to fight. Likewise, if the aggression could be ended by putting to death a single person who could be apprehended, or by carrying out a prescribed or discretionary punishment—such as amputating a thief’s hand, executing an armed brigand, or imposing the prescribed punishment upon a false accuser—it would not be permissible to fight.
Civil strife often erupts when some members of one group (1) wrong another group. If the wronged party can receive its due without fighting, then fighting is not permissible.
Nor does the verse state that anyone who merely refuses to pledge allegiance to a just imam (2) must be fought. Even if he is called a rebel for withholding obedience from the imam, not everyone who withholds obedience from [the imam] (3) is to be fought.
Al-Siddīq fought those who withheld zakat because they refused altogether to pay it. They were therefore fought on the basis of the Quran and Sunnah. Had they acknowledged that it must be paid but said, “We will not pay it to you,” it would not have been permissible to fight them, according to most scholars. Those people, however, were not in that position.
Hence, the third position concerning this hadith—the hadith of Ammār—is that the faction that killed Ammār was rebellious: they had no right to fight Alī or to refuse to pledge allegiance and obedience to him. Yet Alī was not commanded to fight them, nor was it obligatory for him to fight them merely because they refused to obey him, since they remained committed to the precepts (4) of Islam. Both warring parties were nevertheless Muslim believers acting upon an interpretation, and forgiveness and mercy are to be sought for [all of them] (5), in accordance with the saying of Allah Most High:
“And those who came after them say, ‘Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith, and do not place any rancor in our hearts toward those who believe. Our Lord, You are truly Kind and Merciful.’”
Surat al-Hashr