وَاستَبَقَا البابَ وَقَدَّت قَميصَهُ مِن دُبُرٍ وَأَلفَيا سَيِّدَها لَدَى البابِ ۚ قالَت ما جَزاءُ مَن أَرادَ بِأَهلِكَ سوءًا إِلّا أَن يُسجَنَ أَو عَذابٌ أَليمٌ
They raced to the door, and she tore his shirt from behind, and they ran into her husband at the door. She said: ‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’
EXEGESIS
Qaddat (she tore) is feminine of the verb qadda which means to tear something, usually lengthwise.[1] In other words, she grabbed the collar and tore the shirt all the way down.[2]
Sayyid (husband), transformed from saywid (pl. sādah, sādāt) is an active participle derived from the verb sāda, which means to distinguish oneself in honour, leadership, nobility, or any other outstanding merit.[3] It is hence used as an honorific, describing Prophet John (a) in 3:39: eminent (sayyidan) and chaste, or in reference to figures of authority, like in the verse, We obeyed our leaders (sādātanā) and elders (33:67).[4] The term broadly signifies a king (malik) or a chief (raʾīs), or any person of high rank.[5] Notably, its Coptic equivalent was historically used to mean ‘husband’, supporting the interpretation of sayyidahā here as her husband.[6]
The mā in the final sentence can be understood either as negatory (nāfiyah) or interrogative (istifhāmiyyah).[7] If interrogative then it would be a question as it has been translated. If negatory, then it should be translated as a statement: the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife cannot be anything except imprisonment or a painful punishment.
Ahl means any group of people that are brought together by faith, family ties, nationality, household, or something similar. When speaking of a man’s ahl it intends his family and relatives.[8] Here, the governor’s wife intends herself when she says ahl, but it could also be translated as ‘family’ or ‘household’.
EXPOSITION
The governor’s wife was not content with Prophet Joseph’s (a) verbal rejection and would not take no for an answer. As she physically approached him, he realised he would not be able to deter her from her plans so he ran from her, making for the door. She gave chase, attempting to stop him.
They raced to the door: it is not enough to simply seek refuge with God from sins by saying God forbid! (verse 23), but rather one must turn away, and if necessary, run away from sins. Note also the vast difference in their characters, which might not be obvious from the apparent aspect of their shared action. While he was running away from sin, she was running to commit it.[9]
And she tore his shirt from behind: she grabbed his shirt to stop him and in doing so the shirt was torn.
And they ran into her husband at the door: at that very moment her husband arrived home – accompanied by others, as we will later discover – and grew curious about the absence of both Prophet Joseph (a) and his wife. This turn of events must have taken her by surprise, for she had likely chosen this time to seduce Prophet Joseph (a) precisely because she believed her husband would be away, ensuring they would not be disturbed.
Due to the Quran’s succinct style, certain details are omitted here. However, it is understood that the governor eventually discovered them in her private quarters, hearing the commotion and seeing them flustered, and Prophet Joseph (a) with his shirt torn. He demanded: ‘What is the meaning of this?’ to which she replied, What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your wife? Fearing that her husband would be angered at her infidelity, she quickly resorted to lying, accusing Prophet Joseph (a) of trying to sexually assault her.[10]
The verse points out a few ways in which she tried to immediately manipulate her husband. Firstly, her usage of the term ahlika (here translated as your wife) – instead of for example saying ‘me’ – is quite purposeful and meant to stir up the governor’s sense of pride and jealousy,[11] in order to frame the event as an affront against him and not just her.
Interestingly, the Quran does not quote her as explicitly accusing Prophet Joseph (a) of anything (although the implication of her words was obvious in the situation), but rather that she spoke in general terms of him having evil intentions.[12] This is probably because the Quran does not quote exact words, but rather the general purport of what was said – which is why the same conversation can be related in two different ways in the Quran. While she may have accused Prophet Joseph (a) in explicit terms of immodest behaviour and used crass language or crude expressions when doing so, the Quran would never quote such expressions verbatim.
Except imprisonment or a painful punishment: this was her second manipulative tactic – a rather common one – where she gave the other person the illusion of choice. By doing so, one steers them towards the conclusion they want them to reach. By presenting two options for Prophet Joseph’s (a) punishment, she was trying to again manoeuvre the debate away from finding the guilty party, and into what his punishment should be. Of course this was not the end of her manipulations and machinations, and the surah will speak more of her devious designs soon.
It is noteworthy that the phrase used is istabaqā al-bāb (They raced to the door) rather than the more common istabaqā ilā al-bāb. This subtle distinction – difficult to capture in English – draws the reader’s attention to the word door itself, emphasising its symbolic weight. Earlier, we observed how her act of locking the doors represented Prophet Joseph’s (a) apparent entrapment, with all avenues seemingly closed off. Yet, as the Quran assures, And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make a way out for them (65:2). Thus, Prophet Joseph (a), placing his trust in God, rushed to the door – only to find, unexpectedly, the governor himself standing there.
The verse is also an important reminder in not judging hastily or by appearances; and that sometimes the one who comes to complain might indeed themselves be the wrongdoer.[13]
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
Many exegetes have mentioned that painful punishment means lashes.[14] This may be based on the Quranic ruling in Sūrat al-Nūr. On the other hand, literary records from Ancient Egypt mention the death penalty and castration for such a crime. Other punishments have also been reported, such as a hundred lashes, cutting off the nose, or hard labour.[15] It is possible that prisons in those times were generally not readily available for all people, and reserved for those who had personally aggrieved the ruling class.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
- One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. She caught him by his cloak and said, ‘Come to bed with me!’ But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house. When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, she called her household servants. ‘Look,’ she said to them, ‘this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.’[16]
Note: There is no mention of the torn garments in the Bible. In (post-Islamic) Midrash literature this detail is mentioned though: ‘Zulycah came and stood before him in queenly garments and the perfume of her clothes reached into the distance. And she seized Joseph suddenly and she said unto him: As the king liveth, if thou wilt not gratify my desire thou shalt die this day. And she stretched out her other hand hastily and she drew a sword from under her garments and she placed it upon Joseph’s neck and she said: Arise now and gratify my wishes or else thou diest this very day. And Joseph was afraid of her and her action and he rose up to flee from her. But she had taken hold upon the front of his garments and when Joseph fled in terror, the garment which Zulycah had seized was torn, and Joseph left the garment in Zulycah’s hand and ran away into the street, because he was afraid.’[17]
[1] Tibyan, 6/125; Razi, 18/445; Muhit, 6/260.
[2] Qurtubi, 9/170; Muhit, 6/260.
[3] Tahqiq, 5/311-312, s-w-d.
[4] Raghib, p. 432, s-w-d.
[5] Alusi, 6/409; Lisan, 3/228, s-w-d.
[6] Lisan, 3/228, s-w-d; Bahrayn, 3/71, s-w-d.
[7] Razi, 18/445.
[8] Raghib, p. 96, ʾ-h-l.
[9] Qaraati, 4/186.
[10] Tabari, 12/114.
[11] See Mizan, 11/141; Nemuneh, 9/384; Munyah, 14/168.
[12] See Muhit, 6/260. Abū Ḥayyān says she did this in order for her threat to be more emphatic. Some others have said that she spoke in these general terms out of respect for the station of her husband. See for example Mizan, 11/141; Munyah, 14/168.
[13] Qaraati, 4/187.
[14] Tabrisi, 5/347; Thalabi, 5/214.
[15] See Donald B Redford, ‘Family’ in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford 2001), 1/501, accessed at: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/3503/1/Feucht_Family_2001.pdf.
[16] Genesis 39:13-15.
[17] Sfer HaYashar on Gensis 39:7, accessed at: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.39.7?lang=bi&with=Sefer%20HaYashar%20(midrash)&lang2=en.