Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “So those who did wrong substituted words other than what was said to them”

What did they say, "a ransom in place of it"? That is, the statement: In reality, there is a problem here. Did they alter the statement other than what was said to them, or did they alter the statement that was said to them? Did they alter the statement that was said to them, or did they alter a statement other than what was said to them?
The student: Words other than what was said to them; they said something other than what was said to them.

The Shaykh : But the word “substituted” (badala) implies: Did I substitute the sheep for the ram?
The student: They substituted the words that were said to them.

The Shaykh : But they are saying they substituted words other than what was said to them, yes?
The student: The same thing.

The Shaykh : No, it is not the same; there is a difference. “Words” is a known term, but what meaning do we take from the wording? Is there a reversal (qalb) in the verse, or is there an implication (tadmun)? If we take the apparent wording, it becomes: They substituted words other than what was said to them, even though they substituted the very words that were said to them, replacing them with other words, yes? Now, if people differ in deriving the meaning of this verse, and it is said that the meaning of “substituted” is “they said,” then those who did wrong said words other than what was said to them, with the intention of substitution. That is, their intent was substitution and opposition, not that they made a mistake or forgot or something similar. In that case, the substitution is at its most severe, because it implies that they said words other than what was said to them, did they not? And they said it with the intention of what? Substitution and opposition. This is more severe than if they had said it out of forgetfulness or something similar; rather, they said it as a substitution. So here, “substituted” implies the meaning of “said,” but he expressed the saying as substitution to make it clear that those who said other than what was said to them were overcome by that substitution, meaning opposition. Is that clear? Yes.
Some said that the verse contains an omission, and the implied meaning is: “So those who did wrong substituted, in place of the words that were said to them, words other than what was said to them.” Thus, there is an omission in the verse, with the implied meaning: “So those who did wrong substituted, in place of the words that were said to them, words other than what was said to them.” But since it is possible to derive the meaning of the verse without an omission, that is preferable to deriving it based on something involving an omission. The meaning of “substituted” is “said,” but he expressed the saying as substitution to point to what? To opposition, to the fact that they said it for the sake of opposition, substitution, and change.
And regarding His saying: He did not say: “So they substituted,” yes? Or “So you substituted.” Rather, he made it explicit in a place where it could have been implied. And there are benefits to making it explicit in a place where it could have been implied. Did you understand? Yes, he did not say “So you substituted” or “So they substituted,” but he said: He made it explicit in a place where it could have been implied, and there are benefits to making it explicit in a place where it could have been implied. Who knows them? We have passed through them.
The student: Emphasizing the blame (tashni').

The Shaykh : How is it emphasizing the blame? That is, the truth of these people being described with this description? That is, it means that these people, in a place where it is made explicit, have benefits. The first benefit: The realization or confirmation of the attribution of this description to the referent of the implied pronoun. That is, it means that these people are wrongdoers; it means judging these people as wrongdoers. This is the benefit. So its benefit is judging the referent of the pronoun with this description that was made explicit. Is that clear?
Second: That this is a standard for others as well. So whoever substitutes words other than what was said to him is a wrongdoer. From this, the generalization of the ruling is taken based on the generality of the cause of the description. The generalization of the ruling based on the generality of the cause of the description. Is that clear? This is for two benefits. There may be other benefits that may come at the end of the verse.
The student: Substitution is substitution. Is the meaning that we are commanded to Islam, of course, or commanded to prayer? And if one leaves off prayer, does that mean everything becomes on a path other than the path of Islam? Is this substitution?
The Shaykh : This is substitution, yes. Now, who said they substituted the command of Allah for them to say “Hatta” (a light burden)?
They said, as established in the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): Instead of being asked to ask Allah for forgiveness of sins, they said: “We want food, we want to eat wheat in barley,” yes? If you distinguish between this and that: Allah commanded them to seek forgiveness for the sins they committed, and these people asked for something to fill their bellies. Entering the gate prostrating: Ibn Abbas and others said: They entered crawling on their backs—may Allah protect me—mocking Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), who commanded them to enter prostrating in gratitude to Allah for the blessing of the conquest. They said: No, we will not enter, and we will not walk, yes? We will walk on our backs—may Allah protect me—meaning they will crawl. Some mentioned that they also went backward; they did not walk facing forward. And as for the words, they substituted them as well. They substituted the words and the action, the words and the action. And this happened to some of this Ummah. The voice of the Arabs during the Six-Day War, as the Jews say, used to say: “Tomorrow Umm Kulthum will sing in Tel Aviv,” yes? Meaning, in gratitude to Allah for this blessing, that the singer goes to sing in the conquered lands. But in reality, the Jewish planes sang over the planes of this bird, so the matter was reversed. And the truth is that it is like evil, because this resembles the saying of Abu Jahl: “We will not return until we reach Badr, and we will drink wine, and tents will be pitched for us.” Look at the goals of the Arabs now from this war with the Jews; what are they? Merely a worldly matter, that they overcome and take possession. But for establishing the religion of Allah? No. Because the one who establishes the religion of Allah, when he conquers the lands of Allah, does he let the singers sing? On the day of conquest? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) entered in the Year of Conquest with his head lowered, so much so that (peace and blessings be upon him) said that this hair almost touched his saddle from the intensity of lowering his head (peace and blessings be upon him), and he was reciting the Qur'an: There is a difference between this and that, yes. So I say that some of this Ummah did like these Jews. They did not enter humble and prostrating, nor saying: But they said: “We will enter with singers, owners of female singers, who will sing for us.” And this is a verification of the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):