Allah the Exalted said: << قالوا تقاسموا بالله لنبيتنه و أهله ثم لنقولن لوليه ما شهدنا مهلك أهله و إنا لصادقون >

[Surah al-Naml: 48].
"

They will say

قَالُوا

That is, these nine said to one another:

They swore an oath

تَقَاسَمُوا

That is, swear an oath

By Allah

بِاللَّهِ

".
That is, some of them asked the others to pledge themselves to this matter, to form an alliance to ambush Salih and his household, and the meaning of ambushing is inflicting punishment upon them at night.
So here they swore, may Allah protect us from this, this wicked oath to ambush Salih and his household, and for this reason He said: [Surah al-Naml: 49].
The lam in His saying: "We will surely ambush him" occurs in the answer to the oath, and the nun is for emphasis, so they emphasized this action with the oath, the lam, and the nun.
The author says: " with the nun and the ta, and the second ta is raised " Is that how it is with you?
With the ta, and if we make the second one a ta, it necessitates raising the second ta, so it becomes "tabyatunna," whereas in "lanubayyitannahu" it remains open.
"

We will surely ambush him and his household

لَنُبَيِّتَنَّهُ وَأَهْلَهُ

[Surah al-Naml: 49] That is, whoever believed in him, that is, we will kill them at night " This is the explanation of ambushing.
And the intended meaning of "his household" is his followers, as the author said, but there may be a dispute over this, and it is said that the intended meaning is his specific household, meaning: his family, because they are the ones who usually reside with him in the house, for it is the norm that a person does not have in his house at night except his specific family.
Then after that, to ambush him "

Then We will surely say

ثُمَّ لَنَقُولَنَّ

[Surah al-Naml: 49] with the nun and the ta, and the second lam is raised ". When is the second lam raised? When it becomes six letters, so you say "taqulunna," whereas with the nun, it is open, "lanuqulna."
That is, then after we ambush him and kill him, then if his guardian rises to take his blood, we say to him "

to his guardian

لِوَلِيِّهِ

That is, the guardian of his blood ".
And the guardians of the blood in our Islamic caliphate are the heirs by fixed share or by residuary right, and the saying of some: rather, they are the residuary heirs who are the guardians of the blood, because they are the ones who pay the blood money on his behalf, whereas those with fixed shares are not among the guardians of the blood.
And the correct view is the general one: that the guardians of the blood are the heirs by fixed share or by residuary right, so even the wife or the mother is among his guardians.
We say: "

We did not witness

مَا شَهِدْنَا

We have come

the destruction of his family

مَهْلِكَ أَهْلِهِ

with the mīm raised and open " muhlik and mahlik.
And the author did not address the third reading, which is: So the readings in it are three: opening the mīm and breaking the lām, opening the mīm and the lām is mahlik, raising the mīm and opening the lām. And these last two are the ones the author mentioned, muhlik his household, and mahlik his household, he says: " That is, their destruction or their perishing " according to the two readings.
Muhlik means: destruction, because muhlik is from the quadriliteral verb ahlaqa, and mahlik is from the triliteral verb halaqa. And therefore we say: if the verb is triliteral, then its mīm-derived noun is on the pattern of mufa'il, mahlik, halaqa took the place of, and if it is quadriliteral, then its mīm-derived noun is on the pattern of the passive participle, so you say: muhlik from ahlaqa, and you say: maqam from aqama.
So-and-so took the place of so-and-so among us, just as Abu Hayyan said about Ibn Taymiyyah:
Ibn Taymiyyah took the place in defending our Shari'ah
of the master of Taym when Mudar rebelled
He took the place, but with us you say: he established himself in this place muqam of so-and-so with the mīm raised, you do not say maqam. And this is a known rule in grammar: that the mīm-derived noun, if it is from a quadriliteral verb, is on the pattern of the passive participle, and if it is from a triliteral verb, it is on the pattern of mufa'il or mufi'il like muhlik .
" So we do not know who killed them ". Is this denial true or a lie?
The student: It is all a lie.

The Shaykh : Since they are the ones who killed him, their saying: [Surah al-Naml: 49] is a lie, but there is a veiled meaning in it, because they say: we did not witness it, but we did it, and the witness did not do it, and for this reason they said: [Surah al-Naml: 49].
Is the clause [Surah al-Naml: 49] part of the clause of them being the ones who defend themselves with it, or is it a confirmation of their saying: [Surah al-Naml: 49] meaning that they did not say it to defend themselves, both possibilities are possible, but I do not know if you understood the difference between the two matters or not?
[Surah al-Naml: 49] Is [Surah al-Naml: 49] part of what they say to the guardian, to emphasize the negation? We did not witness it and we are not lying to you, we are indeed truthful, I did not witness it, this is one aspect.
Or the meaning is: [Surah al-Naml: 49] and be reassured, O brothers, for we -they say to one another- are indeed truthful, that we did not witness. Both this and that are possible.
The exegetes only mentioned two possibilities: one is that they say it in the context of their defense to the guardian of Salih, and on this, the clause [Surah al-Naml: 49] is a confirmation of their saying: [Surah al-Naml: 49] and a denial, we did not witness it and we are indeed truthful, so we did not inform you of the killing.
Or the meaning is: [Surah al-Naml: 49] and if we say this, then we are truthful, because we did not witness the destroyer, but we destroyed with our own hands... we are not witnesses but doers.
The student: ....?

The Shaykh : Yes, but the truth is that the doer is other than the witness, and that ... this is an example of a veiled meaning, otherwise it is known that whoever did it has witnessed it, yes, it is more eloquent.
The student: And whoever killed the Prophet, those who believed in him, it is sufficient for them that they presented what is greater.

The Shaykh : No. They make their matter seem light to one another, so that there is nothing in their hearts, otherwise it is known that the one who kills witnesses, but to make the matter light for some of them, some of them prepare the others.
And the result: that these, may Allah protect us from this, intended this reprehensible act, which is a plot, because it is coming to Salih and his household from where they do not expect, for the night is a place of rest and calm, so if one person attacks another, that becomes treachery and plotting, and for this reason, even in war with the disbelievers, the scholars differed: is it permissible to ambush the disbelievers or not? So the one who forbade ambushing said: it is not possible to kill the disbelievers while they are unaware and sleeping, and some of them permitted it. And the issue needs a detailed research on this matter.
And the result: we say: that this is from treachery and plotting, that these people come to Salih and his household at night and ambush them