then fighting is obligatory. Any group that refuses to observe some of the obligatory prayers, fasting, or Hajj; to uphold the inviolability of blood and property and the prohibitions against wine, unlawful sexual intercourse, gambling, or marrying women within the prohibited degrees; to undertake jihad against the disbelievers or levy the jizyah on the People of the Book; or to comply with other religious obligations and prohibitions—whose denial or neglect admits of no excuse, and whose binding character it is disbelief to deny—must be fought on that account, even if it acknowledges them. I know of no disagreement among the scholars concerning this.

The jurists have differed only concerning a group that persistently refuses to observe certain sunnah practices, such as the two units of prayer before the dawn prayer, the call to prayer, and the call announcing its commencement—according to those who do not consider these obligatory—and similar religious observances. Is a group that refuses to observe them to be fought for abandoning them or not? As for the obligations and prohibitions mentioned above and others like them, there is no disagreement that fighting is required to enforce them.

According to the scholars of discerning judgment, these people do not have the same status as rebels who rise against the ruler or withdraw from obedience to him, such as the people of Syria in relation to the Commander of the Faithful, Alī ibn Abī Tālib, may Allah be pleased with him. Those people withdrew from obedience to a particular ruler or rose against him to remove him from office. But those under discussion have departed from