Explanation of the author's statement: And his saying (… If they refuse, then seek help from Allah and fight them.

The Shaykh : He says: here
The student: ...

The Shaykh : How? We have previously analyzed the grammar of "they refused" and said that according to the opinion of the Kufans, it is
The student: The subject.

The Shaykh : a subject and the sentence is the predicate. As for the opinion of the Basrans, then is the subject of a deleted verb or an emphasis for the subject of a deleted verb, the estimation being: here: if they refused, they did, and the second sentence has no grammatical position because it is an explanation of the first sentence.
So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) began by seeking help from Allah, because if He does not help you in your jihad against your enemies, then you are left helpless.
to the end of it Besieging means tightening the grip, and the meaning is that you have encircled them and tightened things for them such that they cannot exit their fortress and no one can enter to them. If you besiege them and the people of the fortress, the fortress being anything by which one fortifies oneself, such as palaces, enclosures, or others, and his saying: means they asked you. Here, the intention is used in the sense of asking, otherwise the original is that it is transitive with "from," so they asked you to make the protection of Allah for them, is that so with you? And not
The student: To make the protection of Allah for them

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly Protection is a covenant. So if the besieged people of the fortress say, "We want to descend to the covenant of Allah and His Messenger," it is not permissible to let them descend to the covenant of Allah and His Messenger. Why? He explained that by saying: with a dammah on the ta and a kasrah on the fa, from the quadriliteral root "akhfara," meaning to betray. As for "khafara" (triliteral), it means to protect. So based on this, it must be "takhfiro" with a dammah on the ta and a kasrah on the fa. And his saying cannot be a conditional particle, because is the predicate of the subject, and its grammatical position, along with what "in" entered, "takhfiro," is accusative as a substitute for the name of "in," a substitute of inclusion. The estimation of the speech is: "If your betrayal of the protection of Allah, did you understand? What?"
The student: Your protections

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Your protections

The Shaykh : Yes And you know that the substitute can validly take the place of the substituted, is that not so? Therefore, I estimated it by saying "If your betrayal of your protections." And his saying: because betrayal of the protection of Allah and the protection of His Prophet is greater. Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made their betrayal of their own protections easier than their betrayal of the covenant of Allah and the covenant of His Messenger. And his saying here is from the category of the name of superlative where neither the preferred nor the preferred-over has any of this meaning. The reason is that his saying: implies that the preferred and the preferred-over share in easiness, and the matter here is not so. For the betrayal of protections, whether it is for the protection of the fighters or for the protection of Allah and His Messenger, is not easy at all, but it is difficult. However, the easiness here is relative and not in its true sense. So the betrayal of a person's protection and the protection of his companions is easier than the betrayal of the protection of Allah and the protection of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
Yes

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Never is there anything, never, it is all not easy. But this is easier than that relatively. As for the preferred and the preferred-over sharing in easiness, that is not the case. He said: The first [group] wanted to be let down to the covenant without being judged by anything, but they would be covenanted to protect their wealth, their souls, their women, and their offspring, but without judgment. And this is the second issue: that they descend to the judgment of Allah and the judgment of His Messenger. Are they to be answered to that? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The judgment here, he said: and he did not say "and the judgment of your companions." That is because the judgment in the army or the detachment belongs to whom? To the commander. As for the protection and the covenant, they are among all of them, so it is not permissible for any one of the army or the detachment to break the covenant. As for the judgment, it is specific to the commander himself. Therefore, he said: If the people of the fortress say, "We are descending and surrendering to the judgment of Allah," we say: No, you do not descend to the judgment of Allah, because we do not know if we will hit the mark with the judgment of Allah regarding them or not, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) explained. Yes And here the verb is suspended otherwise it would make the two objects accusative, but it is suspended by the question. Is this last judgment established until today, or is it only in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? The scholars differed on that. Some said it is established until today and that the people of the fortress are not let down to the judgment of Allah, the Exalted, because a person, even if he exerts effort, does not know if he will hit the judgment of Allah or not? Not every mujtahid is correct. And some say that this is specific to the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only, because it is a covenant in which the judgment can change. It is possible that after this army or this detachment passes, Allah, the Exalted, may change the judgment, is that not so? If this is permissible, then it is not possible to let them down to the judgment of Allah because you do not know if you will hit the new judgment or not. But after the revelation was cut off, we let them down to the judgment of Allah, the Exalted, and our exertion in hitting the judgment of Allah is considered correct, it is considered correct, because Allah, the Exalted, does not burden a soul except with what it can bear. So we exert effort and seek the judgment of Allah, the Exalted. If we reach any judgment, then it is the judgment of Allah, because Allah, the Exalted, does not burden a soul except with what it can bear. And Allah, the Exalted, said: And this opinion is more correct, this opinion is more correct, because it rules that the mujtahid hits the judgment apparently in the Shari'ah, even if he may err and even if he may hit. And if one takes precaution regarding that and says, "We do not judge by the judgment of Allah, but we let you down to what we understand of the judgment of Allah," with this wording, this becomes more appropriate, this becomes more appropriate and more likely, because if you say "to what we understand," it becomes clear that this judgment is the judgment of Allah according to your understanding, not according to reality. And we chose this expression because perhaps a change in events may occur and another commander may come and fight these people a second time, or fight other people, and then the judgment changes, and the disbelievers say that the Muslims' judgments are contradictory. So if I say, "I let you down to what I understand of the judgment of Allah," this danger is removed and the person is safe. And with this, the two opinions also agree: the opinion that it is specific to the time of the Messenger, and the opinion that it is general, because if he says, "I let you down to what I understand," then there is no harm in that, even according to the opinion that this is a general judgment until this day.