وَإِن كَانَ قَمِيصُهُۥ قُدَّ مِن دُبُرٍ فَكَذَبَتْ وَهُوَ مِنَ ٱلصَّٰدِقِينَ
“And if his shirt is torn from behind, then she hath lied and he is of the truthful.” — M. M. Pickthall
According to Taberî, this section explains how testimony is manifested in the story of Joseph; the woman's deceit is understood from the tearing of the garment from behind, and since the word 'shahada' (testimony) means 'qawl' (speech/word), it is noted that the letter 'an' has been elided.
فلما رأى إطفير قميصه قد من دبر عرف أنه من كيدها، فقال: وإنما حذفت «أن» التي تتلقى بها الشهادة، لأنه ذهب بالشهادة إلى معنى القولIbn Kesîr states that among the scholars of the predecessors there is disagreement about who the witness was in the story of Joseph, and two views are transmitted regarding whether it was a small child or an adult. He also explains the event of Joseph fleeing from the woman, and the woman grasping his garment from behind to pull him back, and the garment being torn from behind.
وقد اختلفوا في هذا الشاهد هل هو صغير أو كبير على قولين لعلماء السلف فقال عبد الرزاق أخبرنا إسرائيل عن سماك عن عكرمة عن ابن عباسAccording to Beydâvî, Joseph's words 'she urged me' were spoken to defend against the threat of imprisonment or painful punishment directed at him; if the woman had not slandered him, he would not have said this. The witness who testified was a child in the cradle from among the woman's relatives, and Allah caused the testimony to fall on the tongue of one of his family in order to make the claim more binding against the woman. The garment being torn from the front is considered evidence that the woman is a liar, and its tearing from behind is evidence that Joseph is truthful.
وإنما ألقى الله الشهادة على لسان أهلها لتكون ألزم عليهاCommon ground
All three exegetes agree on the point that the tearing of the garment from behind is evidence of Joseph's truthfulness and the woman's deceitful behavior; they treat this detail of the narrative as an evidentiary element of the event.
Differences
Taberî addresses the matter largely from the perspective of language and rhetoric, focusing on the meaning of the word 'shahada' and its grammatical structure, while Ibn Kesîr takes a report-centered approach and limits himself to transmitting the disagreement of the predecessors regarding the identity of the witness. Beydâvî, on the other hand, combines both linguistic analysis and reports, conveys the transmission regarding the witness being a child in the cradle, and adds an interpretive layer regarding the psychological and legal motivation behind Joseph's words.
Historical context
In Taberî's early-period exegesis, linguistic analysis and reports stand side by side, while Ibn Kesîr's approach prioritizing the hadith method reflects the tendency to compile hadith and the views of the predecessors. In later exegetes like Beydâvî, a more reasoned, synthesizing reading comes to the fore; the basic narrative structure and the argumentation regarding the direction of the garment's tearing have remained constant across all three periods.
This narrative reminds us that the truth of an accusation is revealed through concrete evidence and consistency rather than through words alone; in modern times, this can point to the importance of basing judgments on evidence and sound reasoning before making accusations in relationships and social matters. Furthermore, the fact that different exegetes read the same verse using different methods (linguistic, reported tradition, and synthesis) can be considered an example of approaching multiple perspectives with tolerance in the scholarly tradition.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar