arbitration between two rulers to spare the Muslim community’s blood is more warranted than arbitration between spouses or over the killing of game.

Here Ibn Abbās reasons by comparison and a fortiori analogy, which belongs to the Balance. Thus, the argument against them was established through the Book and the Balance. Allah Most High says:

“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and leads to the best outcome.”

He, glorified be He, commands obedience to Himself, His Messenger, and those in authority among us. He also commands us, if we disagree over anything, to refer it to Allah and the Messenger. This shows that whatever the believers disagree over, they must refer it to Allah and the Messenger. A command made conditional does not apply when its condition is absent. This therefore indicates that, when they do not disagree, this command does not apply. That can only be because, when they do not disagree, they are following guidance and obeying Allah and His Messenger. There is then no need for a command to perform the obedience to Allah and the Messenger that they are already practising.

This also indicates that, when they do not disagree but reach agreement, they do not agree upon misguidance. Were it possible for them to agree upon misguidance, referring matters to Allah and the Messenger would then be even more necessary than when they disagree, since one of the two groups may be obeying Allah and the Messenger. If, in this situation, they are commanded to refer matters to Allah and the Messenger so that a group among them—having departed from that obedience—may return to it, then all the more should they be commanded to do so