Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31

Abstract

Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt to seduce him, and is ridiculed by her peers for her failure to do so. She invites them to a banquet, hands them knives, and presents Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, the women cut their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally accepted exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that they did not know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they were cutting some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph in the beginning, they threatened to kill themselves if Joseph would not listen to them, and, to convince Joseph that they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately cut their hands with knives. This article gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discusses how that interpretation calls for re-evaluating some crucial aspects of the Qurʾānic story of Joseph.

1. The Problem Stated

In Sūra 12, which tells the story of Joseph, verses 23–29 relate how the wife of the Egyptian high official called ꜤAzīz (Potiphar of the Bible)—following tradition, we will call her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt to seduce him, whereupon some women in the city, very likely her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to us that she has gone astray” (innā la-narāhā fī ḍalālin mubīnin [verse 30]).1 A series of events follow (verses 30–34)2:

Zulaykhā arranges a banquet, to which she invites those women;

she hands each guest a knife;

Joseph is presented before the women;

the women are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, and exclaim that Joseph is not a mortal human but an angel;

Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated before the women, says that Joseph will either do her wish or be imprisoned and humiliated;

Joseph prays to God for protection against the women’s machinations, and God grants his prayer.

This Qurʾānic passage (verses 30–34)—indeed, the whole of the sūra—raises, besides the issues of interpretation of the incident of the women’s cutting of their hands, a number of general and specific issues.3 But our particular point of interest, to which we will confine our discussion, is, Why did the women cut their hands with the knives that Zulaykhā had provided them?

2. Traditional Muslim Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31

The generally accepted answer to the question just posed is that the women were “stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to some interpreters, the women, dazzled by Joseph’s beauty, thought that they were using knives to cut some food item, like fruit, but accidentally cut their hands. Others leave the food item out and simply say that the women, awestruck by Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands. But the difference between the two positions is only one of detail, both representing the same essential interpretation, namely, that the women’s cutting of their hands was an involuntary act on their part, a position accepted by most classical and modern, Sunnī and ShīꜤī, mufassirūn (“Qurʾānic exegetes”), such as the following:

ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤAbbās (d. 686–7). (Ibn ꜤAbbās 1987, p. 196); Abū l-Ḥajjāj Mujāhid ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). Abū l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003, 2:147); Abū JaꜤfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122); Abū l-Layth al-Samarqandī (d. 983) (Samarqandī 1993, 2:159–160); Abū Isḥāq al-ThaꜤlabī (d. 1035) (Tha‘labī 2004, 3:372); Maḥmūd ibn ꜤUmar al-Zamakhsharī (d. 1144) (Zamakhsharī n.d., 2:253.); Ibn ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:239); Abū ꜤAlī al-Faḍl ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī (d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī 2006, 5:307); Abū l-Faraj ꜤAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ꜤAlī ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) (Ibn al-Jawzī 2002, 4:167); Fakhr al-Dīn Abū ꜤAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn ꜤUmar al-Rāzī (d. 1210) (Rāzī 1938, 18:126–127); Abū ꜤAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. 1272) (Qurṭubī 1967, 9:179–180); ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤUmar al-Bayḍāwī (d. 1286) (Bayḍāwī 1968, 1:493); Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī (d. 1344) (Abū Ḥayyān 1992, 6:267–269); ꜤImād al-Dīn IsmāꜤīl ibn Kathīr (d. 1373) (Ibn Kathīr 1983, 4:23–24); Burhān al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ibn ꜤUmar al-BiqāꜤī (d. 1480) (BiqāꜤī 2003, 4:34–35); Muḥammad ibn ꜤAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Shawkānī (d. 1834) (Shawkānī 1996, 3:26); Abū l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd al-Ᾱlūsī (d. 1854) (Ᾱlūsī, 13:229–230); Rashīḍ Riḍā (d. 1935) (Rashīḍ Riḍā n.d., 12:293); Muḥammad Thanāʾullāh al-Maẓharī al-Pānīpatī (d. 1810) (Thanāʾullāh al-Pānīpatī 2007, 4:24); Abū Muḥammad ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq Haqqānī (d. 1911) (Ḥaqqānī n.d., 4:262); Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir ibn ꜤᾹshūr (d. 1973) (Ibn ꜤᾹshūr 1984, 12:263); Ashraf ꜤAlī Thānawī (d. 1943) (Thānawī 1935, 5:78); Muḥammad ShafīꜤ (d. 1976) (Muḥammad ShafīꜤ 1990, 5:50); Abū l-AꜤlā Mawdūdī (d. 1979) (Mawdūdī 1949–1972a, 1949–1972b, 2:397);4 Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. 1982) (Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002, 12:149).

This is not an exhaustive list of the mufassirūn who subscribe to the above-stated standard interpretation of verse 31 of sūra 12. It is a fairly representative list, though, and should suffice to show that the said interpretation has practically the whole weight of the exegetical tradition behind it.

3. Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation

The Pakistani Qurʾānic exegete, Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (d. 1418/1997), in his multivolume Urdu Qurʾānic commentary, Tadabbur-i Qurʾān (“Reflection on the Qurʾān”), differs from—or rather, rejects—the aforestated interpretation and presents his own understanding of the verse (Iṣlāḥī 2001–2002, 4:208–210). Here, following, is his argument step by step:

• In verse 30, the women, criticizing Zulaykhā, say: innā la-narāha fī ḍalālin mubīnin “It is clear to us that she has gone astray!” This statement, says Iṣlāḥī, combines the elements of malāma, shamāta, and iddiꜤāʾ,5 that is, of reproach, malicious pleasure or schadenfreude, and boastful claim, respectively: reproach, in that it is quite strange, in their view, that the wife of a high-ranking official should fall in love with her slave—and stranger still, that she should fail to make him do her wish; malicious pleasure, in that she, like them a noblewoman, should suffer defeat at the hands of a slave and, as a result, incur disgrace; and boastful claim, in that, had they been in her place, the women imply, they would have delivered, with their beauty, smooth talk, and blandishments, a knock-out blow to Joseph.
• The next verse (31) begins with fa-lammā samiꜤat bi-makrihinna, “When she [Zulaykhā] heard of their makr” [my translation]. What is meant by makr? Since one of the elements of the women’s just-quoted statement is boastful claim, the word makr in this verse would signify something like ruse, a deceitful act that, the women are sure, will succeed where Zulaykhā’s charms have failed. In other words, makr is the instrument the women intend to use to flesh out their iddiꜤā; through makr they will bring Joseph round.
• When Joseph steps out before them, the women are dazzled by his beauty. Upon seeing him, furthermore, they sense that it would not be easy to bring him round. But they had come with the intention and the plan to tame him, and so they try to persuade him. Joseph, of course, would not budge. At this, the women threaten to kill themselves if Joseph would not listen to them. Joseph stands firm, and, finally, the women, giving up, say, hāsha li-llāhi mā hādhā basharan in hādhā illā malakun karīmun (“Great God! He cannot be mortal! He must be a precious angel!”).
• What is the basis for the view that the women tried to persuade Joseph to do their wish and that their act of cutting their hands was a kayd, a strategem, on their part? The basis, says Iṣlāḥī, is found in the Qurʾān itself. In verses 50–51, Joseph, still in prison, refuses to accompany the king’s messenger to the king and sends the messenger back, demanding that the king first question the women about their scheming behavior at the banquet:
  wa-qālal-maliku ʾtūnī bihī fa-lammā jāʾahū r-rasūlu qāla rjīꜤ ilā rabbika fa-sʾalhu mā bālu n-niswati llatī qaṭṭaꜤna aydiyahunna inna rabbī bi-kaydihinnaꜤalīmun qāla mā khaṭbukunna idh rāwadtunna YūsufuꜤan nafsihī
  The king said, “Bring him to me,” but when the messenger came to fetch Joseph, he said, “Go back to your master and ask him about what happened to those women who cut their hands—my Lord knows all about their machinations.” The king asked the women, “What happened when you tried to seduce Joseph?”
  In these verses, Joseph, in his remarks about the women, calls the women’s cutting of their hands a kayd, namely, a wily maneuver to persuade Joseph to do their wish. The king, too, speaks of the women’s attempted seduction of Joseph. He uses the word rāwadtunna (“you tried to seduce”), from the root r-w-d, which, in other Form III derivatives, occurs several times in the sūra (verses 24, 26, 30, 32, 51 (twice in 51) with reference to Zulaykhā and the other women.6 Had the women cut their hands accidentally, as a result of being overwhelmed by Joseph’s beauty and without realizing that they were cutting their own hands, Joseph would not have called it a kayd. And had the women not tried to ensnare Joseph, the king would not have asked them, ma khaṭbukunna idh rāwadtunna Yūsufa ‘an nafsihī. To Iṣlāḥī, verses 50–51 make it abundantly clear that the women were both complicit and in competition—that they were not simply innocent guests of Zulaykhā who were dazzled by Joseph’s beauty, but actually intended to try their wiles on Joseph, hoping, to Zulaykhā’s chagrin, to succeed where she had failed.
• The threat to commit suicide is one of the most effective weapons a woman can use in her confrontation with a man. If she finds that her blandishments are not working, she uses the threat of suicide as her last weapon, and this is what those women did. In fact, Iṣlāḥī adds, the threat to commit suicide is the last weapon used by all weak people, not just women.7
• After their failed attempt to win Joseph over, the women admit defeat and say: ḥāsha li llāhi mā hādhā basharan in hādhā illā malakun karīmun. Ḥāsha li llāhi is an expression used by one to clear oneself or someone else of an accusation. The complete statement by the women is, on the one hand, the highest praise Joseph could receive, and, on the other, an excuse for their failure, in that they have failed not because they were not attractive enough or their lures did not work on Joseph, but because the person they were confronting was an angelic figure, their charms being effective only against mortal human beings.8

As can be seen, Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation of verse 31 and the other relevant verses is based on a close reading of the Qurʾānic text. Iṣlāḥī does not cite or discuss any riwāyāt (transmitted reports) about the incident involving Joseph, Zulaykhā, and the other women; rather, he aims at arriving at a coherent understanding of the Qurʾānic text by focusing on the text itself, trying to reconstruct the happenings in the sūra. In doing so, he, on the one hand, takes into consideration not only the dictionary meanings but also the nuances and connotations of the words and expressions used by the speakers, and, on the other, analyzes the psychology and mood of the speakers. A good example is his quite plausible statement that the Egyptian women’s criticism of Zulaykhā contains the elements of malamā, shamāta, and iddiꜤāʾ (see above). It is easy to see how the women’s malāma would be intermixed with shamāta. But the fact that Zulaykhā’s failure to bring Joseph round does not deter the women from trying their own charms on Joseph is clearly suggestive of their iddiꜤāʾ or boastful pretensions as well.

4. The Difference Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation Makes

What difference does Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31 make? Several points may be made:

• In the traditional interpretation, the Egyptian noblewomen are a sort of foil or sidekick to Zulaykhā and can hardly be called major actors or figures in the Qurʾānic story of Joseph. On Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation, they are no longer passive, if deeply interested, spectators of a drama unfolding before their eyes. They assume an active role in advancing the story’s plot since they now become Zulaykhā’s accomplices, and even competitors: they plot along with Zulaykhā in trapping Joseph—and they hope to succeed where Zulaykhā has failed. In brief, Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation moves the women from a footnote to the main text.
• The women’s conduct, taken in conjunction with Zulaykhā’s conduct, becomes a sharper indictment of the decadent moral state of Egyptian nobility than Zulaykhā’s conduct by itself would be. It indicates that the whole crate of apples, and not just one apple, was bad, or that, to borrow Shakespeare’s words, much was rotten in the state of Denmark. And it also indicates, in stronger terms, the challenge Joseph faced and the strength of character he possessed: he was under assault not just from one side, but from all sides, and his successful defense of himself against all those attacks raises his moral stature in the same degree.9
• Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation calls for revisiting some of the expressions used in the Qurʾānic passage under discussion:
  • In the traditional interpretation, the word makr, as used by the women, is explained as (1) the women’s ightiyāb and sūʾu l-qāla, that is, their maligning of Zulaykhā in her absence;10 (2) the women’s iḥtiyāl, or wily tactic, to get Zulaykhā to show Joseph to them;11 or (3) the women’s ifshāʾ al-sirr, that is, their divulging of the secret Zulaykhā had entrusted them with, namely, that she was in love with her slave, Joseph.12 But, strictly speaking, none of these three meanings belongs to the word makr, and none of them can be attested from Qurʾānic usage. The Qurʾān uses the word makr predominantly to mean a secret stratagem intended to cause harm of some kind. Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation assigns to the word a meaning much closer to its spirit.
  • In the traditional interpretation, the word kayd does not seem to have much of a presence in the text. In Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation, it assumes key importance, serving as a basis for Joseph’s indictment of the women: inna rabbī bi-kaydihinna Ꜥalīmun (verse 50). When, in the very next verse, the king questions the women, he quite rightly uses the word rāwadtunna to interpret the word kayd used by Joseph, evidence that Joseph’s use of the word kayd in verse 33 (wa-illā taṣrif Ꜥannī kaydahunna, “if you do not protect me from their machinations”) likewise refers to the sexual advances the women made to Joseph.
  • In the traditional interpretation, the phrase qaṭṭaꜤna aydiyahunna refers to an involuntary act on the women’s part. But an involuntary act can hardly serve as a basis for the king to hold the women accountable. In verse 50, an imprisoned Joseph tells the king’s messenger to go back to the king and ask him to investigate why the women had cut their hands, indicating in the same breath that that act was a kayd. His words are, irjiꜤ ilā rabbika fa-sʾalhu mā bālu n-niswati llatī qaṭṭaꜤna aydiyahunna inna rabbī bi-kaydihinna Ꜥalīmun (“Go back to your master and ask him about those women who cut their hands—my Lord knows all about their machinations”), and, in the next verse, the king rephrases Joseph’s question, interpreting it, with the Qurʾān approving the interpretation, as mā khaṭbukunna idh rāwadtunn Yūsufa Ꜥan nafsihī (“What happened when you tried to seduce Joseph?”). His question is about three things—the cutting of hands, the kayd, and the murāwada (maṣdar of the Form III verb rāwada), which are integrally connected: the women’s kayd consisted in their cutting of their hands, which was intended to persuade Joseph to do their wish (murāwada).
  • Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation raises the interesting question of the relationship between the words makr and kayd as used in the Qurʾānic text in the sūra. It seems that, in this sūra at least, makr stands for hatching a plot, whereas kayd stands for executing that plot in practice. Some of the other instances of the Qurʾānic use of the two words would seem to support this differentiation.
  • The second half of verse 31 runs as follows: fa-lammā raʾaynahū akbarnahū wa-qaṭṭaꜤna aydiyahunna wa-qulna hāsha li-llāhi mā hādhā basharan in hādhā illā malakun karīmun, “and when the women saw him, they were stunned by his beauty, and cut their hands, exclaiming, ‘Great God! He cannot be a mortal! He must be a precious angel!’” As can be seen, the verse reports three things:

    (1)

    upon seeing Joseph, the woman are stunned by his beauty;

    (2)

    the women cut their hands;

    (3)

    the women declare that Joseph is no ordinary mortal but an angel.

On the traditional interpretation, the three things take place in quick succession and together make up a single, uninterrupted sequence, as is clear from Abdel Haleem’s translation. On Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation, however, there is a time lapse between (1) and (2) and very possibly between (2) and (3) as well. (1) represents the women’s spontaneous reaction upon first catching sight of Joseph. After they have overcome their unrehearsed initial reaction, they consciously try their wiles on Joseph. When Joseph is unmoved, the women threaten to commit suicide if Joseph would not do their wish, and, to convince Joseph of the seriousness of their intent, they cut their hands. Upon seeing that Joseph is still unmoved, they give up, and exclaim that Joseph, with his chaste character, is more like an angel than a mortal human being.

5. The Merit of Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation and the Significance of the Knives

Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31, with its exclusive focus on the Qurʾānic text—that is, on the context, intratextuality, and language of the Qurʾān—challenges a very well-established interpretation and seeks to replace it with a more nuanced understanding of the Qurʾānic text. Its particular merit is that it casts the Egyptian noblewomen in a new light, assigning them a much more active role in the story than they have in the traditional interpretation.

There is one more point to consider. Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31 is possibly reinforced by another datum in the sūra—that of Zulaykhā’s handing of knives to the women. We need to keep in mind that it is not the Qurʾān’s wont to mention a detail of this kind, and so there has to be a reason why the Qurʾān would provide such a detail in the sūra. When I read about Zulaykhā, wa-ātat kulla wāḥidatin minhunna sikkīnan, “[and she gave] each of them a knife,” I get the feeling that this was done in accordance with a preconceived plan: the women had apprised Zulaykhā of their intention to go to any length to persuade Joseph, even to the extent of threatening him with suicide if he were to remain firm in the face of their demand. Accordingly, to demonstrate to Joseph, if necessary, that they were serious in carrying out their threat, they themselves had asked Zulaykhā to provide them with knives at the banquet, and that is why the Qurʾān highlights an otherwise inconsequential detail.

6. An Extra-Biblical Analogue to Qurʾān 12:31

The Qurʾānic story of Joseph has a number of Biblical analogues, but there is no mention in Genesis 39:6–20, which reports Potiphar’s wife’s interaction with Joseph, of the incident involving her invitation to Egyptian women to a banquet, nor, consequently, of her handing of knives to the invited guests. The incident is, however, found in some extra-Biblical sources. In his Legends of the Bible, Louis Ginzberg relates that, when asked by “all the women of Egypt” why she was so distraught, Zulaykhā decided to answer them through practical demonstration”:

She commanded her maid-servants to prepare food for all the women, and she spread a banquet before them in her house. She placed knives upon the table to peel the oranges, and then ordered Joseph to appear, arrayed in costly garments, and wait upon her guests. When Joseph came in, the women could not take their eyes off him, and they all cut their hands with the knives, and the oranges in their hands were covered with blood, but they, not knowing what they were doing, continued to look upon the beauty of Joseph without turning their eyes away from him

(Ginzberg 1975, pp. 217–18)

As will be noted, this account is very similar to the traditional Muslim Qurʾānic exegetical account of what happened between Joseph and Zulaykhā. One might ask why it did not become part of the Biblical canon, but any attempt to answer that question will raise a host of questions with regard to the redactional history of the Bible and will in any case be speculative in nature? One is also tempted to ask, in the present context: Can the incident of the women’s cutting of their hands, as reported by Ginzberg, be read along the lines proposed by Iṣlāḥī in his exegesis of Qurʾān12:31? The answer to this question must be in the negative since the linguistic resources exploited by Iṣlāḥī for critiquing the traditional Muslim interpretation of Qurʾān12:31 are to be found in the Qurʾān itself, whereas no such resources are to be found either in the above-quoted Ginzberg’s account or in his more extensive treatment of the Joseph story at large. Iṣlāḥī has shown that the Qurʾān’s strategic use of the words kayd and makr turns the women’s act of cutting their hands into a ploy or guile they used in their attempt to tame Joseph. On Iṣlāḥī’s interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31, then, there is only a surface resemblance between the Qurʾānic and extra-Biblical accounts of the women’s act of cutting their hands, the two accounts differing considerably with regard to the meaning and significance of that act.

7. The Larger Context of Iṣlāḥī’s Exegetical Methodology

Iṣlāḥī’s exegesis of Qurʾān 12:31—and, by clear implication, his rejection of the traditional exegesis of the verse—is cogently argued. It remains to point out that the line of argument taken by him proceeds from his exegetical methodology, whose principles he took over from his teacher, Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Farāhī (d. 1930), an unusually gifted, though not yet widely known, Qurʾānic scholar whose unfinished project of writing a complete commentary on the Qur’an in light of those principles was completed by Iṣlāḥī. I have explained that methodology in Coherence in the Qurʾān (Mir 1986). The key methodological principle in the Farāhī-Iṣlāḥī approach to the Qurʾān is that of naẓm (literally, “order, organization, system”), which stipulates that the Qurʾān is, at several interconnected levels, marked by a very high degree of organic unity. The importance of that principle is driven home when we remember that the dominant mode of historical Qurʾānic exegesis has throughout history been atomistic, which is to say that most Muslim exegetes take a verse-by-verse approach to the Qurʾān and are seldom concerned with seeing the Qurʾānic sūra, for example, as a unified discourse. Iṣlāḥī interprets the entire Qurʾān in light of the principles laid down by his teacher, often producing exegetical results that are novel and yet quite faithful to the Qurʾānic text, his interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31 being one example of such novel but highly plausible interpretation. All of this goes to show that the Qurʾān, notwithstanding its rich fourteen-centuries-long exegetical history, can still be read in new ways and mined for new insights.