قالَ هِيَ راوَدَتني عَن نَفسي ۚ وَشَهِدَ شاهِدٌ مِن أَهلِها إِن كانَ قَميصُهُ قُدَّ مِن قُبُلٍ فَصَدَقَت وَهُوَ مِنَ الكاذِبينَ
He said: ‘It was she who solicited me.’ A witness of her own household testified: ‘If his shirt is torn from the front, she tells the truth and he lies.
EXEGESIS
Ahl (household) was discussed in the previous verse.
EXPOSITION
Prophet Joseph (a) did not stand by quietly when falsely accused, but spoke up to defend himself and his innocence. He said: ‘It was she who solicited me.’ Prophet Joseph (a) replied calmly and with composure, not resorting to oaths or swearing.[1]
A witness of her own household testified: there is again an omission here and we must assume that either the argument between the three caused a commotion and some people in the palace came by to see what it was about, or far more likely that the governor who had abruptly and unexpectedly turned up was accompanied by a retinue or some friends or associates, one of whom was his wife’s relative, the witness.
Prophet Joseph (a) was presumably defending himself, explaining that he tried to run away from her and she grabbed his shirt and that is why he was in such a state. The wife then retorted that it was he who tried to force himself on her and she tore his shirt in self-defence. Upon hearing that, her relative spoke up using deductive reasoning to settle the matter of the two conflicting testimonies.
The fact that the witness was from her own household and a relative of hers served to make his argument much more forceful and convincing, as generally a person would not be wont to harm their own relative.[2] His action was laudable and in line with the ethical imperative of the Quran that a believer should always testify to the truth, even if against their own relatives, O you who have faith! Be maintainers of justice and witnesses for the sake of Allah, even if it should be against yourselves or [your] parents and near relatives (4:135).
Also note that the testimony of the witness was not an eyewitness testimony, but rather a testimony based on reasoning. He is described as a witness because he was bearing witness to the truth, like in the verse, except those who testify to the truth and who know (43:86). Some have said he was a witness because his words allowed others to reach the truth.[3]
If his shirt is torn from the front, she tells the truth and he lies: this is because in this case the shirt would have been torn while she was trying to defend herself from him.[4]
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
In some reports attributed to Ibn Abbas, Abū Hurayrah, and others, it is claimed that the witness that spoke up was a baby still in his cradle.[5] Other reports also attribute to the Holy Prophet that he listed the witness of Prophet Joseph (a) as one of several other individuals who spoke whilst still babes.[6] These reports are contradictory though, list different individuals, and many of them are worded in a limiting manner such as ‘only three spoke in the cradle’.[7] Furthermore, other reports attributed to Ibn Abbas (and others) as well, say that the witness was a grown man,[8] and those are more reliable.[9]
The extremely long hadith from Imam al-Bāqir (a), which we discussed earlier in verse 4, also mentions that after Prophet Joseph (a) impressed upon them his innocence, he told them to ask a baby that was in its cradle, and then the baby miraculously answered.[10] As we mentioned there, that report cannot be considered authentic, both due to content and chain of narration.[11]
Jubbāʾī argued that if a baby were to indeed have born witness, that in itself would have been a miracle and reason enough to prove Prophet Joseph’s (a) innocence, without any need for additional reasoning about the shirt.[12] The babe could have simply spoken up and said Prophet Joseph (a) is innocent, and who could have then denied such a miracle? Just like when Prophet Jesus (a) spoke up to defend the honour of his mother, there was no need for him or her to present any other evidence.
Additionally, if indeed a baby had borne witness, it would be strange to assume that the Quran would omit such a miracle from its narration of events and simply gloss over it.
Neither can the claims of some exegetes be accepted that the baby’s words were evidence enough, but what he mentioned of the shirt was simply to give further credence to his words, or draw their attention to something they had not noticed.[13] The Quran quite clearly tells us that it was not the witness speaking which was the decisive evidence, but rather the shirt itself, So when he saw that his shirt was torn from behind, he said: ‘This is [a case] of you women’s guile!’ (verse 28). It is impossible to assume that someone would not be convinced by the miracle of a baby speaking, only then to be convinced by a shirt being torn in a particular way.
Such embellishments are something that recur throughout the commentaries on this surah (and other Quranic stories). It is a common and seemingly unavoidable phenomenon whereby people will keep adding more and more astounding details to a retelling of a familiar story, in order to engage their audience more.
There seems to be an attempt in these reports to link this event to a wider theme of a baby coming to miraculously disprove false accusations of unchaste behaviour, as the others that are mentioned usually include ‘the companion of Jurayj’[14] and Lady Mary. Such thinking was a probable source for the inspiration of these stories about this particular portion of Sūrat Yūsuf.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
- She kept his cloak beside her until his master came home. Then she told him this story: ‘That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me. But as soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.’ When his master heard the story his wife told him, saying, ‘This is how your slave treated me,’ he burned with anger. Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined.’[15]
Note: The Biblical narrative diverges quite steeply from the Quranic one here as there is no mention of a torn shirt or testimonies about Prophet Joseph’s (a) truthfulness. In fact, all the events leading up to his imprisonment are omitted here. It is only in (post-Islamic) Midrash literature that we find narratives mirroring what is found in the Quran and hadith, which are the likely source for these stories in Jewish writings: ‘And there was present a child only eleven months old, and the Lord opened the mouth of that child and he spoke these words before the men of Potiphar who were beating Joseph: What have you to do with this man and why do you inflict upon him this great evil? My mother hath spoken falsehoods and hath stated lies for such was the translation. And the child related unto them correctly all the things that had happened and all the words which Zulycah spoke unto Joseph day after day he told unto them. And when the child had finished speaking he became silent. And all – the men heard the words of the child and they were greatly astonished at the child’s words. And Potiphar was exceedingly ashamed at the words of his son and he ordered his men not to beat Joseph any longer, and the men ceased beating him. And Potiphar took Joseph and he had him brought for judgment before the priests, the king’s judges, and he said unto them: Pronounce ye judgment over this slave for thus was his behavior … And the priests said unto Potiphar: Do thou send we pray thee and let them bring the torn garment of Joseph before us and let us see the rent within it. And if the garment be torn in front, before his face, then she has seized upon him forcibly, to draw him unto her, and all that thy wife hath spoken is a matter of deceit. And they brought Joseph’s garment before the priests, that were the judges, and they examined it and behold the tear was in front of Joseph. And all the priests who were the judges, knew at once that she hath assaulted him, and they said: This slave is not under the judgment of death, for he hath not done anything wrong. But we will sentence him to be cast into the prison on account of the report which hath gone forth against thy wife through him. And Potiphar harkened unto their words, and he took Joseph and placed him into the prison house.’[16]
[1] Mizan, 11/141-142.
[2] Razi, 18/446; Zamakhshari, 2/459.
[3] Tantawi, 7/346; Munyah, 14/169. Abū Ḥayyān says he was a shāhid (witness), because his words pointed out the shirt being evidence (shāhid). See Muhit, 6/261.
[4] Tabrisi, 5/347; Tabari, 12/116.
[5] Related in Tibyan, 6/126; Tabari, 12/115-116; Tabrisi, 5/347; Ahmad, 1/310; Haythami, 1/65; Suyuti, 4/14-15.
[6] Tabari, 12/115; Tarikh, 1/238; Thalabi, 5/215; Mustadrak.S, 2/496-497; Suyuti, 4/15.
[7] See for example Bukhari, 4/140. The various reports that describe babies talking in the cradle amount to eleven different babies altogether (Alusi, 6/411).
[8] Related in Tibyan, 6/126; Tabari, 12/116-117; Suyuti, 4/15.
[9] Qurṭubī actually considers these reports from Ibn Abbas to be mutawātir, beyond doubt (Qurtubi, 9/173).
[10] Ayyashi, 2/174; Qummi, 1/343.
[11] Nemuneh, 9/388. The hadith in question has a broken chain of narration.
[12] Tibyan, 6/126; Razi, 18/446; Qurtubi, 9/173-174; related in Ahkam, 3/1085. Although Ibn al-ʿArabī relates this, he himself rejects the criticism, saying the babe was mentioning something that they did not know.
[13] See for example Ahkam, 3/1085.
[14] The story claims he was a pious Jewish or Christian man who was falsely accused by a prostitute of being the father of her child, and then when he asked the baby ‘who is your father?’ the baby spoke up to identify the real father.
[15] Genesis 39:16-20.
[16] Sfer HaYashar on Gensis 39:7: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.39.7?lang=bi&with=Sefer%20HaYashar%20(midrash)&lang2=en.