Yūsuf 12:30
The verses
And women in the city said: The ruler's wife is asking of her slave-boy an ill-deed. Indeed he has smitten her to the heart with love. We behold her in plain aberration. — Marmaduke Pickthall
And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and prepared for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave to every one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them! And when they saw him they exalted him and cut their hands, exclaiming: Allah Blameless! This is no a human being. This is not other than some gracious angel. — Marmaduke Pickthall
She said: This is he on whose account ye blamed me. I asked of him an evil act, but he proved continent, but if he do not my behest he verily shall be imprisoned, and verily shall be of those brought low. — Marmaduke Pickthall
The issue
This text contains the story of the women who mock Zelicha because of her infatuation with Joseph and Zelicha’s response to “their malicious talk.” She invites these women to a banquet in her home, so that they too would be dazzled by the handsomeness of Joseph. As a result of this plan, the women, amorously enraptured with Joseph, cut their hands with their knives without realizing their actions. When they fully comprehend what they had done to themselves, they excuse Zelicha for her infatuation.
The story detail regarding the cutting of the hands is not a figure of speech or a literary form of expression. Islamic commentaries are even more explicit:
“The description of the cutting is slice by slice with a knife”.
They cut their hands extremely, “until the knives reached the bones”.
Banquet details come from the rabbinical literature. (See inset text “Cross-References with the Talmudic Stories,” page 118). The concern here is not the original source of this scene. Yet, how can Muslims overlook several incredible aspects of this story?
Questions: (1) Was Joseph so dazzlingly handsome that the women would unwittingly cut their hands? (2) If the story is accepted as stated, how are the women in a condition that would allow them to continue to chat and admit that the wife of the prince had the right to be enraptured? (3) Would a woman of that Egyptian high society openly declare her love for one of her husband’s slaves in the presence of her peers? (4) How is it that every woman at the banquet is holding a knife at the same time? (5) Do all the women present truly cut their hands? (6) After this incident, do all the women go to their husbands with their bleeding hands or go directly to their doctors for treatment?
Arabic text of this item
نقرأ في النص عن النساء اللواتي سخِرن من زليخة بسبب عشقها ليوسف، وعن قرار زليخة تقديم مبررات افتتانها بيوسف، من خلال دعوتها النسوة اللاتي شاركن في التهكم عليها، للانبهار بفتنة يوسف. وقد نتج عن هذا الترتيب أن قطعت النسوة أيديهنّ دون انتباه، لشدة الوله. ولما أدركن ما فعلن بأنفسهن، عذرن المرأة. ومعنى قطع اليد لم يكن مجازياً، إذ جاء في التفاسير:
طريقة القطع: «حزَّاً حزَّاً بالسكّين».
قطعن أيديهن «بالمـُدَى، حتى بلغت السكاكين إلى العظم».
إن تفصيل الوليمة مأخوذ من الأدب الحَبري. ولا يعنينا هنا المصدر الأصلي لهذا المشهد، ولا زيفه؛ لكننا نتساءل: كيف غفل المسلمون عن طرح التساؤلات التالية:
ما هو مبلغ جمال يوسف حتى تقطع النساء أيديهن دون أن تدركن؟ وإذا قبلنا بحدوث هذا، فهل كُنَّ بعد ذلك في وضعٍ يسمح لهنَّ بمتابعة الحديث والإقرار لزوجة العزيز بأنها على حق في افتتانها؟
كيف تتجرأ امرأة من سيدات المجتمع المصري آنذاك، على إشهار حبها لواحد من مستخدَمي زوجها أمام هذا العدد من النساء؟
كيف صادف أنَّ كل امرأة في الوليمة كانت تمسك بسكين لدى دخول يوسف؟
كيف اتفقت كل النساء على رد الفعل نفسه، أي قطع أيديهن؟ وهل كل النساء قطعن أيديهن؟
ثم، ماذا حدث بعد ذلك؟ أذَهبن كلهن مقطعات الأيدي إلى أزواجهن، أم إلى الأطباء للعلاج؟
Sources cited
- الطبري، تفسير 13: 133-134.
- القرطبي، تفسير 11: 332.
- انظر «تقاطعات مع القصص التلمودي».
This item merges 3 entries of the original site that carried the same text across the passage (old ids 260, 261, 262; the old ids redirect here).