An Atheist Explores the Qur'an Part Nineteen: No Technicolour Dreamcoats, But The Story Remains The Same (Joseph (Yusuf) 1-111)

Joseph (Yusuf) 1-111
No Technicolour Dreamcoats, But The Story Remains The Same.

Welcome to the next instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Qur’an version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the Qur’an, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post https://bit.ly/2ApLDy0

For the online Qur’an that I use, see here http://al-quran.info and http://quran.com

Joseph 1-20

“And there came a caravan, and they sent their water-drawer, who let down his bucket. ‘Good news!’ he said. ‘This is a young boy!’”

The Joseph in question is the Technicolour Dreamcoat Joseph, so hopefully we’ll be in for some narrative rather than platitudes, and also hopefully it’ll be an odd Chinese Whispers version of the Biblical version with assorted oddities.

The section begins with a few verses about how this is a true book, with a verse that sounds almost like “Are you sitting comfortably?” – “We will recount to you the best of narratives in what We have revealed to you of this Qurʾān, and indeed prior to it you were among those who are unaware [of it].”

Surprisingly, so far this section tells of pretty much the same story of Joseph as the Bible. I like the first line of the Joseph story proper, which begins “When Joseph said to his father, ‘Father! I saw eleven planets” and reminds me of Where the Wild Things Are, starting “The night Max wore his wolf suit and made mischief of one kind … and another”.

Eleven planets? The text notes say that this can also translate as stars – note that the Sun and Moon are mentioned separately, so it doesn’t include them. Possibly it’s both – eleven celestial bodies of one kind … and another. More likely, perhaps, a metaphor for his eleven brothers.

There’s a bit more prophecy involved here – Jacob recognises that Joseph has the gift of prophecy and is special, rather than just living him (and Benjamin) most because they are born of his beloved Rachel. The brothers of Jacob conspire to take Joseph into the wilderness, chuck him down a well and then tell Jacob that a wolf took him. So far, so familiar. Again we see the Qur’an version making Allah’s plan more explicit, noting that when the brothers abandon Joseph, Allah determines the future event where Joseph, as Pharaoh’s minister, toys with his brothers.

Joseph 21-40

“The woman in whose house he was solicited him. She closed the doors and said, ‘Come!!’ He said, ‘God forbid! Indeed He is my Lord; He has given me a good abode¹ Indeed the wrongdoers are not felicitous.’”

In this section we get the incident where Mrs Potiphar tries to seduce Joseph, and then blames him when her husband comes home, and thus Joseph gets thrown into prison. Except in the Qur’an, things run differently.

As Joseph tries to run away to protect his modesty, Mrs Potiphar tears his clothes at the back. (By the way, I’m using the Biblical names, no names are given for Joseph’s master nor his wife). A mini trial involving testimony from other servants occurs, where it’s decided that if Joseph’s clothes are torn from the front, he’s guilty, and from the back, he’s innocent. “So when he saw that his shirt was torn from behind, he said, ‘This is [a case] of you women’s guile! Your guile is great indeed!”

Which seems odd, and more like some attempt to twist the tale to condemn “women’s guile”, because then there’s no reason to imprison Joseph. Yes, the Biblical version is unfair imprisonment, but that’s kind of the point; besides it’s meant to highlight “God’s Plan”; yes, Joseph was unfairly imprisoned but had this not happened to him, neither would his dream interpretation been brought to the attention of Pharaoh.

Here, the narrative has to fudge things to get Joseph into prison, where “Then it appeared to them, after they had seen all the signs [of his innocence], that they should confine him for some time.”

How’s that? Because he’s innocent, they decide they need to imprison him? Umm…

Once in prison, Joseph meets two men, one has a dream of pressing grapes and the other of “carrying bread on my head from which the birds are eating”. Qur’an Joseph instead chooses to give them a lengthy homily on how great Allah is - “You do not worship besides Him but [mere] names that you and your fathers have coined, for which Allah has not sent down any authority. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah. He has commanded you to worship none except Him. That is the upright religion, but most people do not know” and so on.

Joseph 41-60

“Joseph,’ [he said], ‘O truthful one, give us your opinion concerning seven fat cows who are eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears and [seven] others dry, that I may return to the people so that they may know [the truth of the matter].’”

Joseph first interprets the dreams of his fellow prisoners – “As for one of you, he will serve wine to his master, and as for the other, he will be crucified, and vultures will eat from his head”, which is not very comforting for one of them (this is similar to the OT version). Also the same, Joseph asks the reprieved man, Pharaoh’s butler, to ask for his release but “Satan” makes the butler forget Joseph for several years, until Pharaoh starts having dreams.

The Egyptians are pretty rubbish at interpreting the dreams, dismissing them as “confused nightmares” until the butler remembers Joseph (I’m using the KJV titles here, the man is referred to merely as a “servant” in the Qur’an.

The butler visits Joseph, who interprets the seven lean cows and seven fat cows stuff (years of plenty, years of famine, you know the deal by now), then tells the butler to pass on a message to Pharaoh to ask about “the affair of women who cut their hands”. This leads back to the deceptions of Mrs Potiphar (the “wife of the prince”, as she is referred to here) and thus Joseph’s innocence in this is proved. Nevertheless Joseph is fairly magnanimous, admitting that he could have done so – “Yet I do not absolve my [own carnal] soul, for the [carnal] soul indeed prompts [men] to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord has mercy. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful.’”

I think I can see the point of this variant now – in the Biblical version nothing happens that absolves Joseph of being accused of rape in the eyes of the law, and so its problematic from a plot point of trying to establish him as an example of a godly man. We, the audience, know that he’s innocent of course, but the Biblical version has Pharaoh not only pardoning a convicted rapist without evidence of innocence, but rewarding him. So, it would seem, the Qur’an inserts this section so that everyone all round knows that Joseph is an innocent and thus good man.

Joseph is made ruler of the granaries, on his own testimonial, and at some point his brothers turn up asking for grain. Joseph, unrecognised by them, orders them to “Bring me a brother that you have through your father” as a condition for giving them grain. This section ends before it gets there, but in the Biblical version he asks for Benjamin, just to mess with them.

Joseph 61-80

“He said to his servants, ‘Put their money in their saddlebags. Maybe they will recognize it when they return to their folks, and maybe they will come back [again].’”

I remember from the Bible that there was some odd back and forth with Joseph planting stuff on his brothers that was a bit obscure to understand. It’s more clear in the Qur’an, despite all the unattributed pronouns flying around. Joseph first sends the brothers’ money back with them, which they interpret as a sign of good faith. They plead with Jacob to take another brother back with them (Benjamin in the Bible but here un-named, and also not given even as the youngest). Jacob gets them to swear an oath to Allah to bring him back alive (unlike they did with Joseph, ahem).

Jacob also urges them to enter “the city” by different gates – “And he said, ‘My sons, do not enter by one gate, but enter by separate gates, though I cannot avail you anything against Allah. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah. In Him I have put my trust; and in Him let all the trusting put their trust.’”. But that doesn’t make sense. If Jacob had trust in Allah, then nothing he could have done either way would affect it – it would show *more* faith in Allah to just send all the brothers in together, surely?

In the presence of Joseph, it appears that Joseph reveals himself to the new brother (“And when they entered into the presence of Joseph, he set his brother close to himself, and said, ‘Indeed I am your brother, so do not sorrow for what they used to do.’”), but nothing comes of this and it makes the next part nonsensical. Joseph sends the brothers away with their grain, plants a cup in the luggage of the brother who is presumably Benjamin, and then sends his stewards after them to accuse them of theft.

“They said, as they turned towards them, ‘What are you missing?’ They said, ‘We miss the king’s goblet.’”. As an upshot of this, the brother with the planted cup has to stay behind under arrest, which apparently is all part of God’s plan – “Thus did We devise for Joseph’s sake. He could not have held his brother under the king’s law unless Allah willed [otherwise].” Which I don’t quite follow – Allah devises a plan whereby Joseph tricks his brothers and has them arrested under false pretences so that he doesn’t have them arrested … under … false ... pretences. And further, the hostage brother is given as the “eldest”. Either the eldest brother stays instead of Benjamin, the youngest (as per the Bible), or the un-named brother brought from Jacob on the second journey, upon whom Joseph planted the cup, was the eldest all along (differing from the Bible). Honestly, it makes things much more comprehensible if you give the characters names.

Joseph 81-100

“And he turned away from them and said, ‘Alas for Joseph!’ His eyes had turned white with grief, and he choked with suppressed agony.”

When Joseph’s brothers return to Jacob and tell them that they’ve lost another brother, he goes blind. I thought at first that his eyes “turning white with grief” was some kind of poetic fancy, but later verses make the blindness plain. So, back they go again to Egypt with some kind of ransom/fine/bail money for the second brother, whereupon Joseph gives them a garment and tells them to cast it on Jacob’s face to cure his blindness – “Take this shirt of mine, and cast it upon my father’s face; he will regain his sight, and bring me all your folks’”. There’s no mention of multi-coloured coats in the Qur’an version of the story (too frivolous?), but perhaps this is an echo of that? Jacob recognises the scent of Joseph from his garment, and regains his sight as a metaphor for his hope, boasting slightly childishly that “I know from Allah what you do not know”.

There then follows a family reunion, where Josephs brothers bow before him, fulfilling his dream at the start of the eleven planets kneeling before him (even though there’s absolutely no mention that the brothers number eleven and so the symbolism is lost).

Joseph 100-111

“My Lord! You have granted me a share in the kingdom, and taught me the interpretation of dreams. Originator of the heavens and earth! You are my guardian in this world and the Hereafter! Let my death be in submission [to You], and unite me with the Righteous.”

Jacob ends the story with a homily to Allah, and then the surah itself closes with a little plenary session that’s supposed to draw out the lessons from the story of Joseph.

The Prophet is instructed with a statement of faith - “Say, ‘This is my way. I summon to Allah with insight —I and he who follows me. Immaculate is Allah, and I am not one of the polytheists” which is followed by the usual exhortations on the greatness of Allah. There are a couple of phrases of note – “We did not send [any apostles] before you except as men to whom We revealed from among the people of the towns”, note “except as men”, which to me suggests a sideways dig at Christianity for considering Jesus to be God rather than an apostle of God. And also “This [Qurʾān] is not a fabricated discourse”. Well. If you say so, it must be true. Just like the film “Fargo”.