Him, did you hear this hadith from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace?’

He replied: ‘Yes, by Allah, besides whom there is no deity worthy of worship except Him.’ He made him swear three times, and each time he swore to him.”

The Muslim community is agreed on condemning the Khawārij and judging them misguided. Their disagreement concerns only whether they are disbelievers. There are two well-known positions on this in the schools of Mālik and Ahmad, and there is also disagreement within al-Shāfi‘ī’s school regarding their disbelief.

Thus, under the first approach, there are two opinions concerning them in Ahmad’s school and elsewhere. The first is that they are rebels. The second is that they are disbelievers, like apostates: it is permissible to initiate fighting against them, kill their captives, and pursue those who flee. Anyone among them who is apprehended is called upon to repent, like an apostate; if he repents, he is spared, otherwise he is killed.

Likewise, two positions are transmitted from Ahmad concerning those who withhold zakat and fight the ruler over it: do they become disbelievers despite acknowledging that it is obligatory?

All of this demonstrates that al-Siddīq’s fighting against those who withheld zakat and ‘Alī’s fighting against the Khawārij were not like the fighting at the Battles of the Camel and Siffīn. The statements of ‘Alī and others concerning the Khawārij imply that they are not disbelievers like those who apostatize from Islam itself. This is the position explicitly transmitted from the imams, such as Ahmad and others. Nevertheless, the rulings concerning them are not the same as those concerning the participants in the Battles of the Camel and Siffīn. Rather, they constitute a third category. This is the soundest of the three positions concerning them.