ashamed of the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.
This and the like are things brought forth by the Hashwiyya (literalists) and the Jabriyya (determinists), whose religion is to slander God and His Prophets. The people of Justice and Monotheism are, by God's grace, far removed from their claims and narrations. If Joseph had committed the slightest slip, it would have been denounced, and his repentance and seeking of forgiveness would have been mentioned—just as the slips of Adam, David, Noah, Job, and Dhu al-Nun were denounced. How could this be, when God praised him and called him "sincere" (mukhlis)? It is known with certainty that he stood firm in that slippery place and struggled against his soul with the struggle of the strong and resolute, contemplating the evidence of prohibition until he deserved God's praise in the scriptures of the ancients and in the Quran.
God intended to complete his story and present a perfect image of him to give him a "tongue of truth" among the later generations, just as He did for his forefather Abraham, so that the righteous may follow his example in chastity and steadfastness. May God disgrace those who suggest that God revealed the "best of stories" in the clear Arabic Quran so that people would follow a Prophet in sitting between the limbs of an adulteress, loosening his trousers, and needing to be warned three times by the Quran and threatened with severe punishment, only to be saved by Gabriel's intervention. If the most shameless adulterer were to encounter even a fraction of what they attribute to the Prophet of God, he would not have a pulse left. What a foul doctrine and what clear misguidance!
{Thus}: The Kaf is in the accusative position, meaning: "Like that steadfastness, We made him steadfast." Or it is nominative, meaning: "The matter is like that." {To avert from him evil}—the betrayal of the master—{and immorality}—adultery—{for he was of Our sincere servants}: those who made their religion sincere for God, or those whom God made sincere for His obedience by protecting them.
