We thought that whoever from the Muslims seeks our assistance, it is incumbent upon us to assist them. Their covenant is not broken. If the protected ones (musta'manun) do that, their covenant is broken. The difference between them is that the people of the covenant (dhimmiyun) possess a stronger status, for their covenant is perpetual, and it is not permissible to break it out of fear of their betrayal; furthermore, the Imam is required to defend them, whereas the case of the protected ones is different.

Section: If a group apostatizes and destroys wealth belonging to the Muslims, they are liable for what they have destroyed, whether they have gathered together [in a stronghold], achieved a position of strength, or not. This was mentioned by Abu Bakr. The Qadi said: This is the apparent [meaning] of the words of Ahmad. Al-Shafi'i said: Their ruling is the same as the ruling of the people of rebellion regarding what they destroyed of lives and wealth, because holding them liable would lead to alienating them from returning to Islam, so they resemble the people of rebellion. Our evidence is what was narrated from Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said to the people of apostasy when they returned: "You shall return to us what you have taken from us, and we shall not return to you what we have taken from you; and you shall pay blood money (diya) for our slain, and we shall not pay blood money for your slain." They said: "Yes, O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah." Then Umar said: "Everything as you said, except that they shall pay blood money for those of us who were killed; that, they shall not do, for they are people who were killed in the path of Allah and have attained martyrdom." Moreover, they destroyed it without a plausible interpretation (ta'wil), so they resemble the people of the covenant. As for the slain, their ruling regarding them is the ruling of the people of rebellion, due to what we have mentioned regarding the report of Abu Bakr and Umar, and because Tulayha al-Asadi killed Ukkasha ibn Mihsan al-Asadi and Thabit ibn Aqram, yet he was not held liable for them, and the Banu Hanifa killed whom they killed of the Muslims on the Day of Yamama, yet they were not held liable for anything. It is possible that the statement of Ahmad and his words concerning wealth be interpreted as the obligation to return what is [still] in their hands rather than what they have destroyed, and concerning someone who destroyed [wealth] without having a position of strength, or destroyed it outside of the state of war. As for what they destroyed during the state of war, there is no liability upon them for it; because if that is dropped for the people of rebellion, so as not to lead to their alienation from returning to obedience, then it is more fitting that it should be dropped