And for this reason, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade fighting in times of civil strife. This is one of the fundamental principles of the Sunnah and the position of the people of Sunnah and hadith, as well as the leading scholars of Medina, jurists and others.

Some jurists hold that such a situation may involve complete knowledge on one side and transgression on the other, in which case fighting alongside the just party becomes obligatory. Accordingly, in the great civil strife between the people of Syria and Iraq, whose course was more correct: those who abstained from fighting, or those among the people of Iraq who fought? The scriptural texts support the former. They held that it would have been more correct for the people of Iraq to refrain from fighting, even though they were closer to the truth and had a stronger claim to it than the people of Syria at that time. We have discussed this at length elsewhere and examined the relevant verses and hadiths.

One of the fundamental principles here is that the mere occurrence of transgression by a ruler or a group does not make fighting them obligatory; indeed, it does not even make it permissible. Rather, among the principles established by the scriptural texts is that people are commanded to bear patiently the injustice, oppression, and transgression of an unjust, oppressive ruler, and not to fight him, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded in several hadiths. He did not grant unrestricted permission to repel transgression through fighting. Rather, when fighting would involve civil strife, he forbade repelling transgression by that means and commanded patience.

As for His saying, glorified be He:
“If one of them transgresses against the other, then fight the one that transgresses.”
[Surah al-Hujurāt 9]

He, glorified be He, has made His meaning clear. Yet some