Jihad, moreover, can only be conducted under the rulers. If one does not campaign alongside them, it follows that virtuous, righteous people will not wage jihad, and the resolve of the devout to wage jihad will weaken. Jihad would then either be abandoned or left solely to evildoers, resulting in the unbelievers gaining mastery or the evildoers attaining ascendancy, for religion belongs to those who fight for it.

This is among the most corrupt of opinions. It is the view of the people of religious innovation, including the Rafidites, the Mu'tazilites, and others. One of the Rafidite shaykhs was once asked:

“If unbelievers came to our land, killed its people, took its women captive, and seized its wealth, should we fight them?”

He replied:

“No. Our doctrine is that we wage jihad only alongside the infallible Imam.”

Despite being merely a layman (1), the questioner said, “By Allah, this is indeed a filthy doctrine! This doctrine leads to the corruption of both religion and worldly life.”

The proponent of this view scrupulously avoids (2) what he imagines to be injustice, yet through this corrupt scrupulousness he falls into injustice many times worse than that which he sought to avoid (3). What comparison is there between the injustice of some rulers and the unbelievers gaining mastery—let alone the mastery of those even more unjust than they are? The less unjust party should therefore be supported (4) against the more unjust. The Sharia is founded on securing and maximizing benefits, and eliminating and minimizing harms as far as possible; and on discerning the better of two goods and the worse of two evils, so that, when they conflict (5), the better good is given precedence and the worse evil is warded off.

It is well known that the evil of unbelievers, apostates, and Kharijites is greater than the evil of an unjust ruler. But if they are not wronging the Muslims, while the person fighting them seeks to wrong them, then this is aggression on his part, and he must not be assisted in that aggression.