Allah the Exalted said: << إلا من ظلم ثم بدل حسنا بعد سوء فإني غفور رحيم >

[Surat al-Naml: 11].
The author altered the interpretation by saying: "he came with good", because the apparent meaning in reality is what makes the sense coherent: he replaced good with evil. Where is the thing taken? .... But I say, meaning: he replaced good with evil, because "replaced" indicates that there is a replacement and a thing being replaced. So if I say: he replaced good with what?
The student: With evil.

The Shaykh : With evil. So the good is pushed out, and the evil is taken. I replaced my garment with his garment, where is the thing taken?
The student: The latter.

The Shaykh : The latter, right? Or not? So here, "replaced good," if we take its apparent meaning, it means: he left good and took evil.
And for this reason, the author interpreted his saying "replaced" as "came," and the evidence for that is: if the intended meaning of "replacing" were the apparent meaning, it would not have been correct to express it by saying "after evil." If it were so, he would have said: he replaced good with evil; he did not say "after." So when he said: after evil, it is known that "replaced" here means "substituted," and "substituted" means "took."
[Surat al-Baqarah: 61] And "took" is like what he said, meaning "came."
And the meaning of the noble verse is: that whoever comes with good after evil, then this good erases the evil. And for this reason he said: [Surat al-Naml: 11] meaning: I forgive him.
The word [Surat al-Naml: 11] If someone asks: What is its correspondence to the evil, because whoever wronged... what is the grammatical parsing of "whoever wronged"?
The student: ... a conditional noun that necessitates?

The Shaykh : Yes, it is a conditional noun that necessitates, and it is not a relative noun that is excepted, because the exception here is disjoint.
[Surat al-Naml: 11] "Wronged" is a verb...