Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: ((And We have certainly given Dawud from Us a favor))

Then Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said: The waw is a conjunction, and it is permissible for it to be for resumption. The lam is a preparatory particle for the oath. Yes.
The student : ......

The Shaykh : How? No, no...
Now, the lam is a preparatory particle for the oath, and qad is for realization. This kind of emphasis occurs frequently in the Qur'an, and it is said that the sentence is affirmed by three affirmations: the implied oath, the lam, and qad. So the implied form of this sentence is: "By Allah, We have certainly given Dawud from Us a favor." Yes. Now, is it permissible to omit the lam? Yes, it is permissible. Allah the Exalted said: until He said: This is the answer to the oath. And it is permissible in His saying: , outside of the Qur'an, for us to say: "Yes, he has certainly succeeded." Now, is it permissible to omit both the lam and qad? Yes, it is permissible, as in His saying: So, this is the answer to the oath, and it contains neither qad nor the lam. So, when the answer to the oath is a past tense verb, three forms are permissible for it: that it be accompanied by the lam and qad; that it be accompanied by qad; or that both the lam and qad be omitted. However, the lam is not omitted, nor is qad omitted, generally, unless the oath is long. If it is not long, they are not omitted. Now, if I say, "By Allah, Zayd has certainly stood up," is that correct? "By Allah, Zayd has certainly stood up" is correct. Is it correct or not? It is correct, and this is the original form. "By Allah, Zayd has stood up" is also correct; we omitted the lam. "By Allah, Zayd stood up" is also correct; we omitted the lam and qad from it. And Allah knows best.