وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ (9)
(49:9) If two parties of the believers happen to fight, *12 make peace between them. *13 But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses *14 until it reverts to Allah's command. *15 And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, *16 and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable. *17
*12) Instead of saying: "When two parties of the believers fight mutually", it has been said: 'If two parties of the believers fall to mutual fighting." From these words it by itself follows that mutual fighting is not the character of the Muslims, nor should it be. It is not expected that being the believers they would fight mutually. However, if such a thing ever happens, the procedure that follows should be adopted. Moreover, the word ta 'ifah has been used for a group instead of firqah: the words ta'ifah and firqah in Arabic are used for a large group and a small group respectively. This also shows that it is indeed a highly offensive state in the sight of Allah in which large groups of the Muslims cannot be expected to be involved.
*13) The recipients of this Command are all those Muslims who may not be a party to either of the groups and for whom it may be possible to try to make peace between them. In other words, Allah dces not approve that the other Muslims should just sit and watch the clash when two groups of their own community have fallen to mutual fighting. But whenever such a sad situation arises alI the believers should become concerned and should do whatever they can to bring about peace and reconciliation between the parties. They should urge the parties to desist from fighting; they should exhort them to fear God; their influential people should go and talk to the responsible men of the two sides, should find out the causes of the dispute and do whatever they can to effect reconciliation between them.
*14) That is, "The Muslims also should not allow the aggressor to continue his aggression and leave the victim alone, or, still worse, join hands with the aggressor. But their duty is that if all their efforts at reconciliation between the parties fail, they should find out as to who is in the right and who is the aggressor. Then they should join hands with the one who is in the right and fight the aggressor. As this fighting has been enjoined by Allah, it is obligatory and comes under Jihad,' it is not the fitnah (mischief) about which the Holy Prophet has said: "It is a situation in which the one standing is bettor than the one moving, and the one sitting is better than the one standing" For that fitnah implies the mutual fighting of the Muslims in which the parties might be fighting out of bigotry, or for a false sense of honour and worldly possessions and neither may be having the truth on its side. As for the fight that is undertaken in support of the group who is in the right against the aggressor, it is not taking part in the fitnah but carrying out Allah's Command. All the jurists arc agreed on its bring an obligation, and there was no difference of opinion among the Holy Prophet's Companions about its being obligatory. (AI-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an). Some jurists even regard it as superior to Jihad itself and their reasoning is that Hadrat 'AIi spent the entire period of his caliphate in fighting against the rebels instead of performing Jihad against the disbelievers. (Ruh al-Ma ani). If a person argues that it was not obligatory because Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar and some other Companions had not participated in the wars fought by Hadrat `Ali, he would be in the wrong. Ibn 'Umar himself says: "I have never been so much grieved at heart on anything as on account of this verse as to why I did not fight the rebels as enjoined by Allah. " (Hakim, al-Mustadrik).
The Command to "fight" the aggressor does not necessarily mean that he should be fought with the weapons and killed, but it implies the use of force against him, the real object being the removal of his aggression. For this object whatever force is necessary should be used, and no more and no less force should be used than what is absolutely necessary.
The addressees of this Command are the people who have the power to repel the aggression by the use of force.
*15) This shows that the fighting is not meant to punish the rebel (the aggressing pang) for his rebellion (aggression), but to force him to return to the Command of AIIah. Allah's Command unplies that the rebel group should submit to what isright according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of AIIah, and should give up the attitude and conduct that amounts to aggression according to this criterion of the truth. As soon as a rebel group becomes ready and willing to follow this Command, use of force against it should be stopped, for this is the actual object of the fighting and its target. The one who commits an excess after this would himself become the aggressor. As for this as to what is the truth and what is the aggression in a dispute according to the Book of AIIah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, its determination is inevitably the job of those people of the Ummah, who have the ability to carry out research by virtue of their knowledge and insight
*16) The Command is not only to make peace but to make peace with justice and equity. This shows that in the sight of AIIah the peace (and reconciliation) which is brought about only to stop fighting, overlooking the distinction between the truth and falsehood, and in which pressure is used against the party that is in the right to come to terms with the aggressor, is not commendable. True peace is that which is based on justice. This alone can avert disaster and mischief; otherwise the inevitable result of pressing those in the right and encouraging the aggressors would be that the real causes of the evil would remain as they were, rather would go on adding up, and cause the mischief to appear and re-appear over and over again.
*17) This verse forms the actual basis of the Islamic law about the mutual fighting between the Muslims. No explanation of this law is found in the Sof the Holy Prophet except one Hadith which we shall take up below. For in the time of the Holy Prophet no war took place between the Muslims; hence nothing is found in his practice and sayings that could throw light on the commandments concerning it Afterwards when during the caliphate of Hadrat 'AIi wars took place between the Muslims themselves authentic explanation of this law became possible At that time since a large number of the Companions were still living, a detailed code of this aspect of the Islamic law was compiled in the light of their practice and statements. Hadrat 'Ali's personal example in particular has been the real source in this matter for aII the jurists. Below we give a brief resume of this code:
(1) There are several forms of mutual fighting between Muslims and each has its own separate injunctions:
(a) When both the fighting groups may be the subjects of a Muslim government: In this case it is the duty of the government to make peace between them, or to decide as to who is the aggressor between them, and to compel him by use of force to revert to the truth.
(b) When the parties may be two powerful groups, or two Muslim governments, and both may be fighting for the sake of the world: In this case, the believers should absolutely refrain from taking part in the fitnah and should exhort the parties concerned to fear God and desist from fighting.
(c) When one of the belligerent parties as mentioned under (b) above may be in the right and the other the aggressor, who may not be listening to counsel nor be inclined to make peace: In this case believers should side with and support the party that is in the right against the aggressor.
(d) When one of the parties may be the subjects, who may have revolted against the government, i.e. the Muslim government: The jurists use the term "baghi"(rebel) for this very party which is guilty of rebelling.
(2) The rebels against the government may also be of several kinds:
Those who may have risen only to create chaos and confusion, and may have no legal ground for their revolt. There is consensus that against such people it is lawful for the government to wage war, and it is obligatory for the believers to side with it, no matter whether it is a just government or not.
(b) Those who may revolt against a government in order to depose it from power, and may have no legal ground for this, and may also appear to be unjust and evil. In this case, if the government is just, it is obligatory to side with it without any question, but even if it is unjust, it is obligatory to fight in order to sustain it, for there is peace and order in the country because of it.
(c) Those who may revolt against a government on the basis of a legal ground, but their ground may be false and their belief vicious and perverse, e.g. the Khwarij. In this case also a Muslim government. whether it is just or unjust, has a lawful right to fight them and it is obligatory to side with it. I
(d) Those who may revolt against a just government when its head might have assumed power lawfully. In this case whether they have a legal ground or do not have any, the government in any case is justified to wage war against them and it is obligatory to side with it.
(e) Those who may revolt against an unjust government, which might have come to power by coercion and whose leaders might be wicked and the rebels might have risen to establish justice and enforce articles of the Divine Law, and they might appear to be righteous. In this case, acute difference of opinion has appeared among the jurists as to whether they should be declared the "rebels"(i.e. transgressors) and whether it is obligatory to fight them or not. This we state below briefly:
The generality of the jurists and the Ahl al-Hadith hold the view that it is unlawful to rise in revolt against a ruler whose government has once been established and there is complete peace and order in the land under him, no matter whether he is just or unjust, and he has come to power in any way whatever, except in case he commits disbelief openly. Imam Sarakhsi writes: "In a case when the Muslims are agreed on a ruler and they enjoy peace under him and the roads are safe, if a group of the Muslims rises in revolt against him, everyone who has power is under obligation to side with the ruler of the Muslims and wage war against the rebels." (Al-Mabsut, Bab al-Khwarij) Imam Nawawi writes in his commentary of Sahih Muslim:"It is forbidden to rise in revolt and fight against the Imams (i.e. the Muslim rulers) even if they are wicked and unjust." Imam Nawawi claims that there is consensus on this. But this claim of the consensus is not cornet. A large group of the jurists of Islam which includes some major scholars, declares those rising in revolt as "rebels only in case they rise in revolt against a just ruler. They do not regard as rebellion" in the Qur'anic terminology the rising in revolt of the righteous against the unjust and wicked rulers, nor declare the waging of war against them as obligatory. The view of Imam Abu Hanifah about fighting against unjust rulers is. well known among the scholars. Abu Bakr al Jassas clearly writes in his Ahkam al-Qur an that the Imam regarded this fighting not only as permissible but as obligatory in favourable conditions. (Vol. I, p. 81; Vol. II, p. 39). In Zaid bin 'Ali's rcvolt against the Umayyads he not only provided financial help but urged others also to do the same. (AI-Jassas, Vol I, p. 81). In Nafs al-Zakiyah's rcvolt against Mansur he went on earnestly supporting Nafs al-Zakiyah, and he declared this war as superior to a war against the disbelievers. (AI-jassas, Vol. I, p. 81; AI-Kardari, Manaqib Abi Hanifah, Vol. II, pp. 71-72). Then the view as stated by Imam Sarakhsi is the just ruler." Ibn 'Aqil and Ibn al-Jawzi from among the Hanbalis not unanimous even among the Hanafi jurists. Ibn Humam writes in Fath al-Qadir (commentary of Hedaya): "In the parlance of the jurists the rebel is he who gives up obedience of regard rising in revolt against an unjust ruler as lawful and present Hadrat Husain's revolt as an argument. (Al-Infaf, Vol. -X, Bab Qital Ahl al-Baghyi). Imam Shafe`i in his Kitab al-Um regards as rebel the one who fights against a just ruler (Vol. IV, p. 135). Imam Malik's view as cited in Al-Mudawwanah is: "If the rebels come out to fight against a just ruler, they should be forcibly opposed." (Vol. I, p. 407). Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-`Arabi has cited his this view in Ahkam al-Qur 'an: "When a person rises in rcvolt against a just ruler like 'Umar bin Abdul 'Aziz, it is obligatory to resist and repel him; as for some other kind of the ruler, he should be left alone. AIlah will punish him through some other unjust person and then both of them through some third unjust person." Another saying of Imam Malik that has been cited is: "When the pledge has been sworn to a ruler, and then his brothers rise in revolt against him, they will be fought against, if he is a just ruler. As for the rulers of our tune, there is no pledge for them, for pledge to them has been taken by coercion. " Then the view of the Maliki scholars that the Qadi has cited with reference to Sahnun is: 'Fighting will be undertaken only under the just ruler, whether the just ruler is the former one or the one who has risen in revolt against him later, but if neither is just, one should keep away from both. However, if one's own self is attacked, or the Muslims are being subjected to tyranny, one should put up resistance." After citing these different views, Qadi Abu Bakr says: "We will not fight except on the side of the just ruler, whom the truth-loving people have made their head of their own free will. "
(3) If the ones rising in revolt are small in number, and may have no large party on their back, nor be possessing any substantial war equipment, the law of rebellion will not be applied against them, but they will be proceeded against under the common penal law, i.e. if they kill, they will be subjected to the law of retaliation, and if they damage property, they will be required to pay the penalties. The law of sedition is applied only against those rebels who might be powerful, and rise in revolt in large numbers and with substantial military equipment.
(4) As long as the ones rising in revolt only express their false and perverse beliefs or hostile and seditious ideas against the government or its head, they cannot be killed or imprisoned. War will be waged against them only when they actually rise in armed revolt and start shedding blood. (Al-Mabsut, Bab al-Khwarij; Fath al-Qadir, Bab al-Bighat, al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur an).
(5) Before starting war against the rebels they will first be invited, according to the Qur'anic instructions, to give up the way of rebellion and adopt the way of justice; if they have some doubts and objections, effort will be made to remove them; even then if they do not listen, and fighting begins from their side, force will be used to deal with them. (Fath al-Qadir,' al Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur 'an).
(6) The code of regulations that has to be observed in the war against the rebels is based on the Holy Prophet's following Command that has been related by Hakim, Bazzar and al-Jassas on the authority of Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar:
"The Holy Prophet asked Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas`ud: O Ibn Umm 'Abd: Do you know what is Allah's Command concerning the rebels of this Ummah? He replied: Allah and His Messenger have the best knowledge. The Holy Prophet said: Their wounded ones will not be laid hands on and their captives will not be killed, and the one who flees, will not be pursued, and their properties will not be distributed as spoils." The second source of this code which has been held as trust-worthy by aII the jurists is the word and deed of Hadrat 'AIi. After attaining victory in the Battle of the Camel, he announced; "Do not pursue him who flees; do not attack the wounded; do not kill the captives; give shelter to him who surrenders; do not make forcible entry into the people's houses; and do not raise your hands at the women even if they are abusing and cursing you." Some of his soldiers made the demand that the opponents and their. family members be taken prisoners and distributed. At this he became furious and said: 'Who among you will take 'A'ishah, mother of the Faithful, as his share"
(7) The injunction concerning the properties of the rebels as derived from the good example of Hadrat 'AIi is that no part of it, whether it is found on the battlefield or behind them in their houses, and whether they are living or have been killed, will be declared as the spoils nor distributed among the army. However. no compensation will be necessary for the properties that have been damaged or destroyed. As soon as the war comes to an end and rebellion has been put down, their properties and belongings will be returned to them. Their weapons and conveyances, if seized during the war, will be used- against them, but will not be made the possession of the victors and distributed as the spoils; and if there is no more fear of a rebellion from them, their these things also will be returned to them. Only Imam Abu Yusuf has expressed the opinion that the government will declare them to be the spoils, (AI-Mabsut; Fath al-Qadir,' al-Jassas).
(8) Their prisoners of war, after they have pledged not to rise in rebellion again, w i l l be set free . (Al-Mabsut).
(9) To cut off the heads of the slain rebels and to take theta about the streets is a highly undesirable thing, for this is mutilation which the Holy Prophet has strictly forbidden. When the head of a Roman patriarch was brought before Hadrat Abu Bakr, he expressed great displeasure at it, and said: "We are not here to imitate the Romans and Iranians." When it is not allowed to meet out such a treatment to the unbelievers, how much more so should it be with regard to the Muslims. (AI-Mabsut).
(10) Whatever damage might have been caused to life and property by the rebels during the war, no retaliation and recompense for it will be imposed on them after the war has come to an end and peace has been restored. Neither will there be any retaliation for a slain person nor any recompense for the lost property, so as to avoid any chance of the recurrence of the sedition. This same law was observed in the mutual fighting between the Companions. (Al-Mabsut: al.Jassas; Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur 'an). (11) After the government has recaptured the territories which had gone under the rebels and where they had established their rule and order and collected the zakat and other taxes, it will not demand the zakat and the taxes from the people once again. If the rebels have spent the money thus collected lawfully, the payers will be deemed to have paid them off lawfully in the sight of AIIah as well. but if the rebels have spent the money unlawfully, it will be a matter between the payers and their God; if they so like they may pay their zakat dues once again. (Fat-h al-Qadir, al-Jassas; Ibn al-'Arabi).
(12) The decisions of the judges, who may be just and may have given the decisions according to the Shari'ah in the courts established by the rebels in the territories under them, will be up-held although the ones who appointed them might be guilty of sedition. However, if their decisions are against the Shari'ah. and they are brought before the courts of the government after the rebellion has been put down, they will not be enforced. Moreover, no warrant or summons issued by the courts established by the rebels will be acceptable in the courts of the government. (AI-Mabsut; al-Jassas).
(13) The evidence of the rebels will not be acceptable in the Islamic courts, for it is iniquitous to fight against the just. Imam Muhammad says: "As long as they do not fight and actually rise in revolt against the people of justice, their evidence will be acceptable, but when they have already fought, I will not accept their evidence" (AI-Jassas).
From these ruings it becomes plain as to what is the difference between the law of fighting against the disbelievers and of fighting against the Muslim rebels