ذٰلِكَ لِيَعلَمَ أَنّي لَم أَخُنهُ بِالغَيبِ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهدي كَيدَ الخائِنينَ

[Joseph said]: ‘[I initiated] this [inquiry], that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous.

EXEGESIS

Yahdī (guide) comes from the root hidāyah, meaning the guidance which is shown due to kindness towards another,[1] to show someone the correct path and enable them to reach something.[2] Here it means that God will not help or aid the treacherous to achieve their goals, rather He will make them fail and exposes them, even if after some time.[3]

Lam akhunhu (I did not betray him). Akhunhu is the first person present tense from khiyānah, meaning treachery or betrayal. Khāʾinīn (treacherous) is the plural of the active participle of khāʾin, meaning the one who betrays.

EXPOSITION

While the verb to indicate it has apparently been omitted, the speaker of this and the next verse should have shifted and these are the words of Prophet Joseph (a), as it is difficult to imagine that these profound statements should have been uttered by the hitherto obstinately sinful governor’s wife. Similar omissions are a hallmark of the succinct Quranic style, which relies on the reader to pay close attention and engages them to ponder its verses thoroughly. We may surmise that once the king had declared Prophet Joseph (a) innocent, the news of this reached Prophet Joseph (a) and he reacted with these words; and God knows best.

That he may know that I did not betray him in his absence: in this statement, Prophet Joseph (a) transcends mere self-exoneration, revealing his deeper moral priority: to affirm the trust between himself and the governor, the nobleman who had once shown him kindness. For Prophet Joseph (a), the greater concern was not public vindication, but ensuring his benefactor’s absolute certainty of his integrity, particularly during moments of vulnerability (in his absence), when betrayal could have gone undetected. This reflects the essence of prophetic character: an absolute commitment to righteousness and valuing the approval of God over worldly exoneration. His appeal was thus less about proving his innocence to the masses, and more about honouring his bond of trust. The Quran constantly emphasises how holding oneself accountable is the foundation of true nobility.

And that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous: and so that everyone may know that the betrayer can never achieve his ultimate goal through treachery, and that he will inevitably be exposed. This is God’s practice and tradition, and you will never find any change in Allah’s precedent (33:62). Treachery belongs to falsehood, and falsehood cannot endure as truth will inevitably triumph over it.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

There has been vibrant debate regarding the identity of the speaker in this and the next verse. Some have concluded as we did, that these words were uttered by Prophet Joseph (a). Other commentators have suggested that it was the governor’s wife who made the statement, that he may know that I did not betray him in his absence[4] explaining that while she confessed having solicited Prophet Joseph (a), Prophet Joseph (a) never gave in to her advances, so she had never actually committed adultery, in other words she means ‘so that my husband may know that I did not betray our matrimonial bond’.[5]

They have also argued that the next statement, and that Allah does not further the schemes of the treacherous is a word of wisdom from her, in the sense that after seeing all that had unfolded regarding Prophet Joseph (a), she had finally come to realise the reality that one cannot thwart the will and plan of God, and that rebellion against His will only leads to failure.[6]

Their argument relies on the fact that there is no pronoun to indicate that the speaker has shifted to someone who was not present in the gathering of the king.

A problem with ascribing these statements to the governor’s wife is that these should be the statements of a monotheist, yet the logical assumption is that she was – like the majority of Egyptian society at the time – a polytheist. If she uttered these words, does it mean that she believed in the God of Joseph (a)? Or like we discussed in verse 31, is the Quran simplifying and conveying the basic gist of what she was saying?

We know that the Ancient Egyptians were a polytheistic society with a whole pantheon of deities that they worshipped. It is possible to argue that some of those deities could be considered to have been ‘over-deities’[7] that could be deemed to be somewhat reminiscent to the Islamic concept of Allah, the same way as the Quran speaks of the polytheistic Arabs believing in Allah. It is possible that the Quran is hence simply paraphrasing her words. Alternatively, it is possible, though improbable, that she was a monotheist.

Another possibility is that she truly repented and believed. The story of Prophet Joseph (a) is also a story of repentance and we read how his brothers who plotted to kill him and abandoned him in a well later repented and regretted their actions. It is possible to assume that the governor’s wife regretted her actions after all those years, and perhaps even started to believe what Prophet Joseph (a) had taught and preached. The Quran has many other examples of people who had spent numerous years insisting on sin and rebellion, only then to repent and realise the folly of their ways.[8]

None of these arguments are conclusive though.

In any case, the question remains: how could Prophet Joseph (a) have said these things when he was still in prison and not in the presence of the king and the others gathered there to discuss this matter? Accordingly, some have suggested that he said these things to the messenger when he returned to prison.[9] It is also possible that the news of the establishment of Prophet Joseph’s (a) innocence reached him in prison via other means, such as the guards or something of that sort.

Others have proposed that he returned to the king and said this there.[10] But this is not possible, as the king only later demands Bring him to me (verse 54), which would make no sense if Prophet Joseph (a) was speaking in presence of the king.[11] 

Some others have suggested that this and the next verse were in fact said by Prophet Joseph (a) while he was still talking to the messenger in prison (prior to the exchange between the king and the women), but they were simply delayed here,[12] but that would demand a very convoluted reading of the verses.

There still remains the matter of the omission of the verb qāla (he said), to indicate that a new person, namely Prophet Joseph (a), is speaking. The exegetes have pointed to some other verses of the Quran as examples where such transitions in speaker occur without any verb, such as: He said to the elite [who stood] around him: ‘This is indeed an expert magician who seeks to expel you from your land with his magic. So what do you advise?’ (26:34-35), where it is claimed that the speaker here switches between Pharaoh and the elite, and it was the Pharaoh who said This is indeed an expert magician, to which the elite replied who seeks to expel you[13] from your land with his magic,[14] and then the Pharaoh says So what do you advise? However, this example is not a good one as it is not well established that the speaker has indeed shifted here.

Another example given is: Our Lord! You will indeed gather mankind on a day in which there is no doubt. Indeed Allah does not break His promise (3:9), where it has been understood by many that the initial part of the verse is quoting the supplicant, whilst Indeed Allah does not break His promise is reverting to God as the active speaker.[15] That may well be so, and there are many examples in the Quran of such transitions back to God being the active speaker. A clearer instance of that is for example in 20:72-73 which quotes the magicians, then transitions seamlessly to God’s exhortations. Such transitions occur frequently enough in the Quran because God is the ‘narrator’ of the Quran and never in any literary work is there a need to indicate that the active voice has switched back to the narrator – although in modern writing quotation marks are utilised to avoid confusion.

Another relevant example supplied by the proponents of this view is the verse in Sūrat al-Baqarah: The Apostle has faith in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and all the faithful. Each [of them] has faith in Allah, His angels, His scriptures, and His apostles. [They declare:] ‘We make no distinction between any of His apostles’ (2:285); here the active voice transitions from God to the faithful, without the inclusion of the verb qālū.

[1] Raghib, p. 835, h-d-y.
[2] Tahqiq, 11/269, h-d-y.
[3] Tantawi, 7/377.
[4] Qurtubi, 9/209; Muhit, 6/288; Ibn Kathir, 4/338; Nemuneh, 9/432; Fadlallah, 12/226; Qutb, 4/1995; Tantawi, 7/377; Sharawi, p. 6990.
[5] For some criticisms of the opinion that Prophet Joseph (a) said these things, see Nemuneh, 9/434.
[6] See also Nemuneh, 9/432.
[7] Such as Atum, who was the primordial creator of all things, including the other deities. Or Amun (later Amun-Ra), the king of deities, who was also considered to have been self-created.
[8] See for example the story of the magicians of Pharaoh in 20:72-73, or the man with two gardens in 18:42.
[9] Related in Razi, 18/468; Qurtubi, 9/209.
[10] Related in Qurtubi, 9/209.
[11] Muhit, 6/289.
[12] Related in Baghawi, 2/496.
[13] Note: this is the plural you.
[14] Tibyan, 6/154; Tabrisi, 5/368; Tabari, 12/141.
[15] Razi, 18/468.