Yūsuf 12:25-29

Wa'stabaqa'l-bāba wa-qaddat qamīṣahu min duburin wa-alfayā sayyidahā lada'l-bāb · Qālat mā jazāʾu man arāda bi-ahlika sūʾan illā an yusjana aw ʿadhābun alīm · Qāla hiya rāwadatnī ʿan nafsī wa-shahida shāhidun min ahlihā · In kāna qamīṣuhu qudda min qubulin fa-ṣadaqat wa-huwa mina'l-kādhibīn · Wa-in kāna qamīṣuhu qudda min duburin fa-kadhabat wa-huwa mina'ṣ-ṣādiqīn · Fa-lammā raʾā qamīṣahu qudda min duburin qāla innahu min kaydikunna inna kaydakunna ʿaẓīm · Yūsufu aʿriḍ ʿan hādhā wa'staghfirī li-dhanbik innaki kunti mina'l-khāṭiʾīn

"They both raced for the door; she tore his shirt from behind. At the door they came upon her lord. She said: 'What is the recompense of one who intends evil against your household but that he be imprisoned, or a painful punishment?' He said: 'It was she who tried to get me against my will.' A witness of her own household bore witness: 'If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has spoken the truth and he is one of the liars. But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she has lied and he is one of the truthful.' When her lord saw that the shirt was torn from behind he said: 'This is of your scheming; your scheming is indeed great. Joseph, turn away from this. And you, ask forgiveness for your sin; you are indeed one of those at fault.'"

And this scene is one of the clearest pieces of reasoning from material evidence in the Qurʾān. What the witness says is not a testimony but a rule of inference:

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the wording of the verse: the witness does not say that he saw the event. He reasons backwards from a trace — and this is exactly the work of the root qaṣaṣ: to follow a trail.

And a link with the sūra as a whole can be made; I give it as my own reading: in this same sūra a shirt had been a false proof (18); here the same object becomes a true proof. The difference is that in one case the proof was manufactured, in the other it was read.

Who the witness was, the verse does not say. There are differing reports on this in the classical commentaries; these are details the Qurʾān does not give, and I do not transmit them.

The single attribute the text does give is worth recording: min ahlihā — from the woman's own side. I give this as my own reading: the proof comes from the opposing party — and this is a position that increases the weight of the proof.

The concrete sense of the root: to split a thing lengthwise, to divide it in two along its length. The lexicographers distinguish it from the verb qaṭʿ (to cut across). The word does not occur in the Qurʾān outside this sūra, and here it occurs four times (25, 26, 27, 28).

And the voice of the verb must be recorded: in verse 25 it is active (qaddat — she tore), in verses 26-28 passive (qudda — was torn). That is, the narrative gives the event once with its agent; then three times without an agent — because those in the scene do not know the agent, they see only the trace.

This is a countable datum of word order and is worth noting for the narrative technique.

The scope of the sentence needs attention, because it is often read as a generalisation.

The word order says this: the address is feminine plural (kaydakunna), and the speaker is a master of a house who has just learned of the affair. The sentence is transmitted not as God's verdict but as one person's words.

I give this as a note and rely on the relevant clause of Method: the Qurʾān passes no wholesale verdict on a group; what it describes are attributes. Indeed in this same sūra another group of women will speak the truth, saying ḥāsha li'llāhi mā ʿalimnā ʿalayhi min sūʾ (51).

And it must be recorded for comparison: the same root (kayd) is ascribed to God in verse 76 and carries no negative sense there. In the sūra the word names not a party but a method — I tabulated this at verse 5.

And the close of the scene is worth recording: the proof has come out, the verdict has been given — and the outcome is that the affair is shut.

I record this as an observation, and its ground is the wording of the verse: aʿriḍ ʿan hādhā — "turn away from this, let it be". That is, the truth's coming out does not bring about a change in the outcome. Indeed in verse 35, despite the proofs having been seen, the decision to imprison will be taken: thumma badā lahum min baʿdi mā raʾawu'l-āyāti la-yasjununnahu ḥattā ḥīn.

This is a tension verifiable within the sūra: there is proof, and the verdict does not follow the proof.