He intended by the matter when he aimed for it and resolved upon it. He said: I intended and did not do, and I almost did, would that I had... I left upon 'Uthman his women weeping. [This is from 'Amir ibn Dhab' al-Burjami, who entered upon 'Uthman while he was killed and stepped on his belly and broke his rib and said: I intended to kill 'Uthman and did not kill him, and I almost did it, would that I had killed him. He referred to this by saying: 'I left upon 'Uthman his women weeping.' This is a form of dispute. Its origin is: I left upon 'Uthman his women weeping, so he made his women the subject. He omitted the object of the first 'I left' because it is known from the speech, and because it is superfluous and is not implied in this context. The meaning is: would that I had killed him, so I made his women weep for him. This man entered upon al-Hajjaj and said: O Commander of the Faithful, I am an old weak man, and my name has come up in this campaign, so accept my son as a substitute for me. He accepted him and left, and 'Utbah ibn Sa'id said: O Commander, this is the one who did such and such to 'Uthman. He said: Bring him back to me. He said to him: O old man, why did you not send to 'Uthman the Commander of the Faithful as a substitute on the day of the house? For in your killing there is righteousness. O my guard, strike his neck. The commander of the guard was commanded to kill him and he addressed him in the manner of dual speech according to the language of the guards to whom the addressee was attributed. It was said that the story is with Dhab' himself, and that 'Uthman had imprisoned him for his abuse of the Banu Nahshal. So when 'Uthman was killed, he escaped and did that to him.] And from this is your saying: I will not do that nor will I scheme nor will I intend. That is, nor do I almost do it in scheming, nor do I intend to do it with intention, as reported by Sibawayh. And from this is the 'hamam', which is the one who, when he intends a matter, carries it out and does not turn back from it. And his saying: And certainly she intended it means: And she certainly intended to associate with him, and he intended to associate with her. Were it not that he saw the proof of his Lord, the response is omitted, its meaning being: Were it not that he saw the proof of his Lord, he would have associated with her, and it is omitted because his saying: And he intended her indicates it, like your saying: I intended to kill him were it not that I feared Allah, meaning were it not that I feared Allah.

How could it be permissible for the Prophet of Allah to have a desire for sin and to intend it? I said: The meaning is that his soul inclined towards mixing and was drawn to it by the passion of youth and its intensity. This inclination resembles the desire for it and the intention towards it, as is indicated by the nature of that situation which nearly overwhelms minds and resolves. He breaks what he has and repels it by contemplating the proof of Allah taken upon the obligated ones regarding the necessity of avoiding the prohibitions. If that strong inclination, called desire, were not so intense, its possessor would not be praised by Allah for abstaining. This is because the greatness of patience in the face of trials corresponds to the severity and magnitude of the trial. If his desire were like hers from a firm resolve, Allah would not have praised him as one of His sincere servants. It is possible that by saying 'and he intended it' he means he approached the intention to do it, just as a man says: 'I would have killed him had I not feared Allah,' meaning he approached killing and faced it. It is as if he began it. If you say: Is the saying 'and he intended it' included under the ruling of the oath in the saying 'and indeed she intended him' or is it excluded from it? I say: Both matters are permissible. It is the reader's right, if he considers it outside the ruling of the oath and makes it a statement on its own, to pause at 'and indeed she intended him' and begin with 'and he intended it had he not seen the proof of his Lord.' In this, there is also an indication of the difference between the two intentions. If you say: Why did you make the answer to 'had it not been for' omitted, indicated by 'intended it,' and why did you not make it the answer presented? I say: Because 'had it not been for' cannot precede its answer, since it is in the ruling of a condition. The condition has the beginning of the speech, and with what is in its scope from the two sentences, it is like a single word. It is not permissible to present part of the word over another. As for omitting some of it if the evidence indicates it, that is permissible. If you say: Why did you make 'had it not been for' related only to 'intended it' and did not make it related to the entirety of the saying 'and indeed she intended him and he intended it'? Because desire does not relate to substances but to meanings, so it is necessary to estimate the mixing, and mixing cannot occur except from both together. It is as if it were said: 'And indeed they both intended to mix had not a barrier prevented one of them.' I say: Yes, what you said is correct, but Allah, glorified and exalted is He, has brought the two intentions in detail where He said 'and indeed she intended him and he intended it,' so His omission of one is its annulment. Therefore, the estimation must be: 'And indeed she intended to mix with him and he intended to mix with her,' on the understanding that the intention of the two mixes is her reaching what is her share of fulfilling her desire from him, and his reaching what is his share of fulfilling his desire from her, had he not seen the proof of his Lord. Thus, it was true that 'had it not been for' is related to 'intended it' alone. It has been interpreted that Joseph's desire was that he loosened his belt and sat with her in a position of intimacy, and that he loosened the strap of his trousers and sat between her four limbs while she was lying on her back. The proof has been interpreted as he heard a voice: 'Beware of her,' so he did not pay attention to it. He heard it a second time but did not act upon it. He heard it a third time: 'Turn away from her,' and it did not have an effect on him until Jacob was shown to him biting his fingers. It was said: He struck his hand on his chest, and his desire left his fingers. It was said: Every son of Jacob had twelve children except Joseph, for he had eleven children due to what diminished from his desire when he intended. It was said: He was called out: 'O Joseph, do not be like the bird: it had feathers, but when it committed adultery, it sat without feathers.' It was said: A hand appeared between them that had no support or wrist, written upon it: 'And indeed, upon you are guardians, noble writers.' So it did not turn away, then he saw in it: 'And do not approach adultery, indeed it is an immorality and evil is the path.' So he did not stop, then he saw in it: 'And fear a Day when you will be returned to Allah.' So it did not have an effect on him, then Allah said to Gabriel, peace be upon him:

My servant was aware before he committed the sin. Then Gabriel descended, saying: "O Yusuf, will you act like the foolish while you are recorded in the register of the prophets?" It was said that he saw the statue of the nobleman. It was said that the woman went to an idol that was there, covered it, and said: "I am shy of it seeing us." Yusuf said: "I am shy of one who does not hear or see, and I am not shy of the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing of what is in the breasts." This and similar things are what the people of excess and compulsion bring forth. [The phrase 'what the people of excess and compulsion bring forth' refers to the people of the Sunnah, and by the people of justice, he means the Mu'tazilah. To accuse a person of something shameful that he did not do is called 'to be accused of something shameful.' If there were any slight fault found in Yusuf, it would have been mentioned, and his repentance and seeking forgiveness would have been noted, just as Adam's fault was noted, as well as those of David, Noah, Job, and Dhul-Nun, and their repentance and seeking forgiveness were mentioned. How could it be, when he was praised and called the one who is saved? It is certainly known that he remained steadfast in that situation, and he struggled against himself with the struggle of those of strength and determination, looking into the evidence of prohibition and the aspect of ugliness, until he deserved from Allah praise in what was revealed from the books of the ancients, then in the Qur'an, which is a proof against all of His books and a confirmation of them. He did not stop except at the completion of his story and the striking of a complete chapter upon it, to give him a tongue of truth among those who come after, just as he gave it to his grandfather, the friend Ibrahim, blessings and peace be upon him, so that the righteous may follow him until the end of time in chastity, the purity of garments, and steadfastness in moments of temptation. Allah disgraced those who brought forth what leads to the revelation of the chapter that is the best of stories in the clear Arabic Qur'an, to follow a prophet of Allah, in sitting among the branches of the adulteress and in the permissibility of his garment to fall upon her, and in that his Lord forbade him three times, and he was called out from Him three calls with the striking words of the Qur'an, with the great reprimand, with the severe warning, and with the comparison to the bird that lost its feathers when it mated with one that is not its female, while it is crouching in its resting place, not moving, not stopping, and not waking up, until Allah intervened with Gabriel and compelled him. If the most audacious of the adulterers and the most skilled among them, the one with the best appearance, were to face the slightest of what the Prophet of Allah faced from what they mentioned, he would have no pulse left nor any moving limb. How vile is this doctrine, and how clear is this misguidance! Just as the 'kaf' is in the accusative case, meaning 'like that' we established it. Or it is in the nominative case, meaning the matter is like that, 'to turn away from him the evil of betrayal of the master and the immorality of adultery. Indeed, he is among Our chosen servants who have dedicated their religion to Allah.' And with the opening, 'those whom Allah has chosen for His obedience by protecting them.' It is possible that he means by 'the evil' the precursors of immorality, such as kissing and looking with desire, and similar things. And His saying 'among Our servants' means some of Our servants, that is: he is chosen from among the chosen ones. Or he is one of them, because he is from the descendants of Ibrahim, of whom He said: 'Indeed, We have chosen them with a special choice.'