Killing Of Terrorist And State Army
Regarding your first point regarding who is right and who is wrong when both sides think they are on the right side. Please refer to the video shared below which enumerates the criteria to know this. Please refer to the video below from 1:26:54 to 1:31:47 and from 1:32:37 to 1:34:17 https://youtu.be/KhEG66tXw_8?t=5214
An opposing side’s argument against the state may indeed be valid, both in letter and in spirit. However, the burden of responsibility on such a side is far greater, because in an already established state—whether democratic or authoritarian—there is a functioning system and a degree of peace for the general population. If a group chooses to take up arms against the state in response to perceived injustice or oppression, they inevitably endanger the lives of innocent people who are unconnected to their cause. Such actions risk plunging society into chaos and anarchy. For this reason, any faction contemplating armed rebellion must first ensure that it meets the strict conditions for rebellion outlined in Islam. If they are sincerely convinced that these conditions have been fulfilled, then their stance may be acceptable in the sight of God. Yet this is no trivial matter—lives will be lost, and the justification must be unassailable, grounded in absolute honesty, especially for those who fear accountability on the Day of Judgment. This principle does not absolve state leaders of responsibility; they will be held accountable if they commit injustice or oppression. Likewise, an individual Muslim soldier who genuinely believes that a particular state order—such as the killing of a certain group—is unjust, should refuse to participate, resign from their position, and accept the consequences. History offers a notable example in Muhammad Ali, who refused to serve in the Vietnam War when drafted into the U.S. Army. He endured the repercussions but remained steadfast in his moral convictions.