can be removed without that. This distinction, however, is weak, for when a judge is appointed by one who wields power, he cannot be removed without civil strife. Whenever seeking to remove him would cause greater harm than leaving him in office, it is impermissible to incur the greater of the two evils (1) in order to ward off the lesser. The same applies to the supreme ruler.

For this reason, the well-known position of Ahl al-Sunnah is that they do not sanction rebelling against rulers and fighting them by the sword, even if there is injustice among them (2), as is established by the numerous authentic hadiths transmitted from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him. This is because the harm arising from fighting and civil strife is greater than the harm caused by their injustice in the absence of fighting (3) and civil strife. Thus, the greater of the two evils is not warded off by incurring the lesser (4). Indeed, one can scarcely point to any group that rose against a ruler without its uprising causing evils that were (5) greater than the evil it eliminated.

Allah Most High did not command that every wrongdoer and every aggressor be fought, regardless of the circumstances, nor did He command that aggressing parties be fought from the outset (6). Rather, He said:

“And if two groups of believers fight one another, make peace between them. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight the transgressing group until it returns to Allah’s command. If it returns, then make peace between them with justice.”

[Surah al-Hujurāt: 9]

Thus, He did not command that the transgressing faction (7) be fought from the outset. How, then, could He command that those in authority (8) be fought from the outset?