Allah the Exalted said: << And if not that a calamity should befall them for what their hands have sent on before, they would say, "Our Lord, why did You not send to us a messenger, that we might follow Your signs and be among

punishment from disbelief and other things why not the one sent with them "

Why not

لولا

Here it is repeated twice, and in each place it has a meaning different from the other. The first one, he said:

And if not that a calamity should befall them

ولولا أن تصيبهم

The pronoun refers to the Quraysh, the people of Makkah, and the befalling of a thing means its descent, meaning a calamity descends upon them. The calamity intended here is the punishment due to their disbelief, and it is, I mean,

Why not

لولا

a particle of prevention?
The student: Due to existence.

The Shaykh : A particle of prevention due to existence, and

that

أن

and what it entered upon is in the sense of a source noun as the subject, and the answer to

that

أن

is omitted as the author estimates it. And his saying:

for what their hands

بما قدمت

means because of, and

not

ما

is a relative noun, meaning because of what their hands sent on before. The intended meaning of

their hands

أيديهم

is themselves, meaning what they sent on before. He expressed the self by the hand, because the hand is generally the tool of action. Know that there is a difference between attributing the action to the hand and attributing the action to the self through the hand. For example, His saying:

from what Our hands have made, grazing livestock

مما عملت أيدينا أنعاما

[Ya-Sin 36:71]

means from what we did, meaning from what We created, and it is not intended that Allah created the cattle with His hand. As for His saying:

with what I created with My two hands

بما خلقت بيديَّ

here He attributed the action to Himself, then made the hand a means, which indicates that Adam was created by the hand of Allah. Similarly, if I said: by what you did with your hand, or by what your hands sent on before, here we say: did the person do the thing with his hand or not? He did it himself, but with his hand. But if I said: by what your hands did, or by what your hands sent on before, the intended meaning is by what you did, whether you did it through the hand, or the eye, or the leg, or the tongue; the important thing is that it is attributed to you. The action is attributed to the hand, not to the doer through the hand. If it is attributed to the doer through the hand, the action is his, but the hand is the direct agent of the action. If the action is attributed to the hand, the intended meaning is the person's action, whether with his hand or otherwise. So his saying:

with what their hands have brought forth

بما قدمت أيديهم

is not like his saying: by what they sent on before with their hands, or not? Because the first one intends

with what they brought forth

بما قدموا

whether it was by the hand, or the leg, or the eye, or the ear, or the tongue. And his saying: " from disbelief and other things" it is true that calamities do not occur except through sins

And whatever strikes you of disaster - it is for what your hands have earned; but He pardons much.

وما أصابكم من مصيبة فبما كسبت أيديكم ويعفو عن كثير

[Ash-Shuraa 42:30]

and here he said:

lest a calamity befall them

لولا أن تصيبهم مصيبة

because of their disbelief

so they say

فيقولوا

the fā' is a particle of conjunction and

they say

يقولوا

is conjoined to

befall them

تصيبهم

meaning

so that they say

فأن يقولوا

when, after the calamity or before it?
The student: After.

The Shaykh : After the calamity,

so they say

فيقولوا

arguing with Allah

Our Lord, why did You not send to us a messenger so that we might follow

ربَّنا لولا أرسلت إلينا رسولا فنتبعَ

meaning why did You not send to us a messenger before You afflicted us with punishment

so that we might follow Your signs and be among the believers

فنتبعَ آياتك ونكونَ من المؤمنين

is this an argument for them or not?
The student: Yes, that is right.

The Shaykh : It is an argument for them if they were afflicted without a messenger being sent to them, that would be an argument, because Allah the Exalted says:

[We sent] messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers

رُسُلًا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ

[An-Nisa: 165] and He says:

And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.

ومَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا

[Al-Isra: 15] So if not for this matter, that they be afflicted by their disbelief and sins, then argue with their Lord that He did not send to them a messenger, what is the answer? Is the answer: We would have punished them? Or the answer: We would not have sent you to them? Let us see what the author said: " And the answer to lawla is omitted, and what follows it is a subject" meaning the predicate is omitted and known. The meaning: if not for the affliction which caused their saying, or if not for their saying which caused the affliction, we would have hastened to punish them, or we would not have sent you to them as a messenger. It is as if the author made the answer composed of an affirmation and a negation. The affirmation is his saying: we would have hastened to punish them, and the negation is: we would not have sent you to them. Why? Because they mentioned two things, because Allah mentioned two things: the affliction and their saying: So the answer was also composed of two things. It is permissible for the answer to be composed of one of the two things, meaning we would have punished them, or we would not have sent you to them, because the meaning is complete without estimating both things. And on this basis, the wāw here in the author's words means , and I think the meaning of the verse is clear in general, that if not for these disbelievers who are deserving of punishment because of their disbelief, if not for them to argue that a messenger was not sent to them—yes—we would have punished them without sending you, or we would not have sent you to them. So the sending of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is establishing the proof against them and repelling their argument and refuting it. So it is as if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to them before they were taken with punishment. And this necessitates that if they lied to him, they would be deserving of punishment, because the argument they argue with has disappeared. Now, we have the grammatical analysis, I think we understood it from the author's words. The first is conditional, and it is a particle of prevention due to existence, and the second is hortative, meaning why not. And his saying: is conjoined to his saying: , and his saying: is in the accusative case by hidden after the fā' of causality occurring in the answer to the hortative lawla, or not? It is in the accusative case by hidden after the fā' of causality occurring as the answer to the hortative.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, because the hortative means yes, and it is hortative. And if the fā' occurs in its answer, the verb is put in the accusative case by hidden. Ibn Malik says:
And after the fā' of the answer to pure negation or request, and its concealment is a necessity that put it in the accusative
Meaning that puts in the accusative case after the fā' occurring in the answer to a pure request or negation, and its concealment—meaning its obligatory deletion—is a necessity. And I think it is present in a verse that students have read since their youth, for what you put in the accusative case with hidden after the answer or in the answer, which is?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, no, no, this is a witness... rules
Command, invite, forbid, ask, and offer to them to urge them, wish, and hope, so negation has been completed
These are nine. If the fā' occurs as the answer to one of them, the verb after it is put in the accusative case by hidden. Did you not memorize them before? Command, invite, forbid, ask, and offer.