Is it obligatory for rebels (ahl al-baghy) to compensate for damages inflicted during wartime?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Fighting Rebellious Groups
Primary text
The rebels are not liable to provide compensation for lives or property they destroyed during the state of war. This view is held by Abu Hanifa and one opinion of Al-Shafi'i. The evidence for this position is the consensus reported by Al-Zuhri that during the greatest discord, the Companions agreed that no religious penalty (hadd) would be imposed upon a man who committed an unlawful sexual act based on misinterpretation of the Quran, nor would he be required to compensate for property destroyed based on the same misinterpretation. Furthermore, since they are an entrenched group fighting based on a plausible misinterpretation, they should not be held liable for what they destroyed of the opposing party, similar to those who are not fighting them justly. Holding them liable would also discourage them from returning to obedience, thus it is not legislated, analogous to the non-liability of those engaged in declared warfare (ahl al-harb). As for the statement attributed to Abu Bakr regarding blood money for the apostates, he retracted it upon clarification from Umar, who stated that their slain were martyrs who died in the cause of God, establishing a consensus supporting non-liability.
Supporting text
An alternative view holds that they are liable for compensation because the lives and property destroyed were protected and destroyed unjustly without necessity for defense. This view is supported by the statement of Abu Bakr to the apostates regarding their slain, and the principle that compensation is due for the destruction of protected lives and property without right, similar to destruction outside of war. This view also draws an analogy with apostates, who are infidels without plausible misinterpretation, unlike the rebels who are Muslims with an interpretive doubt.