So if We show you its origin: then it is left. And 'ma' is added to emphasize the meaning of the condition, and for this reason, the noon is attached to the verb. [[Mahamud said: 'The corrector for the attachment of the emphasized noon is the entry of 'ma' which emphasizes the condition, and were it not for 'ma', its entry would not be permissible.' Ahmad said: 'And this is so because the emphasized noon is meant to enter into that which is not obligatory, and the condition is of the nature of the obligatory, except that if it is emphasized, it strengthens its ambiguity, thus bringing the strength of ambiguity closer to that which is not obligatory, so the entry of the noon into it is permissible.']] Do you not see that you do not say: If you honor me, I will honor you, but: If you honor me, I will honor you. If you say:

It is not free that either you join 'or' 'We will surely take you' to 'We will show you' and share them in one recompense, which is His saying: 'So to Us they will return.' Your saying: 'So if We show you some of what We promised them, then to Us they will return' is not correct. And if you make 'So to Us they will return' specific to the conjunction which is 'We will take you', in the conjunction without recompense.

I said: 'So to Us they will return' is related to 'We will take you', and the recompense of 'We will show you' is omitted, its estimation being: 'So if We show you some of what We promised them of punishment, which is killing and captivity on the Day of Badr, then that is it. Or if We take you before the Day of Badr, then to Us they will return on the Day of Judgment, so We will take revenge.' [[Mahamud said: 'Either it shares with the first in the condition, and His saying: 'So to Us they will return' is a shared recompense between them, so the meaning does not stand, on: 'So if We show you some of what We promised them... so to Us they will return.' And if the recompense is made specific to the second, the first remains without recompense. And he answered that it is specific to the second, and the recompense of the first is omitted, its estimation being: 'So if We show you some of what We promised them, which is what befell them on the Day of Badr, then that is it. Or We will take you, then to Us they will return and We will take revenge on them.' Ahmad said: 'And the answer of the first is omitted without the second because if the first occurs, then that is the utmost hope in their defeat, so the established upon its occurrence is known, which is the complete attainment of the desired.'

And if it does not occur and the second occurs, which is taking before the recompense befalls them, this is what needs to be mentioned for consolation and reassurance of the soul, on the basis that even if their recompense is delayed from this world, it is certain in the Hereafter and must occur. He said: 'And like it is His saying: 'So if We take you away, then indeed We will take revenge on them, or We will show you what We promised them, for indeed We are capable over them.' It is as if he cites as evidence that the recompense of the first is omitted by mentioning this verse.]] from them is the most severe revenge, and His saying: 'So if We take you away, then indeed We will take revenge on them, or We will show you what We promised them, for indeed We are capable over them.'