and seized vast sums from the property of the Muslims and the public treasury, took great numbers of Muslim men captive, and uprooted them from their homelands. Despite this, they claimed adherence to the two testimonies of faith and maintained that fighting their combatants was forbidden, on the grounds that they followed the foundations of Islam and had refrained from exterminating the Muslims. Is fighting them permissible or obligatory? In either case, on what grounds is it permissible or obligatory? Give us your ruling, and may you be rewarded.

He replied:

All praise is due to Allah. Any group—whether these people or others—that refuses to abide by any of the manifest laws of Islam established through mass transmission must be fought until they abide by its laws, even if they profess the two testimonies of faith and observe some of its laws. Thus Abū Bakr al-Siddīq and the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, fought those who withheld zakah. The jurists after them agreed on this, following the earlier debate between ʿUmar and Abū Bakr, may Allah be pleased with them both. The Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, thus agreed on fighting to uphold the rights of Islam, acting upon the Quran and the Sunnah.

Likewise, the hadith concerning the Khawārij is authentically transmitted from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, through ten routes. He described them as the worst of all created beings, despite saying:

“You would consider your prayers insignificant beside theirs, and your fasting insignificant beside theirs.”

It is therefore clear that merely invoking the protection of Islam, while failing to abide by its laws, does not remove the obligation to fight. Fighting is obligatory until religion is entirely for Allah and there is no more strife. Thus, whenever religion is devoted to other than Allah