Quraysh. The Banu Bakr then aggressed against the Khuza'a, aided by some of the Quraysh, while the rest remained silent. This was considered a violation of their treaty, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) marched against them and fought them. Their silence indicates their approval, just as the conclusion of a truce with some of them includes all of them; for their silence denotes their approval, just as it does in the case of a violation. If, however, those who did not violate the treaty express disapproval of the violator—through speech, an overt act, withdrawal, or by communicating to the Imam, "I disavow what the violator has done and I remain committed to the treaty"—then it is not considered violated in their regard. The Imam shall order them to separate (32) so that he may seize the violator alone. If they refuse to separate or to surrender the violator, they become violators, because by preventing the seizure of the violator, they have effectively placed themselves in his position. If it is not possible for them to separate, the treaty is not violated (33) in their regard, for they are like captives. If the Imam captures a group of them and the captive claims he did not violate the treaty, and the matter is ambiguous, the statement of the captive is accepted, for there is no way to verify this other than through him (34).

Section: If the Imam fears a violation of the treaty from them, it is permissible for him to discard their treaty to them, according to the words of Allah the Exalted: "And if you fear treachery from a people, throw back [their treaty] to them on equal terms" (35). This means to inform them of the termination of their treaty so that you and they are equal in knowledge. The mere occurrence of this in his heart (36) is insufficient; it must be based on an indication that points to what he fears. It is not permissible to initiate hostilities or a raid against them before informing them of the termination of the treaty, due to the verse and because they are secure from him (37) by virtue of the treaty; therefore, it is not permissible to kill them or take their wealth. If it is said: "You have stated that if treachery is feared from a dhimmi (protected subject), his treaty is not violated (38)," we respond: The contract of dhimma is more binding because the Imam is obligated to accept their request (39) for it, and it is a type of compensation and a perpetual contract, unlike a truce and a guarantee of safety. This is why if some of the dhimmis violate the treaty, the treaty of the others is not violated, unlike in the case of a truce. Furthermore, the dhimmis are under the Imam's control and his authority is mandatory, and not much harm is feared from