and seeking blessings through him, while stripping him of his clothes, reviling his womenfolk, and subjecting him to punishments inflicted only upon the most unjust and wicked of people. Someone acting on a religious interpretation punishes only those whom he considers disobedient to the religion. Yet these people venerate those they punish for their religious devotion and say that they are more obedient to Allah than themselves. What interpretation, then, remains for them? Even supposing that they were acting on an interpretation, it would not be defensible. Indeed, the interpretation of the Khawārij and those who withheld zakat was more plausible than theirs. The Khawārij claimed to follow the Quran and maintained that any Sunnah that contradicted it could not be followed.

As for those who withheld zakat, it is reported that they said: “Allah said to His Prophet:

‘Take charity from their wealth.’

This addresses His Prophet alone, so we are not obliged to pay it to anyone else.” Thus, they would neither pay it to Abū Bakr nor hand it over to him. The Khawārij possess knowledge and engage in worship, and scholars have debated them, just as they have debated the Rāfidah and the Jahmiyyah. As for these people, there is no debating their grounds for fighting the Muslims. Even if they were acting on an interpretation, theirs would not be one that any rational person would advance.

One of them addressed me, saying: “Our king is a king, son of a king, son of a king, going back through seven forefathers, whereas your king is the son of a mawlā (a freedman or client).”

I told him: “That king’s forefathers were all disbelievers, and there is no cause for pride in a disbeliever. Indeed, a Muslim slave is better than a disbelieving king. Allah Most High says:

‘A believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he may please you.’”

Such are their arguments. It is well known that a Muslim is obliged