And they raced to the door, omitting the preposition and connecting the verb, as in His saying, 'And Musa chose his people.' This implies that 'they raced' means 'they began to race.' Yusuf fled from her, and he hurried to the door to exit, while she hurried behind him to prevent him from leaving. If you say: How is it that he mentioned 'the door' in the singular, while he mentioned it in the plural in His saying, 'And she closed the doors'? I say: He meant the outer door, which is the exit from the house and the escape from disgrace. It has been narrated by Ka'b that when Yusuf fled, the lock's bedding scattered and fell until he exited through the doors. And she had torn his shirt from behind, pulling it from him, so it was ripped when he fled to the door, and she followed him to prevent him. They found their master and encountered her husband, who was Al-Aziz. The woman said to her husband: 'My master.' It was said that he did not say 'their master' because Yusuf's kingship was not established, so he was not truly a master over him. It was said: 'They found him approaching, wanting to enter.' And it was said: 'Sitting with a cousin of the woman.' When her husband saw her in that suspicious state, and she was angry with Yusuf because he did not respond to her advances, she devised a plan that combined her two objectives: to clear herself of suspicion in front of her husband and to incite anger towards Yusuf, hoping to intimidate him so that he would respond to her out of fear of her and her cunning, and her dislike for him when she despaired of his willing compliance. Do you not see her saying, 'And if he does not do what I command him, he will certainly be imprisoned,' and 'what' is negating, meaning: His only reward is imprisonment? It is also possible that it is interrogative, meaning: What is his reward except imprisonment? Just as you say: Who is in the house except Zaid? If you say: Why did she not explicitly mention Yusuf in her words, and that he intended harm towards her? It was said: 'If you say: Why did she say what she said without explicitly mentioning Yusuf?' Ahmad said: 'She expressed this ambiguity out of modesty and shyness to say to her husband: This one intended harm towards me. Therefore, I was also shy about the harm I concealed from him, exaggerating in cunning and plotting, and distancing suspicion from herself by avoiding anything that would indicate immodesty and boldness, contrary to her intention, even though her consideration was in modesty. This is similar to the saying of the daughter of Shu'ayb, praising Musa, peace be upon him, when Allah narrated about her: 'One of them said: O my father, hire him. Indeed, the best of those you can hire is the strong and trustworthy.' She did not say: 'He is strong and trustworthy,' out of modesty and shyness, but this was motivated by her character of shyness. The wife of Al-Aziz was motivated by pretentiousness and the use of that corrupt purpose of cunning. And Allah knows best.

I intended the generality, and that everyone who intends harm to his family deserves to be imprisoned or punished. This is because it is more effective in what I intended by frightening Yusuf. It was said that the painful punishment is beating with whips. When she incited him and exposed him to imprisonment and punishment, he had to defend himself, so he said: 'She indeed sought to seduce me.' If it were not for that, he would have concealed it from her. And a witness from her family testified; it was said that it was a cousin of hers. Allah cast the testimony upon the tongue of one who is from her family, to make it more obligatory as evidence against her, more reliable for Yusuf's innocence, and more dismissive of the accusation against him. It was said that he was the one who was sitting with her at the door. It was said that he was a wise man to whom the king would refer and seek counsel. It is possible that some of her family was in the house and saw her from where she did not realize, so Allah provoked him to testify for Yusuf and uphold the truth. It was said that he was a young cousin of hers in the cradle. And the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'Four spoke while they were infants: the son of Pharaoh's hairdresser, the witness of Yusuf, the companion of Jirjiz, and Jesus.' [Narrated by Al-Hakim, Ibn Hibban, Ahmad, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Al-Bazzar, Abu Ya'la, Al-Tabari, and Al-Bayhaqi in the sixteenth of the chapters, all from the narration of Hamad ibn Salamah from 'Ata ibn Al-Sa'ib from Sa'id ibn Jubayr from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, raised: 'When I was taken on the night journey, a pleasant scent passed by me - the narration' contains the story of the hairdresser, and at the end, the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'Four spoke in the cradle while they were infants: this one, the witness of Yusuf, the companion of Jirjiz, and Jesus, son of Mary.' And in Al-Hakim also from the narration of Muslim ibn Ibrahim from Jirjiz ibn Hazim from Muhammad ibn Sirin from Abu Huraira raised: 'No one spoke in the cradle except four while they were infants: Jesus, the witness of Yusuf, the companion of Jirjiz, and the son of Pharaoh's hairdresser.' And he mentioned it with the wording of three. The third was the son of the woman who was thrown into the fire. She feared for her child, so she spoke to him.' And in the two Sahihs from another source from Abu Huraira raised: 'No one spoke in the cradle except three: Jesus, son of Mary, the companion of Jirjiz, and a boy who was nursing when a man passed by riding an animal - the narration.' Al-Tayyibi limited himself to this narration and did not succeed, and by this consideration, they became five. Al-Thalabi narrated from Al-Dhahak that they were six, adding Yahya ibn Zakariya.

I said: From two aspects, the first is that if she was following him and he was defending himself, she could tear his shirt from the front by pushing. The second is that he rushes behind her to catch up with her and stumbles on the front of his shirt, tearing it. [[He returned to his words. He said: "And the second is that he rushes behind her to catch up with her and stumbles on the front of his shirt, tearing it." Ahmad said: "This is the same possibility if she was the one following him and he was fleeing from her, and his shirt tore in his haste to escape, and Allah knows best. The words of Al-Zamakhshari in this section are not as such. The truth - and Allah is the Bestower of success - is that if the mentioned witness was a child in the cradle as mentioned in some hadith, then the verse is in his mere words before their time, so if he said: 'Joseph is truthful and she lied,' it would be enough as evidence of his truthfulness, just as the mere announcement of Jesus in the cradle was evidence of Mary’s truthfulness. Thus, the connection between the established evidence and what is arranged upon it does not remain, because the main point in the indication is its establishment, not its relevance. If the witness was one of her family who was in the house and saw her from where she did not realize, then Allah made him angry for Joseph by bearing witness for him and establishing the truth as Al-Zamakhshari mentioned. So, Allah knows best, it was his right to declare what he saw, affirming Joseph's truthfulness and denying her, but he wanted not to be the one to expose her. He was confident that the tearing of his shirt was from the back, so he established it as evidence of his truthfulness and her falsehood. Then he mentioned the other part, which is the tearing from the front, knowing that it did not tear from the front, so he could clear himself of suspicion in the testimony and the intention of exposing her, and he could be fair to both by mentioning evidence of her known falsehood, just as he mentioned evidence of his known truthfulness. Therefore, he prioritized the evidence of her truthfulness over the evidence of his truthfulness in the mention, to remove suspicion and with confidence that the second evidence is the actual occurrence, so its delay does not harm him. This subtlety, Allah knows best, is what the believer of Pharaoh's family observed in his saying: 'And if he is lying, then upon him is his lie, and if he is truthful, some of what he promises you will befall you.' He prioritized the section of lying over the section of truth to remove the suspicion that he feared might be directed at him regarding Moses, with confidence that the second section, which is his truthfulness, is the reality. So, its delay in mention does not harm for this benefit. Hence, he said: 'some of what he promises you' and did not say: 'everything he promises you,' alluding that he is with them in it, and that he is eager to deprive them of their right. This is similar to the delay of Joseph in revealing his brother's container, because if he had started with it, they would have realized that he was the one who ordered it to be placed in it, and Allah knows best. This witness aimed only at the last evidence.

And the relevance in it is established. As for the first evidence, it is not intended, but rather mentioned as a preamble as previously stated. He did not seek for it a clear, correct relevance with certainty, but it is as if it is a hypothesis and estimation, and Allah knows best. It is as if he said: If his shirt tore from the front, then she is truthful.

But he knows the absence of the mentioned evidence, so he conditioned its truth on something impossible, which is the existence of his stature from the prior state. This explanation is the correct and true essence, and Allah is the Grantor of success. As for if the wise witness, to whom the king referred and consulted as mentioned in some tafsirs, there must be a search for the appropriateness in both sides because it is the trust of the wise. The closest aspect of appropriateness is that the stature from the back indicates his turning away from her, and the stature from the front indicates his approaching her with his face. And Allah knows best. It has been recited: 'from the front' and 'from the back', with the vowel on the last letter according to the opinion of the limits. The meaning is: from the front of the shirt and from its back. As for the indefinite article, it means from a direction called 'front' and from a direction called 'back'. Ibn Abi Ishaq recited: 'from the front and from the back' with the opening, as if he made them proper nouns for the two directions, thus preventing them from being declined due to their proper nature and femininity. And it was recited with the letter 'ain' being silent. If you say: How is it permissible to combine 'if' which is for the future with 'was'? I say: Because the meaning is that he knows that his shirt was of a certain stature, similar to saying: 'If you have done good to me, then you have done good to me from before', to someone who boasts to you of his kindness, meaning: 'If you bestow upon me, I will bestow upon you.' So when he saw, meaning Al-Aziz, and knew the innocence of Yusuf and his truthfulness and her falsehood, he said: 'Indeed, your saying, what is the recompense of one who intended evil against your family?' The commentator Mahmoud said: 'The pronoun refers back to her saying, what is the recompense of one who intended evil against your family... etc.' Ahmad said: 'In what this scholar said, there is a consideration, because the verse that mentioned the plotting of Satan from the words of Allah is not narrated. As for this verse, the plotting of women in it is from the words of the Aziz, but Allah narrated it from him, and it is possible that His narration of it is a confirmation of it, and it is possible that the intention is not to confirm it. Moreover, the plotting of Satan is mentioned in the verse as a counter to the plotting of Allah, so it was weak in comparison to it. Do you not see the beginning of the verse: 'Those who have believed fight in the cause of Allah, and those who have disbelieved fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plotting of Satan was weak.' Also, the plotting that women and others engage in is derived from Satan through his whispering and incitement, and the evidences of the Shari'ah support that. Thus, it cannot be imagined that their plotting is greater than his plotting, and Allah knows best. Or indeed, the matter, which is her desire for Yusuf, is from your plotting, addressing her and her maid. He only magnified the plotting of women because, although it exists in men, women are subtler in plotting and more effective in strategy. They have in that a finesse and gentleness, and with that, they overcome men. From it is His saying: 'And from the evil of those who blow on knots.' And the women among them have what is not with others from the calamities. Some scholars said: 'I fear from women more than I fear from Satan, because Allah says: 'Indeed, the plotting of Satan was weak,' and He said to women: 'Indeed, your plotting is great.' 'Yusuf' omitted the vocative particle because it is a near address suitable for the conversation, and it is a way to bring him closer and soften his position: 'Turn away from this matter and keep it secret, and seek forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were among the wrongdoers.' This is among the people who deliberately commit sin. It is said: 'He erred' if he sinned deliberately, and he said: 'from the wrongdoers' in the masculine form, giving preference to males over females, and the Aziz was nothing but a patient man. It was narrated that he had little jealousy.