It is obligatory to oppose rebels and restrain them from their transgression and their revolt against the Imam by fighting them under the direction and coordination of the Imam, as he is the most knowledgeable regarding the management of affairs and the (matters of) public interest.

This is regardless of whether their transgression is based on an interpretation (taʾwīl) or otherwise, due to the corruption in religion, the differing among Muslims, and the fragmentation of (legislative) rulings that result from their (actions), just like the permissibility of fighting highway robbers to prevent them from (taking) the property of the Muslims.

The (evidence) for that has preceded in the Exalted’s saying: “And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight against the one that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah.” (49:9-)

Thus, He commanded that they be fought.

Different to this (case) are those matters where ijtihad is permissible, wherein it is not obligatory to oppose the person acting upon it, because the interpretation (taʾwīl) provides a basis for it, and there is no harm in its performance.

However, in this case, harm is caused to the religion by failing to oppose them, because it leads to chaos (including bloodshed), and the fragmentation of rulings. Therefore, the existence of an interpretation (taʾwīl) does not entail the abandoning of fighting (against them). Rather, it influences other legal rulings, such as the not seizing their property or taking their families captive, and killing the wounded.