What is the meaning of the report of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq in which he fought those who withheld zakah?

The questioner : Shaykh, I want you to explain to me the issue, for example, al-Bukhari, may Allah know best, titled the chapter on apostasy when he fought those who withheld zakah. I mean, how do you explain this, Shaykh? On the basis that they abandoned zakah, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq fought them, and it was called the War of Apostasy.

The Shaykh : The explanation, may Allah bless you, is that you will answer it yourself. How do you explain the killing of the married adulterer? "Why do you not speak?" How do you explain it, my brother?

Another questioner : A hudud punishment.

The Shaykh : So, the one who prevents prayer is fought, the one who prevents zakah is fought, the one who prevents fasting is fought. The important thing is not to link fighting with disbelief. There is no necessary connection between fighting a group and their being apostates. The biggest thing for you right now is the problem of the tribe that sought rebellion: Did they fight it because it disbelieved? Or because it rebelled?

The questioner : But...

The Shaykh : But remove it from your vocabulary.
The questioner: Question

The Shaykh : Wait a moment. Fighting a group of Muslims does not necessitate that these Muslims are disbelieving apostates who will remain in the Fire forever on the Day of Resurrection. We do not necessitate this. Correct? Now, Abu Bakr fought those people who refused to pay zakah. This fighting does not mean that he fought them on the basis that they were apostates from their religion merely by their refusal to pay zakah. Do you not know that there are many rich people, owners of millions, if the expression is correct, who do not pay its zakah? Do you not know? Do you say these are disbelieving apostates from their religion?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : So, if there were now a Muslim state that would restore the state of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, and its first leader would be Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, he would fight these people who refuse to pay zakah. So, gather in your mind: they are fought because they refused to pay zakah, and they are not fought on the basis that they are apostates from their religion, because you have not ruled that the one who abandons zakah is an apostate from his religion. So, there is no necessary connection between the caliph fighting a group and their being killed because they are apostates. Rather, I return to say: they may be apostates, and they may not be. I do not say "may" once; I say two things: they may be apostates, and they may not be apostates. And I add a third "may": some of them may be apostates and some may not, and this exists in the whole world. What we mean by "may be an apostate" is that he has made permissible the withholding of zakah. This is narrated about some of them, that they argue with the saying of the Exalted: The address is directed to the Messenger. Now, the Messenger has gone. So, we do not pay zakah, and no zakah is upon us. This one would be an apostate from his religion, but the others would not.