Section: Rebels are not to be fought with that which causes indiscriminate destruction, such as fire, catapults, and drowning, without necessity; for it is not permissible to kill those who are not fighting, and that which causes indiscriminate destruction affects both those who are fighting and those who are not. If necessity calls for that, such as if the rebels surround them and there is no way to escape except by throwing at them that which causes indiscriminate destruction, this is permissible. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: If the Kharijites entrench themselves and the Imam needs to pelt them with a catapult, he may do so as long as they have an army and have not yet been defeated. If the rebels pelt them with catapults and fire, it is permissible to pelt them with the same.
Section: Abu Bakr said: If two groups of rebels fight one another and the Imam is able to subdue both of them, he shall not support either one, for both are in error. If he is incapable of that and fears they might unite against him in war, he shall join with the one closer to the truth. If they are equal, he shall exercise his personal judgment in joining with one of them, without intending by that to support one of them, but rather seeking assistance against the other. Once he defeats the other, he shall not fight those who were with him until he invites them to obedience, for they have already come under his protection. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. He shall not seek assistance against them from the disbelievers under any circumstances, nor from those who hold the view that it is permissible to kill them while they are in retreat. This is also what al-Shafi'i said. The proponents of the school of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y) said: There is no harm in seeking assistance against them from the dhimmi (protected people) and those granted safe conduct (musta'minin) and another category among them, provided that the people of justice are the ones prevailing over those whom they are enlisting for assistance. Our position is that the goal is to restrain them and return them to obedience, not to kill them. If there is a need to seek assistance from them, if he is able to restrain them, he may seek their assistance, but if he is unable, it is not permissible.
Section: If a group manifests the views of the Kharijites—such as declaring those who commit major sins to be disbelievers, abandoning the congregation, and regarding the blood and wealth of the Muslims as lawful—but they have not exited from the Imam's control and have not shed forbidden blood, the Judge (al-Qadi) narrated from Abu Bakr that it is not permissible to kill them or fight them based on that. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi'i, and the majority of the jurists. This has also been narrated from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. According to this, their ruling regarding the liability for life and property is the ruling applied to Muslims. If they insult the Imam or others among the people of justice, they are to be disciplined (ta'zir), because they have committed a prohibited act for which there is no fixed punishment (hadd). If they make allusions...
فصل: ولا يُقْاتَلُ البُغاةُ بما يَعمُّ إتْلافُه، كالنَّارِ، والمَنْجَنِيقِ، والتَّغْرِيقِ، مِن غيرِ ضَرُورةٍ؛ لأنَّه لا يجوزُ قَتْلُ مَن لا يُقاتِلُ، وما يَعُمُّ إتلافُه يقعُ على مَن يُقاتلُ ومَن لا يُقاتِلُ. فإن دَعَتْ إلى ذلك ضرورةٌ، مثل أنْ يحتاطَ بهم البُغاةُ، ولا يُمْكِنُهم التَّخَلُصُ إلَّا بِرَمْيِهم بما يَعُمُّ إتْلافُه، جازَ ذلك. وهذا قول الشافعي. وقال أبو حنيفةَ: إذا تحصَّنَ الخوارجُ، فاحتاجَ الإمامُ إلى رَمْيِهم بالمنْجَنِيقِ، فَعَلَ ذلك بهم ما كان لهم عَسْكَرٌ، وما لم يَنْهَزِمُوا، وإن رَماهم البُغاةُ بالمَنْجَنِيقِ والنَّارِ، جازَ رَمْيُهم بمثلِه.
فصل: قال أبو بكرٍ: وإذا اقْتَتَلَتْ طائفتانِ من أهلِ البَغْيِ، فقَدَرَ الإِمامُ على قهرِهما، لم يُعِنْ واحدةً منهما؛ لأنَّهما جميعًا على الخَطإِ، وإنْ عَجَزَ عن ذلك، وخاف اجْتماعَهما على حَرْبِه، ضَمَّ إليه أقْربَهما إلى الحَقِّ، فإن اسْتَوَيَا، اجْتَهدَ برَأْيِه في ضَمِّ إحداهُما، ولا يَقْصِدُ بذلكَ مَعُونةَ إحداهُما، بل الاسْتعانةَ على الأُخْرَى، فإذا هَزَمَها، لم يُقاتِلْ مَنْ معه حتى يدْعُوَهم إلى الطاعةِ؛ لأنَّهم قد حَصَلُوا في أمانِه. وهذا مذهبُ الشافعيِّ. ولا يسْتعينُ على قتالِهم بالكُفَّارِ بحالٍ، ولا بمَن يَرَى قَتْلَهم مُدْبِرِينَ. وبهذا قال الشافِعيُّ. وقال أصْحابُ الرَّأْيِ: لا بَأْسَ أنْ يسْتعينَ عليهم بأهلِ الذِّمَّةِ والمُسْتَأْمَنين وصِنْفٍ آخَرَ منهم، إذا كان أهلُ العَدْلِ هم الظَّاهرين على مَن يَسْتعينُونَ به. ولَنا، أنَّ القَصْدَ كَفُّهم، وردُّهم إلى الطاعةِ، دونَ قَتْلِهم، وإنْ دعتِ الحاجَةُ إلى الاسْتعانة بهم، فإن كان يَقْدِرُ على كَفِّهم، اسْتعانَ بهم، وإن لم يَقْدِرْ، لم يَجُزْ.
فصل: وإذا أظْهَرَ قَوْمٌ رَأىَ الخَوارِجِ، مثلَ تكفيرِ مَن ارْتكبَ كبيرةً، وتَرْكِ الجماعةِ، واستحلالِ دماءِ المسلمينَ وأَمْوالِهم، إلَّا أنَّهم لم يخْرُجُوا عن قَبْضةِ الإِمامِ، ولم يَسْفِكُوا الدَّمَ الحَرامَ، فحَكَى القاضِى عن أبي بكرٍ، أنَّه لا يَحِلُّ بذلك قَتْلُهم ولا قِتالُهم. وهذا قولُ أبي حَنيفَة، والشافعيِّ، وجُمْهورِ أهلِ الفقه. ورُوِيَ ذلك عن عمرَ بنِ عبد العزيز. فعلى هذا، حكمُهم في ضَمانِ النَّفْسِ والمالِ حُكْمُ المسلمين. وإن سَبُّوا الإِمامَ أو غيرَه من أهلِ العدلِ، عُزِّرُوا؛ لأنَّهم ارْتَكَبُوا مُحَرَّمًا لا حَدَّ فيه. وإن عَرَّضُوا
