For this reason, the imams of the Sunnah, such as Mālik, Ahmad and others, used to say: “His fighting the Kharijites was commanded, whereas the fighting at the Battle of the Camel and at Siffīn was fighting amid civil strife.”

If a group were to say, “We establish prayer and pay zakat, but we do not hand our zakat over to the ruler, and we fulfil the obligations of Islam (1),” it would not be permissible for the ruler to kill them, according to most scholars, including Abū Hanīfah and Ahmad.

Abū Bakr al-Siddīq—may Allah be pleased with him—fought those who withheld zakat only because they refused to pay it altogether. Had they instead said, “We distribute it ourselves and do not hand it over to Abū Bakr,” fighting them would not have been permissible according to most scholars, including Abū Hanīfah, Ahmad and others.

For this reason, the scholars of the major centres held that the fighting was fighting amid civil strife, and that those who refrained from it were better than those who participated. This is the position of Mālik, Ahmad, Abū Hanīfah, al-Awzāʿī, indeed al-Thawrī, and countless others. Moreover, Abū Hanīfah and other jurists of Kufa held—as reported by al-Qudūrī and others—that fighting rebels is not permissible unless they initiate fighting against the ruler. If, however, they pay the obligatory zakat but refuse to hand it over to him, fighting them is not permissible.

This is also the position of Ahmad and others. Likewise, the majority of jurists hold that “the near relatives” are the relatives of Allah’s Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and that the ruler is not entitled to what the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was entitled to (2).

The point is that each of them—may Allah be pleased with him—although he acted on an interpretive judgment in what he did