Allah the Exalted said: << وإذا يتلى عليهم قالوا ءامنا به إنه الحق من ربنآ إنا كنا من قبله مسلمين >

The Qur'an what Allah willed —as we know— is the conditional clause and the answer to the condition connected directly to its verb, or not?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Is the answer to the condition connected directly to its verb, or not?
The student:

The Shaykh : I am asking you this as a general rule: is the answer to the condition connected directly to its verb, meaning that whenever the verb of the condition is found, its answer is found? It does not mean verbal connection, but actual connection: if the condition is found, the conditioned is found. Yes. And of course, depending on the situation, it does not mean it must be immediate; it could even be in the future. Here it says: It did not say: So this means that whenever any verse is recited to them, they say, "We believe in it." They did not believe in the Qur'an as a whole; they believed in the Qur'an in detail, because what does the present tense verb indicate? It indicates continuity. So whenever a verse was recited to them, they believed in it, and it increased them in faith. Does this mean it is read to them with hesitation, reflection, and thought, or do they believe immediately?
The student: Immediately.

The Shaykh : Immediately, because we said that the answer to the condition follows the verb of the condition directly. That is, in what was recited to them from the Qur'an, whether little or much. Then they clarified that this faith was based on conviction and on the basis that that is, what was recited to them from the Qur'an. "The truth" means the established, actual, and true thing, whether as a report or a judgment. And their saying: They did not say "from Allah," because the Lord is the One who has absolute disposal; He disposes of His servants in terms of both legislation and decree. So it is as if they are saying that our Lord will not leave us without descending the Qur'an, and He has absolute judgment and disposal in both creation and legislation. And their saying: This is an indication that they, may Allah be pleased with them, take pride in their affiliation to Allah. And His saying: In terms of meaning, what is the status of this clause relative to what came before it?
The student: Explanatory.

The Shaykh : Explanatory, meaning we believed in it not because we were pleased with its beauty, clarity, and eloquence, but we believed in it because it is the truth from our Lord. So if someone asks: If it is explanatory, why is the hamza not opened? Because the explanatory clause is on the assumption of the lam (for), and when the lam is attached to , the hamza must be opened. So you say "li-anna" (because) and not "inna" (that). Allah the Exalted said: [Al-Mu'minun: 60] and He did not say "to their Lord." So why was it not explanatory here? We said: The explanatory clause can be explanatory in terms of meaning only, meaning only the meaning is observed, or it can be explanatory where both the wording and the meaning are observed. If the wording is observed along with the meaning, the hamza is opened because it is on the assumption of the lam. If only the wording is observed, the hamza is broken. Here, what was observed?
The student: The meaning.

The Shaykh : Only the meaning was observed. Which is more appropriate, observing the meaning or observing the wording? We say: Every occasion has its own speech. The benefit of observing the meaning is that the clause is, in terms of wording, disconnected from what came before it, as if it is an independent declarative clause, as if it is disconnected from the wording, but the explanatory benefit comes from the context. As for the verbal explanatory clause, it is connected to what came before it. If you wish, read the words of Ibn Malik: This is the difference between the explanatory clause intended for both wording and meaning, or the one intended for meaning only.
From before what? From before the Qur'an. That is, from before the Qur'an. The author said: "believing in One" If he had interpreted Islam by its apparent meaning, it would have been more appropriate, because Islam means submission and obedience, and its root is from the absence of opposition and fighting. For this reason, "silm" (peace) and "Islam" mean the absence of opposition and fighting. So the word means submissive and obedient to the truth. And their saying: The intended meaning is certainly not pride or admiration for the deed, because the context is one of praise. But the intended meaning is praising Allah for what they were in both states: in the previous state and in the second state. In the second state, and in the first state, they were submissive and following the Messenger who came to them. Now, what is the grammatical analysis of ? Is it the predicate of "kana" (was), or is the predicate?
The student: Muslims.

The Shaykh : Yes, "Muslims" is the predicate. And if the predicate comes first... the predicate is what achieves the benefit, whether it comes first or last.