Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Maharaba: brigandage and public insecurity > The baghi (the armed rebel) and the rules of internal combat
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The baghi is the insubordinate Muslim who comes out against the legitimate imam with a force surrounding him: the jurists distinguish him from the muharib and from the disbelieving belligerent. The sheets below fix what the imam must do before fighting them, what is done with them when they cease fighting, the fate of their prisoners, wealths and dead, the status of the muharib's helper, the case of the khawarij, the baghis' leaning on disbelievers, and the aid sought from non-Muslims or from Muslims in these internal wars.
When the conditions of fighting them are met, the imam does not begin before asking them the cause of their separation and dissidence: if they invoke a wrong, he removes it; if they invoke an excuse, he dissipates it and debates with them until it appears they hold the truth, for Allah ordered setting things right first and fighting last. Ali thus sent Ibn Abbas to the khawarij of Nahrawan to ask them the cause of their dissidence and dissipate their excuse, because of their display of worship and the Qurans hung at their necks: Ibn Abbas debated three days, four thousand of them returned, and the account closes: "go in the name of Allah: of them ten at most will escape, and of you ten at most will fall"; the one with the two breasts was found slain among them, and Ali proclaimed the truth of the prophetic hadith on the rebellious faction (al-Hakim 2657; al-Bayhaqi 16518). If the rebels ask a delay, their intention is examined: if they aim at returning to obedience, they are spared, and Ibn al-Mundhir reports the agreement of all the scholars he knows; if they intend to gather strength, dupe the imam or surprise him, they are not spared (al-Mughni 9/5-6; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141; Kashshaf al-Qina 6/205-206). Al-Mawardi divides their states into three: that whose fighting is obligatory, in five cases: corrupting the just people's roads, blocking jihad against the associators, taking from the public treasury rights not theirs, refusing to pay what is due from them, and conspiring to depose the imam whose allegiance is concluded; that whose fighting is permitted without being obligatory: separating from the community while refusing no right nor encroaching; and the disputed: jointly refusing the apparent zakat while distributing it by their own shares (al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyya). The going-out itself is no condition of the fighting: most of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis note that Ali fought the people of the Camel though they had no imam, and the people of Siffin before they raised theirs (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/102).
The jurists of the four schools agree: the baghis who cease fighting, by returning to obedience, casting down weapons, flight, wound, sickness or capture, are not slain, nor their fleeing ones pursued nor their wounded finished off. The companions applied it: on the day of the Camel a cry rose: "the fleeing one is not slain, the wounded is not finished, the veil is not torn, whoever shuts his door is safe, whoever casts the weapons is safe" (Sa'id b. Mansur 2947; Abd ar-Razzaq 18590; Ibn Abi Shayba 33952; al-Bayhaqi 8/181); and Ammar reported the like. Ibn Mas'ud reports from the Prophet:
Son of Abd's bondwoman, what is the ruling of one who rebels against my community? I said: Allah and His messenger know. He said: their fleeing one is not pursued, their wounded is not finished, their captive is not slain, and their wealth is not divided.
reported by al-Hakim (2/155) and al-Bayhaqi (8/182); weak hadith
Abu Umama bears witness of Siffin: "they finished off no wounded, pursued no fleeing one, and stripped no slain" (al-Hakim 2/155). The reason: the aim of fighting is to repel them and make them cease; once that is obtained, slaying them is no longer permitted, like the assailant repelled (al-Mughni 9/9-10; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/140-141). But if they have a faction to shelter in, the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in one view order pursuing the fleeing and finishing the wounded, lest they gather there and return; the captive, the imam may slay to uproot their evil, detain to repel their mischief, or release upon oath, as Ali did (al-Mughni 9/10). Without faction, neither pursuit nor finishing. The women, children, elders, blind and impotent with them are not slain, for they are not of the people of fighting; the woman who fights with the men may be slain during the fighting but not captured and slain: she is detained, in consideration of the fighting woman (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141; al-Mughni 9/9). Carrying their heads to the lands is disliked, for it is mutilation: a head is reported carried to Abu Bakr, who condemned it; told that the Persians and Byzantines did so, he answered: "lean on Persia and Byzantium?" (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/104). One who slays one whose slaying is barred guarantees the victim; retribution is debated: binding on the view of inviolability, set aside on the view of the excuse covering the baghis. Their slain are not washed nor prayed over per Abu Hanifa, during the war, but yes after its end; Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad wash and pray over them; the people of opinion suspend the prayer on the absence of a faction, for then their slaying would be lawful. Ahmad, apparently, does not pray over the sect's innovators, and Malik does not pray over the Ibadis and Qadarites, who are invited to repentance (al-Mughni 9/8; al-Bayan 12/26-27; al-Ifsah 1/185).
Al-Amrani adds: if they say "we return to the imam's obedience", they are no longer fought, by "fight the one that transgresses until she returns to Allah's command" (Surah al-Hujurat 9), the return being the meaning of the faction; if they cast their weapons, they are no longer fought; if they flee toward a faction, one examines, and without faction they are not pursued, by the Ibn Mas'ud hadith carried by Ibn Umar and by Ali b. al-Husayn's account of Ali's proclamation on the day of the Camel (al-Mughni 9/9-10). The spoils: the jurists of the four schools agree that the baghis' wealths are neither seized nor divided, but returned. Ibn Qudama says: neither seizing their wealths nor enslaving their children: the scholars know no divergence, for they are inviolable; of their lives and wealths only what repelling and fighting necessitate is taken (al-Mughni 9/10). Ali was consulted on the day of the Camel about seizure: "they are covered by Islam's inviolability, their wealth is not lawful"; and: "a Muslim's wealth is lawful only by his soul's content"; his herald cried: "whoever recognizes any wealth, let him take it"; a man recognized his cooking-pot, snatched it from the one cooking in it and carried it off. The reporter concludes: their horses and weapons are not used without their leave, save necessity, as the loss of weapons or fear for one's life; Abu Hanifa permits it during the war (al-Bayan 12/28-29). The guarantees: what the just people destroy for the baghis before or after the war is guaranteed, for it is wealth unlawful to them outside fighting; what they destroy during the fighting is guaranteed by no account, for they are commanded to it, and one who does not guarantee lives guarantees wealths still less: al-Kasani notes the agreement (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141). What the baghis destroy for the just people: the majority of jurists, the four schools, require no guarantee, for Ali did not guarantee what they destroyed during the war, lives and wealths; they are a people of apparent interpretation, with a faction; and guaranteeing them would bar their return. The foundation is az-Zuhri's letter to Sulayman b. Hisham: the companions, numerous, agreed to inflict no limit in life, no retribution in blood, nor restitution of wealth taken by Quranic interpretation, save what is found in kind. Wrong committed before the going-out or after the rout and dispersion is guaranteed, for the faction is gone and interpretation alone does not repel the guarantee (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141-142; al-Mughni 9/9). Ibn Taymiyya: the just people do not guarantee what they destroy for the baghis by interpretation, by the scholars' agreement; likewise the apostates, the interpreting baghi and the innovator, each believing himself right; different is one who knows his wrong, like the unjust Muslim and the wronging dhimmi: they guarantee by agreement (Majmu' al-Fatawa 15/171-172). The Shafi'is in the old view require the guarantee, by "whoever is slain wrongfully, We have given power to his heir" (Surah al-Isra 33) and Abu Bakr's word: "our slain will take blood-money, yours will not"; killings outside battle are debated by Ali's word: "if I will I pardon, if I will I demand"; and the muharib alone undergoes certain death (al-Mughni 9/9; al-Bayan 12/29-30). After repentance: the killings are remitted, the wealths found in kind are retaken, consumed wealths are not pursued, for they are interpreters, unlike the muharibs.
The jurists agree: when the just people capture a baghi and the war disperses, he is not slain. The Hanafis: without faction, no slaying; with faction, the imam chooses between slaying him, to uproot their evil, and detaining him, to repel their mischief (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 6/342). The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: the baghis' captive is never slain, nor their fleeing ones pursued, nor their wounded finished, nor their women and children enslaved (al-Kafi 4/222; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/304). The Shafi'is detail: the captured free adult youth is detained during the war if he does not return; if he offers return, allegiance is taken and he is released; the war over, he is freed; his slaying is barred by the hadith "their captive is not slain", by Ali's conduct, followed by the Muslims, and because the aim is to make them cease, not to slay them: they resemble the repelled assailant, unlike the people of war. One who deliberately slays the captive: retribution is debated between the view of inviolability gained by capture and the view of the excuse barring retribution and imposing blood-money. The captive who is old, insane, a woman, a child or a slave is not detained, for he is not of the fighting allegiance; some Shafi'is detain them to break hearts (al-Bayan 12/26; al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/121). Ransom: if each camp holds captives of the other, ransoming the just people's captives by the baghis' is permitted; if the baghis slay their captives, the just people may not slay theirs, for none is slain for another's crime nor bears another's burden (al-Mughni 9/10).
The Hanafis: those whose slaying is barred among the people of war, children, women, elders, blind, are barred among the baghis, for the fighting aims at repelling the evil of their war and confines to the people of fighting; these categories are slain only if they fight, during and after, save the child and the insane (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/141). The Malikis: the woman fighting with the baghis has the man's ruling; if they fight by weapons the fighting people may slay them; if they only incite and throw stones, they are not slain, even captured after fighting (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/306). The Shafi'is: women, children and slaves who fight with the baghis share their ruling: fought as they advance, spared as they flee, though not of the allegiance and jihad, for the imam repels them as an attacker is repelled; the Hanbalis say the same, and whoever intends slaying may be fought and slain even if he falls upon himself (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/120; al-Mughni 9/7). The weapons: the Hanafis and the Malikis declare they are fought with everything the disbelievers are fought with: projectiles, trebuchets, water and fire, for their fighting is obligatory by "fight the one that transgresses" (Surah al-Hujurat 9); the Malikis except the presence of women or children: then no fire. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis bar fire and trebuchet without necessity: the aim is to make them cease and bring them back to obedience, and this destroys them, slaying fighters and non-fighters, whereas only the fighter may be slain; if the baghis surround the just people with no other escape, fire and trebuchet become lawful by necessity; and Ibn as-Sabbagh adds reciprocity: if they shower us with fire and trebuchet, the like is rendered them (al-Bayan 12/26-27; al-Mughni 9/7; al-Sharh al-Kabir 6/278).
The radd' is one who seconds the brigand without taking nor killing: debated is whether he bears their ruling. The majority of jurists, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali, subject him to it: banditry is realized by the group, taking by some and aiding by others; were instigation not joined to realization, banditry would open wide; the ruling attaches to domination, as spoils reward fighter and present alike; the taker can take only by the helpers' mass, who surround, remove obstacles and join him: all are corrupting muharibs under "those who wage war against Allah and strive to spread corruption" (Surah al-Ma'ida 33); and the baghis' radd' is lawfully slain, proof of his muharib status (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/90-91; al-Mughni 9/131). Ibn Battal writes: the radd''s ruling, in all Islam's rulings, is the fighter's ruling, per Malik and most of the Kufans: he is slain as they are and bears what they bear though absent from the act (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 1/47). Ibn al-Arabi confirms most scholars' agreement (Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/150), adding: if the muharibs fight the caravan and some kill while others do not, all are slain; al-Shafi'i, though, holds only the killer slain, preferring the imam's choice and the facts' distinction; the opposing argument is that the one present at the battle shares the spoils though he killed not. Ibn Qudama reports the same rule: the radd''s ruling among the brigands is the taker's, Malik's and Abu Hanifa's view; al-Shafi'i: the radd' bears only discipline, for the limit requires the transgression proper. Ibn Taymiyya rules: the radd' and the taker among the muharibs are slain with most of the jurists, as Umar slew Rabi'a b. Umayya among the muharibs; Malik's, Abu Hanifa's and Ahmad's view (Majmu' al-Fatawa 14/48). With the Shafi'is: one present multiplying, frightening or aiding is disciplined and detained; the opposing proof is the three-cases hadith barring the Muslim's death, the radd' absent from it; and the analogy of cause and realization, as holder and slaughterer: the guarantee strikes the slaughterer alone. The discipline then: the soundest view is that the imam disciplines him at his judgment, detention, exile or other correction, like other sins; the other view: exile alone, toward a direction where the imam's relief-men surround him (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/363-365; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/600).
The majority of jurists declare: people displaying the khawarij's doctrine, shunning the communities, insulting the predecessors, declaring disbelievers whoever commits a great sin and promising eternal hell, yet not leaving the imam's authority, are not fought. Al-Mawardi sets out: if their doctrine appears on their tongues among the just people, without aggression nor provocation, they are left, neither slain nor fought, not forced from their doctrine, refuted by the proofs; Ali had granted them these three safeguards before their dissidence: "no judgment but Allah's", a true word aimed at falsehood, he told them, and: "you have three rights upon us: we do not bar you Allah's mosques where you remember His name, we do not bar you the fay so long as your hands are with ours, we do not begin fighting you"; the conduct follows the Prophet's toward the hypocrites he knew yet did not touch (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/118). If they insult the imam and the just people openly, they are disciplined for the harm and to shield the office; by allusion, two views: no discipline, for Ali disciplined not the one who recited behind him in prayer "if you associate, your work is void", answering him "be patient, Allah's promise is true" (Surah az-Zumar 65, ar-Rum 60); or discipline, for allusion leads to openness. Al-Amrani reports Adi b. Arta's letter and Umar b. Abd al-Aziz's order: "if they insult me, insult them or pardon; if they brandish weapons, brandish against them; if they strike, strike"; and one who slays the sent governor undergoes retribution, like Nahrawan's people who slew Abd Allah b. Khabbab: Ali marched on them; retribution is debated between the fear-seeded view likening him to the brigand and the view barring any terror intent. Ibn Qudama rules: people displaying the khawarij's doctrine, excommunicating the great sinner, leaving the community, holding lawful the Muslims' bloods and wealths, yet not leaving the imam's authority nor shedding forbidden blood: the Qadi reports from Abu Bakr that neither their slaying nor their fighting is lawful; Abu Hanifa's, al-Shafi'i's and most jurists' view, reported from Umar b. Abd al-Aziz; they hold the Muslims' ruling in guarantees of life and wealth (al-Mughni 9/7-8). Malik, facing the Ibadis and the people of passion, invites them to repentance, else their necks struck; Ismail b. Ishaq specifies: Malik held their slaying for the corruption within religion, like the brigands', invitation to repentance first, slaying for their corruption, not their disbelief. Those declaring them disbelievers lean on: "slay them wherever you find them", "were I to reach them I would slay them as the people of Aad were slain", the order to slay the share-man before any fighting, the word on the khawarij issuing from nothingness, and the address to Su'ayb: "were I to find you shaven I would strike your forehead with the sword", their mark being the shaving of heads. The first side argues from Ali: "a word of truth by which falsehood is sought" and the three safeguards; the Prophet touched not the hypocrites, and to Khalid asking the kharijite's head: "perhaps he prays", then: "many a worshipper bears no good", then: "I was not charged with probing the people's hearts". Ibn Abd al-Barr concludes: this is most jurists' view ordering their slaying with invitation to repentance; others do not approach them so long as they hide and commit no aggression: al-Shafi'i's, Abu Hanifa's, their schools' and most jurists' view and many hadith scholars'. Al-Shafi'i writes: people displaying the khawarij's doctrine, shunning the Muslims and excommunicating, their blood is not shed for that, for they are covered by faith, until the state rendering their fighting lawful: going out, brandished weapons and refusal of the truth; "if they fight, we fight them; if they flee, we do not pursue them nor finish their wounded"; and Abu Umar notes Malik and al-Shafi'i agree on the fleeing one and the wounded (al-Mughni 9/7-8; al-Bidayah wa-n-Nihayah 2/329).
The case divides into three: the people of war, the unguarded associators, and the dhimmis. The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: if the baghis lean on people of war, grant them safety or conclude them a protection pact, nothing stands, for safety is not given to the enemy of the religion; if Ali sent Ibn Abbas to the khawarij and four thousand returned, the rest, about four thousand, were fought, only eight escaping and nine companions falling; and Ali sought "the one with the two breasts", found slain among them, per the hadith: "you will be fought by the rebellious faction, among them the one with the two breasts" (al-Hakim 2657; al-Bayhaqi 16518; at-Tamhid 23/337-340). Abu Umar reports the scholars' agreement: whoever breaks with the community, brandishes weapons against the Muslims, frightens the road and corrupts by killing and plunder, his slaying binds, save repentance before reach; flight is one of repentance's forms; and the unable to fight is slain only for what was binding before. And Abu Hanifa: the kharijite or baghi fleeing toward a faction is pursued, else not (al-Mughni 9/7). The dhimmis: the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis debate the pact of baghis drawing them into fighting the just people: broken, for they fought the people of truth, and they then hold the people of war's ruling; or unbroken, for the dhimmis do not discern the true from the false and hold an excuse, and they then hold the baghis' ruling: their fleeing one spared, their captive, their wounded; but they guarantee what they destroy for the just people during and outside fighting, unlike the baghis, for the latter hold a sound interpretation and the dhimmis hold none, and lifting the guarantee for the Muslims aims at not barring their return, useless with the dhimmis. If compelled, the pact is not broken, and their word is accepted for they stand under the baghis' power. If they say "we believed the Muslim asking us bound us to his aid", the pact stands; the musta'min's like plea saves him not, for the dhimmi's pact is perpetual and the imam must defend him, while the musta'min's is revocable (al-Mughni 9/14; al-Bayan 12/30-32). The Hanafis: if the baghis lean on dhimmis fighting with them, this is no pact-breaking of the latter, as the baghis' like conduct is no breaking of Islam: the dhimmis remain bound to Islam's transaction rulings and members of the land, and their ruling is the baghis' (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/108; al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/152). The Malikis: the interpreting baghi leaning on a dhimmi, the dhimmi returns to his pact with no guarantee of the harm done in life or wealth, and is granted what the baghi is granted; the baghi of partisanship without interpretation guarantees life, wealth, limb and virginity; and the dhimmi's fighting beside the opponent of the just imam breaks his pact if he goes willingly, not if compelled; but if he slays anyone, he is slain for him, compelled or not (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/305-306).
Two views clash. The first, Hanafi: the associators' and dhimmis' aid against the baghis is permitted on condition the associators' law not be dominant. As-Sarakhsi writes: if the baghis overcome the just people so as to cast them toward the associators' land, these do not fight the baghis with them, for the associators' law dominates them; and the just people seek not the associators' aid against Muslim baghis while the associators' law is dominant; but they may lean on baghis and dhimmis against the khawarij when the just people's law is dominant, for they fight to exalt the religion: leaning on their own or on dhimmis there is like leaning on dogs; Ibn al-Humam says the like (al-Mabsut 10/133-134; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/109). The second view, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Zahiri: the associators' aid against the baghis is not permitted, for the aim is to make them cease, not slay them, and the disbelievers aim at nothing but their death. The Malikis enumerate eleven differences of the baghis' fighting from the disbelievers': repelling without slaying, sparing their fleeing ones, not finishing their wounded, not slaying their captives, not plundering their wealths, not enslaving their children, seeking no associator's aid, no truce concluded with them over wealths, no siege engines raised against them, no burning of their dwellings, no cutting of their trees (adh-Dhakhira 12/9; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 393). Al-Mawardi: the people of pact and protection's aid against the baghis is not permitted in any case, by "Allah will grant the disbelievers no way over the believers" (Surah an-Nisa 141) and "Islam dominates and is not dominated", and because they are not safe of their lives and families, they who hold lawful the Muslims' bloods and wealths. An-Nawawi writes: a disbeliever's aid is not sought against them, for a disbeliever is not set over a Muslim; likewise the right of retribution is not entrusted to a disbeliever, nor does the imam take a disbeliever executioner for the limits. Nor is aid taken from a Muslim who holds lawful the slaying of their fleeing ones, from enmity or conviction, save need; then two conditions: courage and daring in them, and power to bar them from pursuing the vanquished; both joined, the aid is permitted, Ibn as-Sabbagh's and ar-Ruyani's reported view with the companions' agreement; al-Baghawi's wording permits one of the two (Rawdat at-Talibin 6/483). Ibn Qudama: a disbeliever's aid is not sought to fight them in any case, nor one holding lawful their fleeing ones' slaying, and al-Shafi'i said the like; the people of opinion permit the dhimmis' and musta'mins' aid if the just people dominate; and the reason is that the aim is to make them cease and bring them back to obedience: need arising, they are aided if they can be mastered, else not (al-Mughni 9/7). Ibn Hazm sets out: the bar stands while the just people hold strength; near ruin, with no other means, turning to the people of war and leaning on dhimmis is permitted, on condition of being sure they will harm no Muslim nor dhimmi in life, wealth or honor; proof: "He detailed to you what He forbade you, save what you are compelled to" (Surah al-Anam 119); but if the Muslim knows his aid will harm, he does not lean on them even dying, or he fights until he dies a noble martyr; and none is licensed to repel a wrong upon himself by a wrong reaching another. The aid of baghis like them: some bar it by "I take not the led-astray as a support" (Surah al-Kahf 51), others permit it, and that is our view: we take them not as a support, we strike some by others to shield the just people, as "thus We make some wrongdoers rule over others" (Surah al-Anam 129); the Prophet said: "Allah supports this religion with men who have no good in them" and "Allah backs this religion with the wicked man"; the sinner is bound to jihad and repelling the baghis like the just, and barring him that is not lawful (al-Muhalla 11/113-114).
The jurists debated: two camps of disbelievers fight, may the Muslims fight with one against the other? The Hanafis and the Malikis bar it: aid is not given to one faction of disbelievers against the other. The Hanafis set out: Muslims under protection in the land of war do not fight the raiders, for fighting stakes the life and is done only to raise Allah's word, absent here where the associators' law dominates; their fighting would raise the associators' word; unless they fear for themselves and repel for their persons, as Ja'far fought with the Abyssinians against the Negus's enemy (al-Mabsut 10/97-98). Seyr al-Kabir specifies: the Muslim joins neither of the two factions, both the devil's party; and a man of the just does not fight with a khawarij faction against another while the khawarij's law dominates; but the just people fight with the khawarij against the war-land associators, for the latter repel disbelief's sedition and raise Islam, save breach of a pact: one granted safety does not fight with his captors against the just people; if the captors say "fight with us our associator enemy", with no fear for themselves, they refuse, for they would display associationism; if they say "fight or we slay you", they may fight the associators under coercion, repelling the worse; but "fight with us the Muslims or we slay you": never, for the Muslims' blood is barred from the origin; under the threat, they stand in the ranks without striking the Muslims, and breadth is hoped for them; if they fear not the associators, standing with them terrifies the Muslims and is not permitted without necessity. Asked to fight against release if their sincerity seems credible: permitted, for they repel captivity; asked to aid against the Muslims: never; and if they secretly seize wealths going out, that is licit like the pilferer's work, subject to the fifth if they hold power (Sharh as-Siyar al-Kabir 4/1515-1519). The Mudawwana reports Malik: the pagan king asking the captives to fight his enemy against release: "I do not see them fighting for that, nor shedding their blood for that: people are fought only to bring them from disbelief to Islam; fighting disbelievers to bring them from disbelief to disbelief, a Muslim does not shed his blood for that" (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 3/31-32). Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, on the contrary, permits Muslims to fight with disbelievers against other disbelievers: witnessing the disbelievers' internal wars is not barred in itself, both camps profaned; save danger to the onlooker; and the Muslim may fight one faction with the other, not backing that one, but to raise Islam's word and harm Allah's enemies; whoever does so has the jihad's reward by "whoever fights so that Allah's word be the highest is in the way of Allah", and if slain he is treated as a martyr; save if he knows that the moment he presents himself he will be slain with the least harm: then presenting himself is not permitted, for he would slay himself without use (al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra 4/222). The sheet concludes all reverts to the fighter's intention: in battle some fight for show, others for spoils, others defending the wronged, others so that Allah's word be the highest. Ibn Taymiyya adds the hidden believer compelled to fight with the disbelievers: he will be resurrected by his intention, as the swallowed army's hadith says: "he was asked: and the compelled one? He said: by their intentions"; and Abbas's account: "my outward was for you, my inward is Allah's" (Minhaj as-Sunna 5/121-122).
The hadiths' reconciliation: the sheet reports the hadith barring the aid:
We came to the Messenger of Allah as he prepared an expedition, not being Muslims; we said: we are ashamed that our people witness what we witnessed not with them. He said: are you Muslims? No, they said. Then we seek no associators' aid against associators.
reported by Ibn Abi Shayba (33159), Ahmad (15801), at-Tabarani and al-Hakim; sahih hadith
The bar's reason: the harm feared from his presence outweighs the hoped benefit, his guile is not ruled out, war requires sincerity, and the disbeliever is none of it. Al-Bayhaqi reports from al-Shafi'i that the Prophet sent them back hoping their Islam, and Allah confirmed his expectation; others reconcile by referring the order to the imam; and the nearest of views, on al-Shafi'i's text, is that the aid was barred then tolerated (Talkhis al-Habir 4/100-101; Nihayat al-Awtar 8/44).
In practice, the guiding rule is that internal fighting aims at ending the rebellion, not annihilating the rebels: the imam debates first, spares the fleeing one, the wounded and the captive, returns the wealths, bars fire and trebuchet without necessity and calls no non-Muslims against Muslims; the khawarij under the imam's authority are refuted by the proof, and only brandished weaponry renders the fighting lawful, with return to obedience possible to the end.