Exegesis of the verse: ((Those are the ones whose deeds have been rendered worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.))

Then Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said: This is the beginning of tonight's lesson. Those referred to are the ones who disbelieve in the signs of Allah, kill the prophets without right, and kill those who enjoin justice among the people. They are the people of good who enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. These are the ones who possess these attributes, and it is they whose deeds have been rendered worthless. The rendering of a thing worthless means its disappearance, its cessation, and the inability to benefit from it. So, their deeds have been rendered worthless in this world and the Hereafter. As for the Hereafter, it is apparent, for they will not benefit from their deeds, even if they were good. Indeed, even if a disbeliever does good in this world, such as being kind to people, whether specifically or generally, that will not benefit him in the Hereafter, due to the saying of the Exalted: But how were their deeds rendered worthless in this world? Their deeds were rendered worthless in this world because, since they did not benefit from them, they became as if they had not done them, so their deeds did not benefit them. The proof of this is the saying of the Exalted: He said: As we all know, this sentence is a negative sentence using "ma." I ask here: does this "ma" function like "laysa" or "la"? Who knows? Yes, it does not function like "laysa." Why? Because the predicate preceded it. Do you have a proof from the words of the scholars for what you said? From the Alfiyyah? From the Alfiyyah, yes. O guidance of Allah? A grammatical rule, we say: No, no, I want it from the words of Ibn Malik, because brother Muhammad... and I have the words of Ibn al-Hajjaj. Okay, yes. His saying: "Ma remained the negation and the order of mention..." Okay, but here is a problem, which is his saying: How do we parse it? O Fahd? "Min" is an extra preposition, extra, right? What color? Extra, extra? Explain to the brothers? Extra in parsing and extra in meaning, meaning it is extra in the parsing and adds to the meaning. And "Nasirin" is the subject of "ma," raised. The subject of "ma," and you said "ma" and Muhammad says "ma" functions, how do we say the subject of "ma"? Do you have nothing else? Okay, Zuhayr? The predicate. The predicate, no, that is not correct. The subject. Yes. "Wa lahum" is the predicate. But complete the parsing of "Nasirin"? "Nasirin" is the active participle, grammatically genitive and semantically nominative, the subject. The subject, okay, wait, complete, complete. The subject, how? Meaning nominative in form, correct. "Nasirin" is the active participle, the sound masculine plural, and its nominative is by the waw with a predicate that is dammed, and its accusative and genitive are by the ya before the kasrah, genitive in form and nominative in position, the subject. Okay, and "ma" is a negator. So, what is the sign of its nominative? The waw that is implied. And "ma" is a negator, and "la hum" is a circumstantial phrase attached to the omitted word. The preposition and its object are attached to the omitted word and the predicate. The important thing now is that we understood from his words that the waw is implied in the position of the ya, and what prevented its appearance was the occupation of the position by the movement of the deletion of the genitive by the extra letter. Meaning, those whose deeds have been rendered worthless in this world and the Hereafter have no one to support them. And the Exalted affirmed the negation here, affirming it with the extra "min," meaning they have no one to support them, neither in a group nor individually, because the extra "min," when it enters, makes the negation a text of generality, "kull" being a negator of the genus.