TheQuran.com
Ambiguity Analysis · argument Classical sources

Yūsuf 12:52

By TheQuran.com research team (original site, 2020–21) · last edited 28 Mar 2021

Share X Facebook WhatsApp Telegram Reddit Email

The verse

12:52
ذَٰلِكَ لِيَعْلَمَ أَنِّى لَمْ أَخُنْهُ بِٱلْغَيْبِ وَأَنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِى كَيْدَ ٱلْخَآئِنِينَ ٥٢
(Then Joseph said: I asked for) this, that he (my lord) may know that I betrayed him not in secret, and that surely Allah guideth not the snare of the betrayers. — Marmaduke Pickthall

The issue

Unlike the Palmer English translation, “(said Joseph),” the current Arabic Qur’ān does not remove the ambiguity regarding the speaker in this verse. Islamic commentators offer two opinions regarding the speaker’s identity:

The speaker in this text is Joseph.The speaker here is the wife of the prince.

If Joseph is the speaker, why is there no pronoun that points clearly to him? The previous verse (51) only discusses the women who confess to the king their lust for Joseph but declare his innocence. Joseph is the topic of their discussion, but he is not present. How then can Joseph suddenly be the speaker in the following verse?

If the wife is the speaker, what is meant by her words, “…was that he might know that I did not betray him…”? Some may interpret the meaning as “I did not betray him in his absence, meaning by lying about him, nor did I speak ill of him while he was absent”. However, would this declaration be an appropriate defense from one who tried to lure and seduce Joseph?

Such problems indicate that verse 52 has an interruption, a missing part, creating confusion in knowing the identity of the speaker here.

Arabic text of this item

ثمة غموض في هوية المتكلم وفقاً للآية، وقد طرح المفسرون الرأيين التاليين:

إن المتكلم بالنص هو يوسف.

إن المتكلمة هنا هي امرأة العزيز.

وهنا نتساءل:

إذا كان يوسف هو المتكلم، فلماذا لا نجد ضميراً يشير إليه بشكل جلي؟

وكيف تم الانتقال من الحديث عن النسوة واعترافاتهن إلى الحديث عن يوسف؟

وإذا كانت المرأة هي المتكلمة، فكيف تقول <لِيَعْلَمَ أَنِّي لَمْ أَخُنْهُ>؟

وإذا قال البعض إن المعنى: «أني لم أخنه (بالغيب) أي: بالكذب عليه، ولم أذكره بسوءٍ وهو غائب»، فهل يمكن أن نقبل صدور هذا الكلام عمن حاولت إغواء يوسف؟

إن في الآية انقطاعاً يشير إلى نقص ما في النص، مما خلق لَبساً في معرفة هوية المتكلم هنا.

Sources cited

  1. al-Qurţubī 11: 375.
  2. al-Rāzī, Tafsīr 18: 157-158.
  1. القرطبي، تفسير 11: 375.
  2. الرازي، تفسير 18: 157-158.