وَلَقَد هَمَّت بِهِ ۖ وَهَمَّ بِها لَولا أَن رَأىٰ بُرهانَ رَبِّهِ ۚ كَذٰلِكَ لِنَصرِفَ عَنهُ السّوءَ وَالفَحشاءَ ۚ إِنَّهُ مِن عِبادِنَا المُخلَصينَ

She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her [too] had he not beheld the proof of his Lord. So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants.

EXEGESIS

Hammat bihi/hamma bihā (she made for him/he made for her); the verb hamma can imply several things:

1. Desire or strong inclination towards something. In everyday usage, one might say: hādhā hammī (this is my heartfelt desire); and hādhā ahammu shayʾin ʿindī (this is the most important/desirable thing to me).[1]
2. Initial intention without firm decision; in this sense it describes a fleeting thought or tentative impulse, an idea that arises but has not solidified into resolve. This is exemplified in the Quranic verse: When two groups among you were about to (hammat) lose courage – though Allah is their guardian (3:122), in which hammat implies they entertained the idea of retreating, but did not act on it decisively. God remains their guardian (walī) precisely because they did not firmly commit to cowardice. Had they fully resolved to flee, His support would have withdrawn, according to the verse: Whoever turns his back [to flee] from them that day – unless [he is] diverting to fight or retiring towards another troop – shall certainly earn Allah’s wrath (8:16).[2]
3. To make a firm decision to do something, like in the verse, when a people set out (hamma) to extend their hands against you (5:11).^[3]
4. To almost do something.[4]

Some scholars have suggested that hamm can encompass two distinct but related concepts: 1. A conscious inclination toward something, accompanied by a firm intention and resolve to act. 2. A fleeting desire or passing thought that arises spontaneously, without conscious choice or commitment.[5]

However, perhaps the best definition of hamm is that it is ‘the internal dialogue that occurs within a person about doing some action’. Its difference with intending to do something (qaṣd) then is that intention is something that occurs after hamm, as it is the decision that results from that internal dialogue. Therefore, hamm not only precedes action, it precedes even intention.[6] As such it can include all the aforementioned definitions, as it is what leads to intention which then leads to action.

The translation ‘he made for her’ (which we have not adopted) can be misleading in the case of Prophet Joseph (a) though, as he did not actually take any action, nor was he inclined to do so, as we shall discuss below.

Law lā has the meaning of negation here, like saying hamamtu bi-qatlihi law lā annī khiftu allāha (I would have intended to kill him, were it not for my fear of God).[7] It is similar here to the verse: The heart of Moses’ mother became desolate, and indeed she was about to divulge it had We not (law lā) fortified her heart (28:10),[8] or like the hadith: ‘Were it not (law lā) that it would become difficult for my ummah I would have commanded them to brush their teeth before each prayer.’[9] Tabatabai has hence clarified that the verse should be understood as: She made for him, and had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, he – possibly – would have made for her as well. He adds the clarification ‘possibly’, because he says that hamm does not always necessarily mean performing the action.[10]

Burhān (proof) is derived from the root baraha, which means to whiten,[11] or to make something clear and bright. From that it is used to indicate clarification of intended meaning.[12] Just as whitening removes stains, burhān removes ambiguity and confusion. Burhān can hence be defined as the elucidation of evidence that establishes truth beyond dispute (bayānun lil-ḥujjah). In a Quranic context, it is used as ‘the divine evidence which manifests the truth and leaves no room for doubt in the one who has witnessed it’, like in the verse: O mankind! Certainly a proof (burhān) has come to you from your Lord (4:174).[13]

Mukhlaṣīn (dedicated servants) is a plural passive participle from the root khalaṣa, which means to purify something by removing all impurities, adulterants, and deviations from it.[14] The mukhlaṣ then is the one who has been purified by God and whom He has chosen for Himself for His holy mission.[15] This is different from the active participle mukhliṣ, who is the one who is sincere in their devotion to God and associates no one with Him.[16] In other words, mukhliṣ is the one who has strived for self-purification and has then achieved a station of great piety, whereas the mukhlaṣ is the one whom God has ordained for a great station and then has achieved it through rigorous self-purification. It is like someone knocking on the master’s door and asking them for food and being granted entrance, compared to another time when the master goes out to the streets and comes across someone and invites them to his home.[17] This would mean that God has ordained the mukhlaṣ for a station such as prophethood and then through rigorous tests of his piety, that person has risen to the station that has been ordained for him. In this sense, mukhlaṣīn refers to infallibles, as we will explain.

Some scholars have considered mukhlaṣ to have the same meaning as mukhliṣ, arguing that the one who tries to purify (mukhliṣ) eventually becomes purified (mukhlaṣ).[18] Some have further elaborated that mukhliṣ refers to the early stages of self-purification and piety, when a person is still struggling to purify themselves, whilst mukhlaṣ is the one who has advanced to the stage where even Satan despairs from misleading the likes of them (38:82-83).[19]

EXPOSITION

In the previous verse, when the governor’s wife tried to seduce Prophet Joseph (a), he turned away, seeking refuge in God and saying God forbid. This verse is in reality an answer to that prayer.[20] God’s rescue from sin does not occur through miraculous means, such as transporting a person out of the situation or stripping them of their will, but rather by strengthening the faith already present in their hearts: It is He who sent down composure into the hearts of the faithful that they might enhance their faith (48:4). This exemplifies one of the aspects of God’s guardianship (wilāyah). The verse clarifies the reason behind Prophet Joseph’s (a) successful resistance to the governor’s wife’s advances.

She certainly made for him, in her attempt to seduce him. This should be considered a full sentence, independent from what follows. It may be preferable for the reciter to pause here.

And he would have made for her: it is obvious that Prophet Joseph (a) had the natural inclination that every normal human being – especially when young – has with regards to physical intimacy with an attractive person of the opposite gender; however, this does not mean that he chose to sin.[21] Some may question how a prophet of God could harbour such desires, but to deny prophets basic human urges is to strip them of both their humanity and their true merit. They, too, must be tested like the rest of us; it is their mastery over these desires – not the absence of them – that makes them exemplary and worthy of praise.[22] One would never commend a blind man as ‘a loyal husband who never looks at other women’, for such praise would be meaningless, if not mocking. True moral virtue – or blame – arises only when choice is present and actively exercised.

This verse is a prime example of how the prophets and other close friends (awliyāʾ) of God were also tested and had to engage in what the famous prophetic hadith terms as al-jihād al-akbar, the greatest struggle of a believer, the battle against one’s own desires.[23] These pious exemplars were certainly not devoid of basic human desires, yet they had achieved mastery over them to the degree of infallibility and that is exactly what makes them exemplars for others. If they were not like us, they could not act as exemplars.

As an example, consider a person fasting on a hot day who sees a bottle of cold water. He would have a natural inclination to drink that, but his faith and piety would overcome any such desire, and it is precisely this self-control that is praiseworthy and earns him reward in the hereafter.[24] The higher a person’s certainty and the stronger his faith, the less he would feel inclined to drink. This does not mean he does not feel thirst, yet because of his strong faith he feels no inclination towards drinking, since he is guided by an enlightened heart and solid awareness of God.

As we said in the earlier section, the statement that follows – had he not – is a negation, intending that Prophet Joseph (a) did not feel any inclination towards her, but he was perfectly capable of feeling such inclinations and would have felt them had he not beheld the proof of his Lord. In other words, his piety and wisdom withheld him from feeling such inclinations. This is again confirmed by himself later as well: My Lord! The prison is dearer to me than to what they invite me (verse 33). Not only did he not find her proposals enticing, but rather he found them so distasteful that something as terrible as being wrongfully imprisoned was preferable to him.

It is crucial to note that God does not state, ‘he inclined toward her but then remembered his Lord’, or anything to that effect. Rather, the verse explicitly affirms that divinely granted wisdom restrained him from an inclination he would have otherwise felt. This single point alone renders baseless the accusations levied by some exegetes against Prophet Joseph (a), who claim he incurred divine displeasure by inclining toward the governor’s wife.

In brief, they both had a natural inclination to each other as they were both young, healthy, and attractive human beings of opposite genders, but whereas she was blindly driven by her lust and acted upon its demands, Prophet Joseph (a) was blessed with a deeper understanding of the reality of things, which granted him mastery over his base desires, and thus had no wish to commit any such horrendous sin.

Had he not beheld the proof of his Lord: this is effectively a negation of any inclination (hamm) from Prophet Joseph (a). One might question why the Quran would phrase it in this way, and why not just say ‘she made for him, but he did not make for her’? The reason lies in the verse’s intent: to clarify why he refrained. It was not due to an inability to feel attraction, nor because his affections lay elsewhere, nor any such contingency. Rather, it was a conscious negation rooted in divine restraint – a distinction that underscores the moral agency of prophets in their resistance to temptation.[25] The reason why Prophet Joseph (a) turned away from the governor’s wife was because he was steeped in awareness of God.[26] It was due to the knowledge and wisdom he had acquired, knowing the consequences of sin.[27] This is the purity of character and morals that all prophets had been gifted with, as well as anyone who has reached such a station of piety.

In sum, the proof here was the knowledge with which Prophet Joseph (a) was blessed,[28] the knowledge of the reality of sin and how its consequences would manifest in this life and the next.[29] Like in the previous verse, it is once again emphasising the surah’s main theme. Prophet Joseph (a) understood the reality that he had just declared: Indeed, the wrongdoers are not felicitous (verse 23), and it was that knowledge that prevented him from acting on base desires.

So it was, that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency: So it was that by virtue of the divine proof We turned evil away from him.[30] The evil which was turned away from him can refer to the betrayal of his master (the governor), and indecency can refer to the act of fornication.[31] Alternatively, evil may mean feeling inclination towards her, and indecency may mean yielding to her demand.[32]

One important point of note is that the verse says that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency and does not say ‘that We might turn him away from evil and indecency’. This reveals a profound theological distinction. This construction emphasises God’s active intervention in shielding the pure servants at the root level – not merely helping them resist temptation but preventing evil from reaching their heart entirely. The wording supports the doctrine of prophetic infallibility (ʿiṣmah). This mirrors other Quranic paradigms of divine barriers against corruption (cf. 18:10, 7:143), suggesting a metaphysics where holiness itself repels sin. The verse thus establishes two dimensions: an historical account of Prophet Joseph’s (a) perseverance, and a universal principle of how God safeguards the righteous by making evil alien to their sanctified state. This is also further emphasised in the next statement, which declares that Prophet Joseph (a) was one of the mukhlaṣ servants of God.

He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants: the dedicated servants are the object of the thorough purification (33:33) that is the divine boon. Whereas a normal person may reach the station of ikhlāṣ and be one of the mukhliṣīn (and be sinless in the sense that they themselves avoid committing sins), the mukhlaṣ is one whom God has chosen for His divine protection from all unintended evil consequences, because they are chosen by Him to be His divine guides.

Hence, even Satan knows he cannot lead them astray. He himself defiantly declares: By Your might, I will surely pervert them, meaning all of mankind, but then admits an exception, except Your exclusive (mukhlaṣīn) servants among them (38:82-83), meaning he understands that those mukhlaṣ servants cannot be led astray by him.[33]

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

1. From Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Jahm, that Imam al-Riḍā (a) reported through his fathers, that Imam al-Sajjād (a) said regarding God’s words, had he not beheld the proof of his Lord: ‘The governor’s wife went to the idol [which was in her room and] threw a piece of clothing on it. Joseph (a) asked her: “What is that about?” She replied: “I am ashamed of the idol seeing us.” Joseph (a) then exhorted her: “If you are ashamed of this that cannot see nor hear nor understand nor eat nor drink, should I not be ashamed of the one who has created man and given him knowledge?”’[34]

Note: As we explained earlier, this report illustrates that it was Prophet Joseph’s (a) reasoning and understanding which allowed him to remain in control and reject her advances.

2. In a very long hadith from Ibn Jahm, Imam al-Riḍā (a) was discussing various topics with the caliph Maʾmūn, who asked him about She certainly made for him; and he would have made for her [too] had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, to which the Imam replied: ‘She inclined (hammat) to him, and had he not seen the proof of his Lord, he would have inclined to her as she did. However, he was infallible, and the infallible does not incline to sin nor does he commit it. My father told me on the authority of his father, al-Ṣādiq (a), that he said: “She intended to act, and he intended not to act.”’ Maʾmūn then said: ‘May God reward you, Abū al-Hasan.’[35]

Note: This hadith is essentially saying what we said earlier, that it was due to his prophetic infallibility (based on his wisdom and understanding of the realities of things and their outcomes) that he did not intend to commit any sin. Thereafter, the hadith summarises it as ‘he intended not to act’, meaning he had no intention of performing such a sinful action.

3. From Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘The proof was prophethood, which God placed in his chest and which acted as a barrier between him and that which angers God.’[36]

Note: ‘Prophethood’ should here refer to that knowledge of certitude that the infallibles possessed.

4. From Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘People’s satisfaction is hardly attained, and their tongues cannot be restrained. How can you be safe from what the prophets of God, His messengers, and His proofs – peace be upon them – were not safe from? Did they not accuse Joseph – peace be upon him – of intending to commit adultery?’[37]

Note: This report is replying to some baseless claims that were in circulation, which are discussed in the following section.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

Many early exegetical works relate that when the governor’s wife solicited Prophet Joseph (a) he felt a desire for her, but then saw the form of his father Jacob (a) standing in the corner of the house, biting his fingers and saying: ‘It has been written in the heavens that you are to be one of the prophets, and yet you wish to be written on the earth as one of the fornicators!’ Prophet Joseph (a) then realised he was going to commit a mistake and withdrew.[38] Obviously, this claim is problematic as much as it is baseless, as are other claims such as that he heard a voice calling out to him saying the same, or that an angel appeared to him,[39] or his father appeared to him and struck him on the chest and the desire left him through his fingertips,[40] and numerous other fictitious stories that have emerged surrounding this event.

Even more problematic are claims or reports that allege Prophet Joseph (a) took steps to lay with her (the details of which do not even bear mentioning), and was only then prevented in a miraculous fashion.[41] Ṭabarī and Thaʿlabī actually defend these claims as authentic (Ṭabarī is known for his denial of prophetic infallibility).[42] They argue that these interpretations reflect the views of the early generation of scholars who received their knowledge from the companions, the eyewitnesses to revelation.[43] However, this argument is tenuous and unfounded. Had the scholars amongst the Followers (tābiʿīn) they cite possessed any credible evidence for such assertions, they would have transmitted it as a verified hadith from the Prophet. Instead, as with many other Quranic passages, their exegesis relies on personal opinion (raʾy) and speculation. The true nature of what happened between Prophet Joseph (a) and the governor’s wife in a private setting millennia ago cannot be subject to mere conjecture. Furthermore, the contradictory and inconsistent nature of these accounts undermines their reliability.[44]

Any claims that Prophet Joseph (a) was miraculously prevented from committing a sin should also be rejected because they are devaluing his piety and negating any duty (taklīf) from him. After all, what would be his merit in self-control if he was miraculously prevented in such a fashion? [45] Additionally, whenever a prophet had the slightest shortcoming in their actions, they would immediately turn to God and declare repentance, as attested to by numerous Quranic verses. Yet, we find no such display from Prophet Joseph (a) here.[46]

It is also impossible to assume that someone should attempt to commit a sin, only to be miraculously prevented from doing it, and then immediately be praised by God: He was indeed one of Our dedicated servants.[47] In any case, the sinless nature of the prophets is a well-established doctrine that cannot be called into question with such frivolous claims.

Finally, all of these claims rest on the assumption that the main clause of the conditional particle law lā has been omitted – an assertion for which there is no textual or grammatical basis.[48] The primary reason such interpretations persist among certain exegetes is their uncritical reliance on transmitted reports (riwāyāt), even when those reports defy logical coherence or lack any substantive evidentiary support.[49]

An entirely different explanation has been suggested for this verse as well, that claims that the statement, he would have made for her possibly intends that Prophet Joseph (a) wished to forcefully push away the governor’s wife from himself, but God revealed to him that doing so would lead her to falsely accuse him of attempted rape, resulting in his execution by her family. According to this view, had he not beheld the proof of his Lord refers to this divine warning, which prevented him from acting in a way that would have endangered his life.[50] This explanation – with slight variations – has been favoured by several exegetes, both classical and contemporary.

Sharīf al-Murtaḍā adopts this view but also relates an important criticism of this interpretation, which is that the verse describes both the governor’s wife and Prophet Joseph (a) with the same verb hamm, so what is the evidence for differentiating between the two and saying in her case it is to feel a physical attraction, but in his case it is to want to physically push her away? He attempts to answer this by saying that there is a guiding principle in his case, which is prophetic infallibility, but in her case, there is no such principle.[51] This answer is not satisfactory though and fails to convince. Furthermore, it would demand that we assume two omitted clauses in the statement; the first being ‘she made for him [for the sake of committing adultery]’ and the second ‘he made for her [to forcefully push her away]’. As it remains, it would be less than eloquent to use the same verb for two different meanings in the same sentence,[52] without any necessary indication that the meaning has completely changed and that two different omitted clauses are being referenced. Although Ālūsī relates an opinion that might provide an acceptable explanation to this matter, which says that hamm in both instances means ‘to intend to overcome the other’. She wished to overcome him and have her way with him, whilst he wished to overcome her to get away from him.[53] Tafsīr al-Manār also has a slight variation of this view, which has been sufficiently criticised in Munyat al-Ṭālibīn.[54]

Tabatabai argues that the proof of His Lord that kept Prophet Joseph (a) from committing sin was not an external force or an enforced law or fear of punishment from the governor, but rather it was his faith and the sense of morality which was rooted in that. He elaborates that people worship God in one of three manners: fear, hope, or love; either they fear His punishment, or they hope for His reward, or they worship Him because they love Him and realise that He is worthy of being worshipped. This last pathway to God is the purest and it is the pathway of those who are elevated in their rank and understanding. This understanding then results in sincerity (ikhlāṣ), which is the factor that keeps such lovers of God far away from sin. The sincerity is hence deeply rooted in knowledge and understanding, as witnessed in the verse, Were it not for Allah’s grace and His mercy on you, a group of them were bent on leading you astray; but they do not mislead anyone except themselves, and they cannot do you any harm. Allah has sent down to you the book and wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and great is Allah’s grace upon you (4:113). Hence, this knowledge is in no way in contradiction with human free will, but rather stems from it. Like one who knows that a lethal poison will kill, will never choose to ingest it willingly unless they are forced to. Even the prophets could choose to commit sins: That is Allah’s guidance: with it He guides whomever He wishes of His servants. But were they to ascribe any partners [to Allah], what they used to do would not avail them (6:88), but they would never choose to do so because they understand its consequences.[55]

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

1. Rabbi Avin said: She took him from room to room and from bed chamber to bed chamber until she positioned him next to her bed. Her idol was etched above it. She took a sheet and covered its face. He said to her: ‘You have done well that you covered its face. The one in whose regard it is written: “They are the eyes of the Lord roving throughout the earth.”’[56]

[1] Related in Tibyan, 6/120; Tabrisi, 5/342.
[2] Related in Tibyan, 6/120; Tabrisi, 5/341-342.
[3] Zamakhshari, 2/455; related in Tibyan, 6/120; Tabrisi, 5/341. Ṭūsī, Ṭabrisī, and Sharīf al-Murtaḍā argue that hamm cannot here mean to decide with certainty, as it is impossible to assume that Prophet Joseph (a) would decide to commit a sin. However, this is predicated on a problematic understanding of what is meant by law lā. See the following discussions.
[4] Tantawi, 7/340; related in Tabrisi, 5/342.
[5] Alusi, 6/407.
[6] Bahrayn, 6/188.
[7] Zamakhshari, 2/456. See also Muhit, 6/257-258; Mizan, 11/128; Nemuneh, 9/370; Mudarrisi, 5/184; Qaraati, 4/185; Munyah, 14/163-164; Sharawi, p. 6911. This type of phrasing is called law lā imtināʿiyyah.
[8] Razi, 18/441; Muhit, 6/258. There is what is called taqdīm wa taʾkhīr (change in standard order of phrasing) in both verse 24 and 28:10 where law lā and its following phrase is brought after the phrase that is being specified. As such the verse more literally could be understood in Arabic as ‘She certainly made for him; and had he not beheld the proof of his Lord, he would have made for her [too]’ (see for example Tibyan, 6/123; Tabrisi 5/343; Razi, 18/441; Lisan, 12/120; Munyah, 14/163). The claims that have been reported by some exegetes that it is ineloquent to delay law lā and that Arabs do not do that is a baseless claim (see Muhit, 6/257), only forwarded to support some untenable opinions that taint the character of Prophet Joseph (a). See the Review of Tafsīr Literature section for more on those.
There are also other opinions about the grammatical structure of this verse for which the reader proficient in Arabic may refer to the relevant exegetical works.
[9] Munyah, 14/164. For the hadith see Barqi, 2/561, h. 946; Kafi, 3/22; Ilal, 1/293; Faqih, 1/55, h. 123; Wasail, 2/17, h. 1346, and 2/19, h. 1354; Bukhari, 1/214; Muslim, 1/151; Ibn Majah, 1/105, h. 287; Abu Dawud, 1/19, h. 47; Tirmidhi, 1/18, h. 22.
[10] Mizan, 11/128.
[11] Raghib, p. 121, b-r-h. Muṣṭafawī lists it under the root b-r-h-n, however considers it most likely that while burhān could come from the root of baraha, meaning to be whitened, it is actually a case of ishtiqāq intizāʿī, whereby the divergent form of barhana is derived from the root of baraha, much like salṭana/yusalṭinu/sulṭān (Tahqiq, 1/283-284, b-r-h-n).
[12] Nemuneh, 9/373.
[13] Mizan, 11/129.
[14] Tibyan, 8/571.
[15] See Tabari, 12/113-114.
[16] Tabari, 12/114.
[17] Sharawi, pp. 6919-6920.
[18] Tibyan, 6/120; Nemuneh, 9/374-375.
[19] Nemuneh, 9/377-378.
[20] Munyah, 14/166.
[21] See Tibyan, 6/121; Zamakhshari, 2/456; Alusi, 6/404; Mizan, 11/126; Nemuneh, 9/370-373; Sharawi, pp. 6911-6912; related in Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 2/128.
[22] See Zamakhshari, 2/456; Razi, 18/442. See also Tibyan, 6/124; Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 2/125, 129; Tabrisi, 5/345.
[23] Nemuneh, 9/375.
[24] Razi, 18/442-443. See also Alusi, 6/404; Tantawi, 7/341.
[25] Sharawi, p. 6912.
[26] Razi, 18/442. For this and the previous footnote, see also Alusi, 6/405; Mizan, 11/133; Tantawi, 7/341-342; Mudarrisi, 5/184.
[27] Muhit, 6/258-259; Alusi, 6/405. Related in Tibyan, 6/124; Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 2/129; Tabrisi, 5/344. This opinion is also related from Abū Ali al-Jubbāʾī.
[28] Tabrisi, 5/344; Nemuneh, 9/373-374.
[29] Munyah, 14/167.
[30] Mizan, 11/127.
[31] Zamakhshari, 2/458; Munyah, 14/167.
[32] Mizan, 11/128.
[33] See Razi, 18/441; Alusi, 6/406.
[34] Uyun, 2/49; Qummi, 1/342-343; Nur, 2/419, 422; Thalabi, 5/213. See also Ayyashi, 2/173-174; Tabrisi, 5/344. Qurṭubī reports the hadith from Imam Ali (a) (Qurtubi, 9/169), but this is probably due to a confusion between Ali ibn al-Husayn (a) and Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib (a).
[35] Uyun, 1/179; Nur 2/419.
[36] Thalabi, 5/213; Baghawi, 2/420. See also Tabrisi, 5/344, who reports this, albeit not as a verbatim hadith.
[37] Nur, 2/419-420.
[38] Qummi, 1/342. Something similar has also been attributed to Ibn Abbas, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Mujāhid ibn Jabr, and others. See Tibyan, 6/124; Tabari, 12/108, 112; Thalabi, 5/212; Suyuti, 4/13-14. Similar claims are also made in some Jewish commentaries. See for example Rabbeinu Bahya on Genesis 39:8, accessed at: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.39.8?lang=bi&with=Rabbeinu%20Bahya&lang2=bi.
[39] Related in Tibyan, 6/124; Tabari, 12/110-111; Thalabi, 5/212-213.
[40] Related in Tabari, 12/111-113; Thalabi, 5/211-212; Suyuti, 4/13.
[41] Tabari, 12/108-112; Thalabi, 5/209-212; Suyuti, 4/13. See also Ayyashi, 2/173-174, 198; Nur, 2/421.
[42] Ibn ʿAṭiyyah takes a middling position here, saying that infallibility for prophets applies only after their appointment to prophethood and such reports could only be accepted if one says that Prophet Joseph (a) was not yet a prophet (Andulusi, 3/234). Qurṭubī agrees with this point, but emphasises that Prophet Joseph (a) was a prophet by then (Qurtubi, 9/167-168). Ālūsī and Tabatabai (and others) wholeheartedly reject these reports and say that they are most if not all taken from the traditions of the People of the Book (Alusi, 6/406-407; Mizan, 11/132; Nemuneh, 9/374), but unfortunately do not give any reference as to this assertion. Ālūsī also adds that it is more incumbent to question the character of the reporters of such narrations rather than the character of Prophet Joseph (a).
Thaʿlabī actually contradicts himself later, saying that the hamm of Prophet Joseph (a) was simply something that occurred in his mind, without any decision to commit any sin (Thalabi, 5/211). To claim that he took action and concrete steps to lay with her, cannot be described as simply ‘something that occurred to him’.
[43] Tabari, 12/110; Thalabi, 5/210. Zamakhsharī rejects such opinions as being the baseless claims of the ahl al-ḥashw wa al-jabr, by which he intends the Hanbali-type of thinking dominant amongst many at the time, and adds that such things have not been said or reported by the ahl al-ʿadl wa al-tawḥīd, by which he intends the Mutazilites (Zamakhshari, 2/457). While acceptance of these reports may have been more commonplace during Zamakhsharī’s time, we find that later Asharite scholars rejected these reports.
[44] Abū Ḥayyān rejects the reported opinions on the basis of these contradictions and says that because of that they cannot be authentically attributed to those scholars (Muhit, 6/258). See also Alusi, 6/406; Nemuneh, 9/371.
[45] Tibyan, 6/124; Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 2/125, 129; Tabrisi, 5/345; Zamakhshari, 2/456-457.
[46] Razi, 18/440; Alusi, 6/406.
[47] See Razi, 18/440; Alusi, 6/406. Rāzī also presents many other criticisms, see Razi, 18/442-444, as does Ālūsī.
[48] Muhit, 6/258; Munyah, 14/164. In other words, they claim that the sentence stops at wa hamma bihā, i.e. they both made for each other) and then a new sentence starts with had he not beheld the proof of his Lord and then supposedly what follows is omitted i.e. ‘they would have committed indecency’.
[49] Mizan, 11/134.
[50] Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 2/125-126. The same arguments are repeated in Tibyan, 6/121-124; Tabrisi, 5/342-343, and many other sources. See also Tabari, 12/110; Ibn Kathir, 4/327. There is also a report from Imam al-Riḍā (a) that states he intended to kill her (Nur, 2/419). This is of course in contradiction to the other reports we cited.
[51] Abū al-Qāsim al-Murtaḍā, al-Amālī (Qum: Maktabat al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1403 AH), 2/126-127.
[52] See also Mizan, 11/137.
[53] See Alusi, 6/407.
[54] Munyah, 14/165-166.
[55] Mizan, 11/158-163.
[56] Bereshit Rabbah, 87:5, accessed at: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.39.8?lang=bi&with=Bereshit%20Rabbah&lang2=bi.