وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهِۦ وَهَمَّ بِهَا لَوْلَآ أَن رَّءَا بُرْهَٰنَ رَبِّهِۦ كَذَٰلِكَ لِنَصْرِفَ عَنْهُ ٱلسُّوٓءَ وَٱلْفَحْشَآءَ إِنَّهُۥ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا ٱلْمُخْلَصِينَ
Wa-la-qad hammat bihi wa-hamma bihā lawlā an raʾā burhāna rabbih · Kadhālika li-naṣrifa ʿanhu's-sūʾa wa'l-faḥshāʾ · Innahu min ʿibādina'l-mukhlaṣīn
"And she certainly desired him; and he would have desired her had he not seen the proof of his Lord. Thus — that We might turn evil and indecency away from him. He was indeed one of Our chosen servants."
This verse is one of the most debated in the Qurʾān, and the debate arises from grammar. Per the method (Method) I impose no preference here; I transmit the readings found in the classical commentaries together with their grounds, and I keep clear of imputations unworthy of the prophets.
In Arabic lawlā (had it not been that…) is a conditional particle and requires two elements: a protasis and an apodosis. The protasis is plainly present in the verse (an raʾā burhāna rabbih). The apodosis is not written — it has been elided. The whole disagreement arises from this: where is the apodosis to be placed?
| # | Reading | How the sentence is construed | Ground |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The reading by fronting and postponing (taqdīm-taʾkhīr) | The lawlā clause is taken to have been brought forward: "had he not seen the proof of his Lord he too would have desired her" — that is, he did see it, and therefore did not desire her. In Arabic the apodosis of lawlā may come first | The fronting of the apodosis of lawlā is a known usage in Arabic; and the clause at the end of the verse, li-naṣrifa ʿanhu's-sūʾa wa'l-faḥshāʾ (that We might turn it away from him), supports this reading |
| 2 | The reading by elision of the apodosis | The apodosis has not been stated, and it is to be supplied thus: "…had he not seen it, [he would have inclined to her]." The act did not take place; lawlā by its nature reports something that did not happen | This is the function of lawlā: because the condition held, the consequence did not occur. The sentence "had there been no fire it would have burned" reports that no burning occurred |
| 3 | The reading that the two occurrences of hamm are in different senses | The woman's hamm and Joseph's hamm are not the same thing. Just as hamma bi- means in Arabic "to turn towards someone, to intend to do something", it is also used in the sense of "to turn to repelling him, to resisting" | Although the word occurs twice in the same form in the same verse, the context differs: one of them has bolted the doors, the other has said maʿādha'llāh |
| 4 | The reading that hamm is "what passes within" | Hamm is not a decision but a thought that rises within. It is a natural motion of human nature and entails no verdict so long as it does not turn into an act | The Qurʾān records this nature of the nafs elsewhere, and will record it in this sūra too: inna'n-nafsa la-ammāratun bi's-sūʾ (53) |
And in the midst of the disagreement there are three things the text itself says decisively — and these are independent of the readings:
| # | The text's decisive datum | Where |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Something did not happen | The particle lawlā conveys impossibility; and the affair is resolved by testimony in verses 26-28 |
| 2 | The outcome is in the direction of protection | Li-naṣrifa ʿanhu's-sūʾa wa'l-faḥshāʾ — "that We might turn it away from him" |
| 3 | The verdict passed on the person is favourable | Innahu min ʿibādina'l-mukhlaṣīn |
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the last two clauses of the verse: even while telling the scene, the verse delivers the verdict itself. That is, the text does not leave the reader free to pass judgement — it says that sūʾ and faḥshāʾ were turned away and that the person is mukhlaṣ. These two clauses determine the bounds within which the disagreement must remain.
بُرْهَان — decisive proof. The lexicographers define the word as the proof that binds the other party and ends the dispute.
I rely on that treatment. The word also occurred in al-Anbiyāʾ, al-Naml and Sabaʾ.
And what the proof was, the verse does not say. There are many reports on this in the classical commentaries; some of them come from the Isrāʾīliyyāt and have no counterpart in the Qurʾān. I do not transmit them.
The one thing the text says must be recorded: burhāna rabbihi — the proof is annexed to his Lord. That is, what held him back is tied not to the person's own will but to a proof shown to him.
| Reading | Pattern | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| al-mukhlaṣīn (with fatḥa) | Passive participle | Made sincere — purified; the act belongs to God |
| al-mukhliṣīn (with kasra) | Active participle | Sincere — purifying; the act belongs to the servant |
Both pronunciations are transmitted among the reciters. The concept of ikhlāṣ was treated in detail at al-Zumar 39/1-3 (mukhliṣan lahu'd-dīn); I rely on that treatment.
And the difference is meaningful: on the first reading the protection stands as a gift, on the second as an attainment. The context of the verse (li-naṣrifa ʿanhu — "that We might turn it away") is nearer the first reading; I record this as an indication, not as a preference.