Section: If the people of rebellion seek assistance from the disbelievers, it does not fall outside of three categories. First: The people of war (harbiyyun). If they seek their help, or grant them safe-conduct (aman), or conclude a covenant of protection (dhimma) for them, none of these are valid. This is because a condition for the validity of safe-conduct is the commitment to restrain them from the Muslims, whereas these people stipulate that they must fight the Muslims, so it is not valid. The people of justice have the right to fight them just as they would those to whom they have granted no safe-conduct. The ruling for their captives is the same as the ruling for the captives of any other people of war before they sought their assistance. As for the people of rebellion, it is not permissible for them to kill them [the captives], because they had granted them safety, and it is not permissible for them to betray them. The second category: The protected ones (musta'manun). Whenever they seek their assistance and they provide it, they have violated their covenant and become like the people of war because they have abandoned the condition, which is their restraint from the Muslims. If they do so under compulsion, their covenant is not broken because they have an excuse. If they claim compulsion, their statement is not accepted except with evidence, because the original state is its absence. The third category: The people of the covenant (dhimmiyun). If they assist them and fight alongside them, there are two views regarding them, which Abu Bakr mentioned: One is that their covenant is broken because they fought the people of truth, so their covenant is broken just as if they had fought them alone. The second is that it is not broken because the people of the covenant do not distinguish between those who are in the right and those who are in the wrong, so this constitutes an ambiguity for them. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions, corresponding to these two views. If we say their covenant is broken, they become like the people of war in what we have mentioned. If we say their covenant is not broken, their ruling is the same as the people of rebellion regarding killing their approaching forces and refraining from killing their captives, fugitives, and wounded, except that they are liable for what they destroyed of the people of justice during the fighting and otherwise, unlike the people of rebellion, who are not liable for what they destroyed during the state of war because they destroyed it based on a plausible interpretation (ta'wil), whereas these people have no such interpretation. Furthermore, liability was dropped for the Muslims so as not to lead to their alienation from returning to obedience, and regarding the people of the covenant, we have no need for that. If the rebels compel them to assist them, their covenant is not broken, and if they claim that, their statement is accepted because they are under their authority and power.