Anyone who does not permit fighting except in response to refusal to obey Allah and His Messenger—not merely refusal to obey a particular individual—would not permit fighting these people.

In sum, those whom al-Siddīq—may Allah be pleased with him—fought had refused to obey the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—(1) and to acknowledge what he had brought. For this reason, they were apostates. This is unlike those who acknowledged it but refused to obey a particular individual, such as Muāwiyah and the people of Syria. They acknowledged everything the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had brought: they established prayer and paid zakat. They said:

“We shall fulfill our obligations without placing ourselves under the authority of Alī—may Allah be pleased with him—because of the harm this would cause us.”

How can the two groups be compared?

You should know that a group of jurists from among the followers of Abū Hanīfah, al-Shāfiī, and Ahmad classified both fighting those who withheld zakat and fighting the Kharijites as warfare against rebels; they likewise placed the fighting at the Camel and Siffīn in this category. This view is erroneous and contrary to the position of the leading imams. It contradicts the explicit statements of Mālik, Ahmad, Abū Hanīfah, and other imams of the early generations, and it is contrary to the established sunnah of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—commanded that the Kharijites be fought, and the Companions unanimously agreed upon this. As for the fighting at the Camel and Siffīn (2), it was fighting born of civil strife; there was no command from Allah or His Messenger concerning it, nor any consensus among the Companions. As for fighting those who withheld zakat, if they refused altogether to pay it, or (3) to acknowledge it, that was graver than fighting the Kharijites.