Al-Baqarah: (59) "But those who did wrong changed..."

(But those who did wrong changed the word to other than that which had been said to them) meaning, those who oppressed by changing the word that was spoken to them for another. The verb baddala (to change) takes two objects: one directly and the other via the preposition ba'. It is applied to that which is abandoned, so the blame is directed [toward them]. Abu al-Baqa' permitted that baddala be understood according to its meaning, i.e., "Those who did wrong said a word..." etc. The assertion that ghayra (other than) is accusative due to the removal of the preposition—as if it were said: "They changed a word for another"—is not a satisfactory view.

His Majesty stated the change explicitly, despite the fact that it is impossible for a replacement to be realized without a change, in order to confirm their opposition and to designate the change from every perspective. The appearance of the verse implies a division of those there into wrongdoers and non-wrongdoers who changed [the word], and even if the changed [item] was the whole, placing the explicit noun in place of the pronoun is intended to point toward the cause.

There is disagreement regarding the word they replaced. In the Sahihayn, it is stated that they said: habbatun fi sha'irah (a grain in a barleycorn). Al-Hakim narrated hintah (wheat) instead of hittah (forgiveness). In al-Ma'alim, it is said that they spoke in their language matha samqatha, meaning "red wheat." They said this to mock what was told to them. The narrations regarding this are numerous, and if they are authentic, the variation in words is attributed to the variation of those speaking. The claim that no changing took place among them and that the meaning of "they changed" is "they did not do what they were commanded," rather than their providing a replacement, is not accepted—even if Abu Muslim said it—as the explicit text of the verse and the hadiths refute it.

(Then We sent down upon those who did wrong a rijz from the sky because they were defiantly disobedient) (59). Placing the explicit noun in place of the pronoun is an exaggeration in condemning their affair and an indication that their oppression—harming themselves by abandoning that which would secure their salvation or by placing something non-commanded in its place—was the cause for sending down the rijz, which is punishment. The ra in rijz can be read with a fatha or a damma; the damma is the dialect of the Banu Asad. Ibn Muhaysin recited it [with damma]. The intended meaning here, as narrated from Ibn Abbas, is darkness and death; it is narrated that 24,000 of them died in one hour. Wahb said: a plague for forty nights, then they died after that. Ibn Jubayr said: snow, by which 70,000 of them perished. If it is interpreted as snow, its being "from the sky" is evident; if it is interpreted otherwise, it is an indication of the direction from which the decree comes, or an exaggeration of its sublimity in terms of coercion and domination.

Some researchers mentioned that the prepositional phrase is a stable circumstantial qualifier functioning as an adjective for rijz, and bima kanu yafsuqun is attached to it, as its substitution for the agent serves as its cause. The word ma is an infinitive particle. The meaning is: "We sent down upon those who did wrong"—because of their wrong—"a punishment destined due to their having been persistent in defiance in the past time." This is better than making the prepositional phrase a non-stable qualifier attached to anzalna, because of its clarity over other views, and so that there is no need, in explaining the sending down by defiance after the explanation derived from the attachment to wrong, to say that defiance is identical to wrong and repeated for emphasis, or that wrong is more general and defiance must be of the major sins. Thus, after describing them with wrong, they were described with defiance as being of the major sins. The first is the ware of the incapable, and the second does not repel the weakness of the explanation.

What has been said—that it is an explanation for the wrong, and thus the sending down of punishment is caused by the wrong which is caused by the defiance—is nothing, since their wrong mentioned previously, which is the cause of the sending down, does not require the cause. Some people have argued from His saying: "But those who did wrong changed," etc., and the consequences of the punishment for the changing, that it is not permitted to change or alter the sayings for which there is a designation/appointment with another wording. Other people said: It is permitted to mention [a replacement] if the second word fills the place of the first. Based on this, the disagreement has proceeded, as in al-Bahr, regarding the recitation of the Quran by meaning, and the hadith narrated by it, and it has proceeded regarding the Takbirat al-Ihram, and in permitting marriage with the wording of "gifting," "selling," or "transferring ownership." The discussion is detailed in its proper place.

Furthermore, our master the Imam al-Razi, may Allah have mercy upon him, mentioned that this verse was mentioned in [Surat] al-A'raf with variations from several angles for subtleties:

First, he said here: "And when We said," since the mention of the favors preceded it, and it is necessary to mention the Bestower of Favors. There, it is: "And when it was said," for there is no ambiguity after the clarification was presented.

Second, he said here: "Enter," and there: "Dwell," because entering precedes dwelling; therefore, he placed that which is logically prior in its [proper] place.

Third, he said here: "Your faults" (khatayakum), with the plural of abundance, since he attributed that speech to Himself, and what is fitting for His generosity is the forgiveness of many sins. There, it is: "Your faults" (khatiatikum), with the plural of scarcity, since the agent was not explicitly stated.

Fourth, he said here: "Abundantly," and not there, because of attributing the action to Himself here, so it was appropriate to mention the greatest of the favors, and [there was] no attribution there.

Fifth, he said here: "Enter the gate bowing and say: 'Forgiveness'," and there the reverse, because "and" is for absolute combination. Also, those addressed could potentially be partly sinners and partly not. The sinner must prioritize engaging in the removal of the sin over engaging in worship; thus, it was inevitable that the duty for these was to say "Forgiveness" then enter. As for the one who is not a sinner, it is more appropriate for him to engage first in worship then mention repentance secondly, for humility and the removal of vanity. These must enter and then say [it]. Since it was possible that those addressed were divided into these two categories, the ruling for each of them was mentioned in a different surah.

Sixth, he said here: "And We shall increase," with the "and," and there without it, since here, forgiveness with the increase was made a single recompense for the sum of the two actions. As for there, forgiveness is the recompense for saying "Forgiveness," and the increase is the recompense for entering. Leaving out the "and" implies the distribution of each of the two recompenses to each of the two conditions.

Seventh, he said there: "Those who did wrong among them," and here he did not mention "among them" because the beginning of the story there is built on specification with "among," where He said: "And among the people of Moses is a community guiding by the truth." So He specified at the end of the speech to match its beginning. Since he did not mention in the verses before "But those who did wrong" here any distinction or specification, he did not mention that at the end of the story.

Eighth, he said here: "Then We sent down," and there "Then We sent," because sending down implies its occurrence at the beginning of the matter, and sending implies empowering it over them and their extermination, and that is in the end.

Ninth, he said here: "So eat," with the fa, and there with the wa in "So eat from it abundantly." The rule is that every action to which something is attached, and the action is in the position of a condition and that thing is in the position of a recompense, the second is attached to the first with the fa rather than the wa. Because of the attachment of eating to entering, it was said in Surat al-Baqarah: "So eat." And since eating was not attached to dwelling in al-A'raf, it was said: "And eat."

Tenth, he said here: "They defiantly disobey," and there "They do wrong," because when He explained here that defiance is wrong, He sufficed with the word "wrong" there.

This is the end [of his points]. It is not hidden that there is scrutiny in these answers. As for the first, second, eighth, and tenth, they are only correct if Surat al-Baqarah preceded Surat al-A'raf in revelation, just as it precedes it in order, but it is not so; for Surat al-Baqarah is entirely Medinan, and Surat al-A'raf is entirely Meccan except for eight verses. As for what was mentioned in the ninth, the denial of eating not being attached to dwelling is rejected, because when they dwell in the village, their dwelling becomes a cause for eating from it, as al-Zamakhshari mentioned. Thus, they combined in existence both dwelling in it and eating from it, so there is no difference between "Eat" and "So eat," and the answer does not hold. As for the third, although He said in al-A'raf "And when it was said," He also said in both surahs: "We will forgive you," and attributed the forgiveness to Himself; by the judgment of that fitness, the plural of abundance should be mentioned in both surahs. Indeed, there is no doubt that observing "We will forgive you" is more appropriate than observing "And it was said to them," due to the attachment of forgiveness to the faults, as is not hidden to the one familiar with subtleties. As for the fourth, although He did not attribute the action to Himself, it is attributed to Him in the reality of the matter, so the greatest of the favors should be mentioned in both. As for the fifth, since the story is one and it being the case that some were sinners and some were not is a fact, then according to the requirement of what was mentioned, "And say: 'Forgiveness'" should be mentioned first in both. As for the sixth, the story is one, and wa is for absolute combination. His saying "We will forgive" is in exchange for "Say," whether it is placed first or last, and His saying "And We shall increase" is in exchange for "Enter," whether the wa is mentioned or left out. As for the seventh, He has already mentioned here, before "But those who did wrong," what indicates specification and distinction, where He said: "And We shaded you with clouds and sent down upon you manna and quails... eat from the good things which We have provided you," etc., with the apostrophes of address and their form. It would be appropriate then to mention the word "among them" as well.

The correct answer to all these questions and their like is what al-Zamakhshari mentioned: that there is no harm in the variation of the two expressions if there is no contradiction. There is no contradiction between His saying: "Dwell in this village" and His saying: "And eat," because if they dwell in the village, their dwelling is a cause for eating from it, so they have combined in existence both dwelling in it and eating from it. Whether they place "Forgiveness" before entering the gate or after it, they are in any case combining both in existence. Leaving out the mention of "abundantly" does not contradict the establishing of it. His saying: "We will forgive your faults... We will increase the doers of good" is a promise of two things: forgiveness and increase; and leaving one of them out does not harm, because it is an initiation ordered upon the assumption of someone saying: "What is after the forgiveness?" So it was said to him: "We will increase the doers of good." Likewise, the addition of "among them," "And We sent," and "We sent down," and "they do wrong" and "they defiantly disobey" are from one home. This is the end.

In sum, variety in expression has never ceased to be the habit of the eloquent, and in it is a display of the high status of the speaker that is not hidden. The Noble Quran is filled with that, and whoever attempts to explain a secret for everything that occurred therein of this, has attempted that for which there is no path except by true unveiling and ladunni (divine/inspired) knowledge. Allah gives His bounty to whom He wills, and Glory be to Him who encompasses nothing of the secrets of His Book but Him.

Whoever desires safety, let him always be From the sickly gazes, refuge [in Allah] Do not let it deceive you with its languor, for it is A glance that harms your heart with its enjoyment Beware of it, for [one blinded] by the greed of wishes, its dear one Is like its lowly one, and its rich one is its beggar.