The Benefits of the Verse: “So those who did wrong substituted words other than what was said to them”

Then Allah the Exalted said:
He said: This contains evidence for the prohibition of altering the words of Allah, which is distorting them. Where is this derived from? From their description as wrongdoers: .
It also contains evidence that mentioning part of a matter serves as an indication for it, and one is content with that mention without needing to mention the second part. For example, here, did the Children of Israel deviate in speech? Or in speech and action? The noble verse says: It mentions only speech and is silent about action. However, it is established in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): So they substituted both the speech and the action, yes? So it can be said that means they made the word of Allah the Exalted, which contains the command to prostrate and the command to say the plea for forgiveness, into this other speech. That is, the intended meaning is not the same speech that is the counterpart of the action, but they substituted the word of Allah with another word, as if they were told words other than what was said to them, as if they were told a word or words other than what was said to them. So the substitution is either substitution of speech only, or substitution of action only, or both speech and action?
The student: Action and speech.

The Shaykh : No, no, what is present in the Qur'an is speech. We say that the implication of the Qur'an is speech. If we say that His saying: means they substituted with speech, meaning they deviated from what they were saying, they deviated from what they were saying to another speech, then if we interpret the verse with this interpretation, we say it is silent about the action which they made a substitute for what they were commanded to do. But if we say that the meaning of His saying: means they turned everything that was said to them, they turned what was said to them into another speech, meaning as if they were commanded to crawl on their buttocks and to say "wheat" for "barley," then as if they substituted the original speech that was said with another speech that they complied with. And on this basis, the verse encompasses the substitution of both speech and action, it encompasses the substitution of both speech and action, and no difficulty remains in it. And in reality, even if we assume we interpreted it with the first interpretation and that they said other than what was said to them, yes? The hadith is authentic in that and explicit that they also substituted the action.
The student: Mentioning part of a matter suffices for the other?

The Shaykh : This is if we say that the speech they substituted means the speech that occurred from them. But if we say that they substituted words other than what was said to them, meaning they made the command of Allah to them a command for something else, which is what they did, meaning as if they distorted the command of Allah, i.e., the word of Allah, yes? Then it does not fall under the category of mentioning one party and being content with that without mentioning the other. And Allah knows best what He intended in His speech.