He also said, clarifying the grounds on which the Companions who fought in the confrontation between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiyah were excused:

Muʿāwiyah never claimed the caliphate, nor was any pledge of allegiance made to him for it when he took up arms against ʿAlī. He did not fight on the premise that he was the caliph or that he was entitled to the caliphate, and this was acknowledged by others; indeed, Muʿāwiyah himself would state as much whenever he was asked. Neither Muʿāwiyah nor his followers considered it permissible to initiate combat against ʿAlī and his supporters or to seek dominance over them.

Rather, when ʿAlī and those with him saw that obedience to him and the pledge of allegiance were obligatory—for the Muslims can have only one caliph—and that these men were withholding that duty while possessing military strength, he deemed it proper to fight them until they discharged the obligation, so that obedience and unity might be restored.

As for them—namely Muʿāwiyah and his party—they maintained that the obligation did not rest upon them and that, were they attacked on that ground, they would be the ones wronged. They argued: “ʿUthmān was killed unjustly, by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims, and his killers are within ʿAlī’s camp, dominant and powerful. If we pledge allegiance, they will oppress us and transgress against us. ʿAlī cannot restrain them, just as he could not protect ʿUthmān. We are only obliged to pledge allegiance to a caliph who is able to grant us justice and secure it for us.”