سُوْرَةُ يُوسُفَ
Surah Yusuf (12) — Ayah 27
وَإِن كَانَ قَمِيصُهُۥ قُدَّ مِن دُبُرٍ فَكَذَبَتْ وَهُوَ مِنَ ٱلصَّـٰدِقِينَ ﴿27﴾
Translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan & Dr. Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali
"But if it be that his shirt is torn from the back, then she has told a lie and he is speaking the truth!"
Word by Word — Arabic, Transliteration & Meaning
وَإِن
wa-in
But if
كَانَ
kāna
[is]
قَمِيصُهُۥ
qamīṣuhu
his shirt
قُدَّ
qudda
(is) torn
مِن
min
from
دُبُرٍۢ
duburin
(the) back
فَكَذَبَتْ
fakadhabat
then she has lied
وَهُوَ
wahuwa
and he
مِنَ
mina
(is) of
ٱلصَّـٰدِقِينَ
l-ṣādiqīna
the truthful
Tafsir Taiseer ul-Quran — Maulana Abdul Rahman Kilani
Tafsir Taiseer ul-Quran (Facilitation of the Quran) is a comprehensive Quran commentary by Maulana Abdul Rahman Kilani, a renowned Salafi (Ahl al-Hadith) scholar from Pakistan. Known for his eloquent and accessible writing style, Kilani authored this tafsir with a focus on clarity — making Quranic meanings understandable to the common reader. The tafsir provides detailed historical context for verses related to battles and expeditions, and firmly refutes modernist ideologies using strong scriptural evidence. It is widely regarded as an invaluable resource for understanding the Quran and countering deviant interpretations. The tafsir is originally written in Urdu, translated to English by tohed.com.
27. And if his shirt is torn from the back, then the woman is lying and Yusuf [27] is truthful.
[27]
Testimony of Circumstantial Evidence:
But the statement of Sayyiduna Yusuf ؑ was completely opposite to that of Zulaikha and was based on truth. Now the question was, how could it be determined who among the two was telling the truth and who was lying? When this matter spread among the household, a man from the family of the Aziz of Egypt said: Just look at Yusuf’s shirt—if it is torn from the back, it would mean that Yusuf ؑ was running forward and Zulaikha pulled him from behind, and in this struggle, the shirt got torn. In this case, Zulaikha would be lying and Yusuf would be truthful. And if the shirt is torn from the front, it would mean that Yusuf ؑ was making advances and Zulaikha was defending herself. In this struggle, Yusuf’s shirt got torn from the front. In this case, Yusuf would be lying and Zulaikha truthful. This reasoning seemed logical to everyone. In this verse, the words ﴿وَشَهِدَ شَاهِدٌ مِّنْ اَهْلِهَا﴾ are mentioned, meaning a witness from Zulaikha’s household bore witness. Although there was no witness present at the scene. Some commentators have written that this testimony was given by an infant, but the chain of this narration is not authentic. Secondly, even if this narration is accepted as authentic, it would be considered a miracle, and in the case of a miracle, there would be no need for rational evidence. Thirdly, in the authentic narration where the speech of three infants is mentioned, there is no mention of this child. Therefore, this narration is unreliable in every respect. The real matter is that this was circumstantial evidence. There was no such sign on Zulaikha’s body or her clothes from which forced adultery could be inferred. The only thing was Yusuf’s shirt, which had been torn, and from which this inference was drawn. Such circumstantial or situational evidence is valid in Shari'ah, and any sensible person can draw conclusions from such evidence. In our society, at the scene of any incident, the investigating officer prepares a site map, which serves as circumstantial evidence. A clear example of circumstantial evidence is that if the smell of alcohol is coming from someone’s mouth, it is understood that he has drunk alcohol. This is circumstantial evidence, because no one has actually seen him drinking.
[27]
Testimony of Circumstantial Evidence:
But the statement of Sayyiduna Yusuf ؑ was completely opposite to that of Zulaikha and was based on truth. Now the question was, how could it be determined who among the two was telling the truth and who was lying? When this matter spread among the household, a man from the family of the Aziz of Egypt said: Just look at Yusuf’s shirt—if it is torn from the back, it would mean that Yusuf ؑ was running forward and Zulaikha pulled him from behind, and in this struggle, the shirt got torn. In this case, Zulaikha would be lying and Yusuf would be truthful. And if the shirt is torn from the front, it would mean that Yusuf ؑ was making advances and Zulaikha was defending herself. In this struggle, Yusuf’s shirt got torn from the front. In this case, Yusuf would be lying and Zulaikha truthful. This reasoning seemed logical to everyone. In this verse, the words ﴿وَشَهِدَ شَاهِدٌ مِّنْ اَهْلِهَا﴾ are mentioned, meaning a witness from Zulaikha’s household bore witness. Although there was no witness present at the scene. Some commentators have written that this testimony was given by an infant, but the chain of this narration is not authentic. Secondly, even if this narration is accepted as authentic, it would be considered a miracle, and in the case of a miracle, there would be no need for rational evidence. Thirdly, in the authentic narration where the speech of three infants is mentioned, there is no mention of this child. Therefore, this narration is unreliable in every respect. The real matter is that this was circumstantial evidence. There was no such sign on Zulaikha’s body or her clothes from which forced adultery could be inferred. The only thing was Yusuf’s shirt, which had been torn, and from which this inference was drawn. Such circumstantial or situational evidence is valid in Shari'ah, and any sensible person can draw conclusions from such evidence. In our society, at the scene of any incident, the investigating officer prepares a site map, which serves as circumstantial evidence. A clear example of circumstantial evidence is that if the smell of alcohol is coming from someone’s mouth, it is understood that he has drunk alcohol. This is circumstantial evidence, because no one has actually seen him drinking.
