1. This is the foremost and basic demand of the faith. If the person who regards Allah as his Lord and accepts Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) as his guide and leader, is true in his belief, he can never have the attitude that he should give his own opinion and view precedence over the decision of Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), or should adopt an independent opinion in the matters, and pass his own judgments without caring to find out whether Allah and His Messenger have given any guidance in those matters or not, and if they have given it, what it is. That is why it has been said: O you who believe, do not put (yourselves) before Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him). That is, do not go ahead of them, but follow behind. Do not precede them, but be subordinate to them.

This command is, in its application and effect, a step further to (verse 36 of Surah Al-Ahzab). There it was said: It does not behoove a believing man and a believing woman that when Allah and His Messenger have given their decision in a matter, they should exercise an option in that matter of theirs, and here it is said that the believers should not decide their matters on their own whims, but should look for guidance in Allah’s Book and His Prophet’s (peace be upon him) sunnah concerning those matters. This command it not confined only to individual matters of the Muslims but it also applies to their collective affairs. This is in fact the fundamental article of the Islamic law, which can neither be set aside nor ignored by a Muslim government, or by a Muslim court, or by a parliament. A tradition has been reported in Musnad Ahmad, Abu Daud, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, with authentic chains of transmitters, saying that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sending Muadh bin Jabal to Yaman as a judge, he asked him: By what will you decide the matters? He submitted: By the Book of Allah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you do not find the command concerning a matter in the Book of Allah, what will you turn to? He replied: To the sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked: If this also fails you? He replied: Then I shall exert and find out a solution by myself. Thereupon the Prophet (peace be upon him) placed his hand on Muadh’s chest and said: Thank God Who has helped His Messenger’s deputy to adopt the way that is approved by His Messenger. This giving of precedence to the Book of Allah and the sunnah of His Messenger over one’s own exercise to find out a solution and to turn to them first to obtain guidance is the thing that marks the distinction between a Muslim judge and a non-Muslim judge. Likewise, in the matter of legislation also there is absolute consensus that the first and foremost source of the law is the divine Book and after it the sunnah of the Messenger (peace be upon him) of Allah. Even the consensus of the entire ummah cannot go against or remain independent of them, not to speak of the individual Muslim’s reasoning and endeavor to interpret the law.

2. That is, if ever you adopted an attitude of independence as against Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), or gave priority to your own opinion and view over their command, you should know that you have to deal with that God Who is hearing whatever you utter and is even aware of your secret intentions.

3. This is the etiquette that was taught to the people who sat among the audience of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or came to visit him. Its intention was that the believers should treat the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the highest respect and reverence when visiting him and talking to him. Nobody should raise his voice louder than his. The people should not be unmindful of the fact that they are addressing the Messenger (peace be upon him) of Allah, and not a common man, or a person of equal rank. Therefore, there should be a marked difference between one’s tone of conversation with the common people and one’s tone of conversation with the Prophet (peace be upon him), and no one should talk to him in a voice louder than his.

Although this etiquette was taught for sitting in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) assembly and its addressees were the people who were living in his time, the people of the later ages should also observe the same respect and reverence on the occasion when the Prophet’s name is mentioned, or a command of his is stated, or his sayings are explained. Besides, this verse also points out what attitude the people should adopt when talking to persons of a higher rank and status than themselves. A person’s talking before the men of a higher rank in a way as he talks before his friends or the common men, is in fact a sign that he has no respect for them in his heart, and he does not recognize any difference between them and the common people.

4. This shows what high position the person of the Prophet (peace be upon him) occupies in Islam. No one, whatever his rank and status, has a position so that his unmannerly behavior towards the Prophet (peace be upon him), would not deserve in the sight of Allah the same punishment as the punishment for disbelief. In respect of ordinary people it is at the most a sort of rudeness, an uncivilized conduct, but in respect of the Prophet (peace be upon him) a little lack of reverence is such a grave sin as can destroy all the services of one’s lifetime. For the reverence of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is indeed reverence of that God Who has sent him as His Messenger and lack of reverence for him amounts to lack of reverence of God Himself.

5. That is, only those people give due reverence to the Messenger (peace be upon him) of Allah, who have passed successfully through the tests and trials set by Allah and proved by their steadfastness that their hearts indeed possess taqwa (piety). From this, it follows automatically that the heart which is devoid of reverence for the Prophet (peace be upon him) is, in fact, devoid of taqwa, and a person’s raising his voice louder than the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) is not only an uncivilized act outwardly but also a sign of the absence of taqwa in his heart.

6. The people who in the blessed time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) had received training in Islamic etiquette and manners under the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had a full regard for his person. They fully realized how busy he remained in performing the mission entrusted to him by Allah. They also understood well that during those tiresome activities he must necessarily have some time for rest, time for his important occupations and also time for attending to his domestic affairs. Therefore, they would come to visit him only at the time when he was available outside his house, and if ever they did not find him outside his living quarters among his companions, they would sit and await his emergence and would avoid giving him the trouble of coming out of his house unless there was a special need for it. But many a time it so happened that the people from far flung areas, who had had no opportunity to receive training in good manners, would come to visit the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the idea that the one who invited others to Allah and was working for the reformation of the people had no right to have rest at any time, and they had the right to visit and see him any time they pleased in the day or night and it was his duty that whenever they happened to arrive, he should be ready to receive them. Some of these people who came to see the Prophet (peace be upon him) from different parts of Arabia were so uncouth and impolite that they would not take the trouble to inform him of their arrival through some attendant, but would start shouting from outside the apartments of his wives to call him out. Several such incidents have been reported by the companions in the Hadith. This sort of behavior troubled him much, but he was tolerant on account of his natural clemency. At last, Allah had to intervene, Who reproved the people for their uncivilized behavior and gave this instruction: Whenever they came to see the Prophet (peace be upon him) and did not find him, they should wait for him patiently until he came out to them himself, instead of shouting to call him out, from the house.

7. This is, whatever had happened until then will be overlooked and forgiven by Allah and He will not hold those people accountable for the trouble they had been causing to His Messenger (peace be upon him) on account of His mercy and kindness, but they should not repeat such behavior in the future.

8. Most of the commentators have expressed the view that this verse was sent down concerning Walid bin Uqbah bin Abi Muait. Its background is this: When the tribe of the Bani al-Mustaliq embraced Islam, the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent Walid bin Uqbah to collect the Zakat from them. When he arrived in their territory, he became fearful due to some reason and without visiting the people of the tribe returned to Al-Madinah and complained to the Prophet (peace be upon him) that they had refused to pay the Zakat and had even wanted to kill him. On hearing this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) became very angry and he made up his mind to dispatch a contingent to punish those people. According to some traditions he had dispatched the contingent, and according to others, he was about to dispatch it. In any case, all agree that in the meantime the chief of the Bani al-Mustaliq, Harith bin Dirar, father of Juwairiyah, wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), arrived at the head of a deputation, and submitted: By God, we did not at all see Walid; therefore, there could be no question of refusing to pay the Zakat and wanting to kill him. We are steadfast to the faith and have no intention to withhold the Zakat. At this, this verse was sent down. With a little variation in wording this incident has been related by Imam Ahmad, Abi Hatim, Tabarani, and Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, Harith bin Dirar, Mujahid, Qatadah, Abdur Rehman bin Abi Laila, Yazid bin Ruman, Dahhak and Muqatil bin Hayyan. In the tradition reported by Umm Salamah this whole story has been related likewise but there is no reference to the name of Walid.

On this critical occasion when on account of believing in a baseless report a grave blunder was about to be committed, Allah gave the Muslims this guiding principle to be followed on receipt of news: Whenever you receive important news bearing upon a vital matter, you should not accept it immediately but should first examine the man who has brought it. If he is an evil man whose report is not authentic normally, you should inquire into it carefully to ascertain the truth instead of accepting it and acting on it immediately. From this divine command an important legal principle is deduced, the sphere of application of which is very vast. According to it, it is not permissible for a Muslim government to take any action against a person or a group or a nation on the basis of the reports provided by the secret agents whose character might be doubtful. On the basis of this very principle the traditionalists introduced the art of critical appraisal in the science of Hadith in order to determine the value and worth of the people through whom traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) reached the later generations. And the jurists established this principle in the law of evidence that in a matter from which a Shariah value can be deduced, or a duty imposed on a person; the evidence of an evil man would be unacceptable. However, all scholars agree that as far as the common worldly matters are concerned it is not necessary to ascertain the truth of every news and the reliability of every informer. For the word used in the verse is naba, which does not apply to every news but only to the news of consequence. That is why the jurists say that this principle does not apply in the case of ordinary matters. For example, if a person goes to visit somebody and seeks permission to enter the house, and a person comes out and conveys the permission, he can enter the house accordingly no matter whether the one conveying the permission from the master of the house was good or bad. Likewise, the scholars also agree that the evidence, as well as the report, of the people whose evil does not relate to lying and immorality, but they are regarded as unrighteous only on account of false beliefs, will also be acceptable. Only the falsehood of heir creed cannot be a hindrance to accepting their evidence or reports.

9. This is evident from the context as well as understood by several commentators from this verse that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was hesitant to take any military action against the Bani al-Mustaliq on the report given by Walid bin Uqbah, but some of the people insisted that they should be attacked at once. At this those people were warned that they should not forget that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was present among them, who understood them (Bani al-Mustaliq) better than they did. Therefore, their thinking that the Prophet (peace be upon him) should act according to their counsel in important matters was misplaced boldness. For if he started acting according to what they counseled it would generally lead to blunders for which they themselves would have to suffer.

10. It means this: The whole community of the believers has not committed the error that was committed by those few people who wanted the Prophet (peace be upon him) to act as they counseled, and the believing community is remaining steadfast on the right path was due to the reason that Allah by His bounty and grace had endeared to them the path of the faith and made unbelief, wrongdoing and disobedience abhorrent to them. The addressees in the two parts of this verse are two separate groups. The sentence beginning with lau yutiukum is not addressed to the entire class of the companions but only to those particular companions who were insisting that the Bani al-Mustaliq should be attacked at once, and the sentence beginning with wa lakin-nallaha, is addressed to the general class of the companions who would never dare insist on their own opinion and view before the Messenger (peace be upon him) of Allah, but had full faith in his leadership and remained steadfast on the path of obedience, which is, and should be, the demand of true faith. From this it cannot be concluded that those who had insisted on their own opinion were devoid of the love of the faith, but what becomes obvious from this is that they had become forgetful of this demand of the faith because of which they made the error of insisting on their own opinion in the presence of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, Allah first warned them of their error, then of its evil consequences, and finally stated that the right attitude for a believer was the one that had been adopted by the generality of the companions.

11. That is, Allah does not bestow His bounty and favor blindly, but He grants this great blessing to whomever He grants on the basis of wisdom and His knowledge that he is worthy of it.

12. Instead of saying: When two factions of the believers fight mutually, it has been said: If two factions of the believers should fight. From these words, it 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 taifah has been used for a group instead of firqah: the words taifah and firqah in Arabic are used for a small group and a large 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 does 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 all 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 Prophet (peace be upon him) has said: It is a situation in which the one standing is better 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 honor 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 agree on its being an obligation. And there was no difference of opinion among the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) companions about its being obligatory. (AIJassas, Ahkamal-Quran). Some jurists even regard it as superior to jihad itself and their reasoning is that Ali spent the entire period of his caliphate in fighting against the rebels instead of performing jihad against the disbelievers. (Ruhal-Maani). If a person argues that it was not obligatory because Abdullah bin Umar and some other companions had not participated in the wars fought by 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 party) for his rebellion (aggression), but to force him to return to the command of Allah. Allah’s command implies that the rebel group should submit to what is right according to the Book of Allah and the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, 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 Allah 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 Allah 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 life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) except one Hadith which we shall discuss below. For, in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), 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 Ali 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. Ali’s personal example in particular has been the real source in this matter for all 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 worldly gain: 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 above may be 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:

(a) 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.

(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 against 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 agree 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 correct. 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 Quranic 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-Quran that the Imam regarded this fighting not only as permissible but as obligatory in favorable conditions. (Vol. I, p. 81; Vol. II, p. 39). In Zaid bin Ali’s revolt 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-Zakiyahs revolt against Mansur he went on earnestly supporting Nafs-al- Zakiyah, and he declared this war as superior to a war against the disbelievers. (Al-jassas, Vol. I, p. 81; AIKardari, Manaqib Abi Hanifah, Vol. II, pp. 71-72). Then the consolidated opinion of the Hanafi thinkers is not the same as Imam Sarakhsi has stated. Ibne Humam writes in Fath al-Qadir (commentary of Hedaya) that a rebel is one who is disobedient to a rightful ruler. From amongst the Hanbalis Ibn Aqil and Ibn al-Jawzi declare struggle against a non-just ruler proper and on this point show solidarity with the revolt of Hussain (Al-Infaf, Vol. X, Bab Qital Ahl-al-Baghyi). Imam Shafei 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-Quran: When a person rises in revolt against a just ruler like Umar bin Abdul Aziz, it is obligatory to resist and repel him; as for some other kind of ruler, he should be left alone. Allah 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 time, there is no pledge for them, for pledge to them has been taken by coercion. Then the view of the Maliki scholars that Qadi has cited with reference to Sahnun is: Fighting will be undertaken only for under the just ruler, whether the just ruler is the former (being rebelled against) one or the one who has risen in revolt against him, 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 those 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 those 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 Quranic 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-Quran).

(6) The code of regulations that has to be observed in the war against the rebels is based on the Prophet's (peace be upon him) following command that has been related by Hakim, Bazzar and al-Jassas on the authority of Abdullah bin Umar.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked Abdullah bin Masud: 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 Prophet (peace be upon him) 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 all the jurists is the word and deed of Ali. After attaining victory in the battle of the Jamul, 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 Aisha, mother of the faithful, as his share.

(7) The injunction concerning the properties of the rebels as derived from the good example of Ali is that no part of it, whether it is found on the battlefield or left behind 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, then 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, (Al-Mabsut; Fath al-Qadir, Al- Jassas).

(8) Their prisoners of war, after they have pledged not to rise in rebellion again, will be set free (Al-Mabsut).

(9) To cut off the heads of the slain rebels and to take them on the streets is a highly undesirable thing, for this is mutilation which the Prophet has strictly forbidden. When the head of a Roman patriarch was brought before Abu Bakr, he expressed great displeasure at it, and said: We are not here to imitate the Romans and Persians. When it is not allowed to mete out such a treatment to the unbelievers, how much more so should it be with regard to the Muslims. (Al-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-Quran).

(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 Allah 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. (Fath 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 Shariah in the courts established by the rebels in the territories under them, will be upheld although the ones who appointed them might be guilty of sedition. However, if their decisions are against the Shariah 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. (Al-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 (Al-Jassas).

From these rulings it becomes plain as to what is the difference between the law of fighting against the disbelievers and of fighting against the Muslim rebels

18. This verse establishes a universal brotherhood of all the Muslims of the world, and it is by virtue of this that the sort of fraternity that exists among the Muslims exists among the followers of no other religion and creed. The importance of this command, and its demands, has been explained by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in many of his traditions from which one can understand its full significance and spirit.

Jarir bin Abdullah says: The Prophet (peace be upon him) took a pledge from me on three things: That I will establish the Prayer, that I will continue to pay the zakat, and that I will remain a well-wisher of every Muslim. (Bukhari: Kitab-al-Iman). According to Abdullah bin Masud, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: To abuse a Muslim is sinful and to fight him a disbelief. In Musnad Ahmad a tradition bearing on the same subject has also been related by Saeed bin Malik on the authority of his father.

Abu Hurairah relates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The life, property and honor of every Muslim is forbidden to every other Muslim. (Muslim: Kitab-al-Birr was Silah; Tirmidhi: Abwab-al-Birr was-Silah). Abu Saeed Khudri and Abu Hurairah say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A Muslim is a brother to the other Muslim: he does not treat him unjustly, he does not leave him alone and he does not dishonor him. There is no greater evil than that one should hold a Muslim in contempt. (Musnad Ahmad).

Sahl bin Saad as-Saidi has related this saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): A believer’s relation with the community of the believers is just like the head’s relation with the body. He feels their afflictions as the head feels the pain of every part of the body. (Musnad Ahmad). In another Hadith bearing on the same subject the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The believers’ example in the matter of their mutual love, relationship and compassion with one another is of the state of the body that when a part of it is afflicted, the whole of it is afflicted with fever and restlessness. (Bukhari, Muslim).

In another Hadith he is reported to have said: The believers are with one another like the bricks of a wall so that each is strengthened by the other. (Bukhari: Kitab al- Adab; Tirmidhi; Abwab al-Birr was-Silah).