Session Twenty-One, The Two Parts of Verse 59, Part One, Point One

Session Twenty-One

The Two Parts of Verse 59 – Part One – Point One – Three Possibilities Regarding “Baddala” – Third Possibility – The Preferred View

January 10, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

The first part of verse 59 contains several points; our discussion concerned the first point, relating to the word “baddala“: “But those who did wrong substituted a saying other than that which had been said to them” («فَبَدَّلَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا قَوْلًا غَيْرَ الَّذِي قِيلَ لَهُمْ»). We noted that several possibilities may be cited regarding this; we set forth two possibilities. The two possibilities we noted were: first, that what is meant by “baddala” was a verbal substitution — that is, that the word “hittah,” which was commanded, was substituted with another word. The second possibility was that this was a practical opposition — that is, regarding the manner of entering the town, for instance, that they were supposed to enter through this particular gate but entered through another, or that the state of humility and reverence they were supposed to assume upon entry was absent.

Question:

Professor: For the most part, these are derived from narrations.

Third Possibility

There exists a third possibility here as well, namely, that they exhibited both opposition in word and opposition in deed — that is, both forms of opposition and both forms of substitution: both the substitution of the word “hittah” with another word, and a substitution in practical conduct. I shall cite two narrations here — one from the Shi’i collections of narrations, namely from the exegesis attributed to Imam al-‘Askari, peace be upon him, and one from the Sunni sources.

First narration: Tafsir al-Safi, citing the exegesis attributed to Imam al-‘Askari, peace be upon him, relates that the opposition of the Children of Israel proceeded as follows: when they reached the gate of the town, they observed that the gate’s height was such that there was no need for humility, reverence, bowing, and entry in a state of prostration. For the command had been given, “and enter through the gate prostrating” («وَادْخُلُوا الْبَابَ سُجَّدًا»), which had specified the manner of entry for the Children of Israel. When they reached this gate, they observed that the height of this gate was such that there was no need to enter in this posture. They were then surprised and said: for how long will Moses and his successor Joshua continue to mock us? Since the height of the gate is such that one can pass through it with ease, why should we enter in this manner? Hence they performed two acts: first, instead of entering the gate facing forward, they entered backward — as though entering rear-first; or, for instance, they entered through a different gate altogether, and did so in an ordinary manner, not in a state of prostration. That is, in terms of conduct, they in fact carried out two substitutions. As for the verbal aspect, if they had been commanded to utter the word “hittah,” they instead used another word, which, according to what is related in this narration, meant “red wheat” (hintah hamra’).

Second narration: in a narration transmitted by Sahih Muslim from the noble Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, it is stated that they entered the gate dragging themselves in backward, and that instead of saying “hittah,” they said “habbah fi sha’rah” — meaning a grain of wheat within its golden husk. This account is roughly similar to that given in the exegesis attributed to Imam al-‘Askari, peace be upon him; they carried out both a practical substitution and a verbal substitution — two types of opposition, namely in deed and in word, in that they also altered this very term and word and used a different word in its place.

Hence, with regard to “baddala,” we may cite three possibilities: first, verbal substitution; second, practical substitution; and third, both verbal and practical substitution occurring together.

As for the basis on which these possibilities, or these three aspects that we have set forth, have been put forward, this is principally based on transmitted accounts and narrations.

Question:

Professor: It is also valid for the “fa” to be a “fa” of consequence (tafri’); for the verse has previously given the command, stating “and enter through the gate prostrating, and say, ‘Hittah‘” — two commands, one relating to speech and the other relating to the manner of entry. The question now is whether this “baddala” relates specifically to these two commands mentioned just before the “fa,” or to the entirety of the preceding instructions. The apparent sense is that it relates to these two most recent commands; this is also supported by the narrations transmitted in this connection. For several stages of opposition to the divine commands have already been mentioned earlier; what God commanded and what they did, even including the chastisements that were sent down upon them, has already been recorded. At this stage, God has given three obligatory commands: the act of entering itself, the seeking of forgiveness, and the manner of entry. We have also noted that the command “eat” is not an obligatory command. The verse intends to convey that, in this matter too, they engaged in substitution. It says “those who did wrong” («الذین ظلموا»); this “zalamu” (did wrong) may be understood with reference to their past acts of opposition; though it could also be understood with reference to this very act of substitution, its apparent sense, however, is that “those who did wrong” refers to that group among the Children of Israel who had consistently engaged in opposition and had wronged both themselves and God — and it was they who “substituted in word.” Hence, according to some, “those who did wrong” does not include the obedient among the Children of Israel — a point we shall explain further later. The apparent sense, then, is that “baddala” relates to the commands and instructions mentioned in this very verse.

The Preferred View

As to which of these three possibilities is intended: on the one hand, whether we take the “fa” to be a “fa” of consequence or a conjunctive “fa,” “baddala” could relate to all of these matters. But what serves as evidence for the first possibility is the phrase “a saying other than that” («قولاً غیر الذی»); although, according to certain narrations, this substitution and opposition occurred even in terms of practical conduct, the statement “But those who did wrong substituted a saying other than that which had been said to them” — that is, “they substituted in word” (baddala qawlan), that they substituted the statement, that statement which differed from the statement that had been told to them — is regarded by some as evidence that this substitution was a verbal one. The narrations, too, perhaps mostly confirm this meaning — that is, the verse intends to convey that they substituted even at the level of merely uttering a single word; this does not mean that they did not engage in opposition in other respects as well — opposition indeed occurred; instead of going in a state of prostration, they went in an ordinary manner and entered backward — all of this in its own right; but in order to convey the height of their baseness, vileness, obstinacy, and contentiousness toward God, Blessed and Exalted, the verse is, as it were, intending to say: even this very word which they were commanded to utter, and which involved no hardship for them whatsoever, they nevertheless altered. They substituted “hittah,” for instance, with “hintah“; this conveys, in the highest degree, the obstinacy and rebellion of this people.

Hence, in my view, of these three possibilities, the one more consistent with the apparent sense of the verse — and one which “a saying other than that which had been said to them” perhaps more clearly indicates — is that the substitution was verbal, in word and statement. The point, moreover, is this: that although everything had been made ready for them, and they had been commanded to enter the town, and every facility and blessing had been prepared and provided for them, they nevertheless still engaged in opposition; two or three commands were given to them, yet they disregarded even the simplest command and the easiest matter, and even substituted this very statement. It appears that, of these three possibilities, the first is preferable; this does not, of course, mean that they did not also oppose the other two commands.

Question:

Professor: As I have noted, in light of the point I have made here, it appears that this applies more readily to that very statement.

Topic of the Next Session

Two or three further points remain regarding this part of the verse, which we shall, God willing, set forth in the coming session.