How can the readings of "مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يُغَلَّ" (it is not for a prophet to defraud or embezzle) and "يَغُلَّ" (he defrauds or embezzles) be reconciled in Surah Al Imran, given that one of the readings changes the meaning of the word from an active to a passive participle, and how can these differences in readings that alter the meaning be explained, knowing that the Quran is supposedly preserved and unchanging?

The difference in reading the word "yaghull" (with a fatha on the ya and a damma on the ghayn) or "yughall" (with a damma on the ya and a fatha on the ghayn) is a difference of variation, diversity, and ease of recitation, as well as an expansion of meaning, not a contradiction.

"Yaghull" (with a fatha on the ya and a damma on the ghayn) means: to betray, i.e., the Prophet betrays the trust or the spoils, and it refers to the Ummah.

Whereas "yughall" (with a damma on the ya and a fatha on the ghayn) means: to be accused of betrayal or to be betrayed; i.e., to be attributed to embezzlement, or to have something taken from one's spoils without one's knowledge, or for his Ummah to betray him.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited with both readings, because the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf for ease, and this difference does not change the meaning but rather encompasses more meanings, and the Qur'an is preserved from distortion.