among the followers of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfi‘ī, and those followers of Ahmad and others who agreed with them. They all agree that the Companions are not morally corrupt but upright.

They therefore maintain that rebels remain upright despite their fighting, and that their error is like that of scholars exercising independent legal judgment in subsidiary matters. A group, including Ibn ‘Aqīl and others, disagreed and held that rebels are morally corrupt. These scholars considered those whom they counted as rebels in their own time and judged them morally corrupt. Undoubtedly, they do not include the Companions in this judgment. Only some adherents of deviant doctrines among the Mu‘tazila and similar groups declare the Companions morally corrupt, just as some adherents of deviant doctrines among the Khawārij and the Rāfida declare them unbelievers. This is not the position of the imams and jurists of Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamā‘ah.

Nor do they say that their property retains the same inviolability as before. Whatever property remains in its original form is returned to its owner, while no compensation is due for what was destroyed during the fighting. Indeed, the majority of scholars hold that neither side is liable for compensation. As al-Zuhrī said: “Civil strife broke out while the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were still numerous. They unanimously agreed that no compensation was due for any loss of property or bloodshed occasioned by an interpretation of the Quran.”

Is it permissible to use their weapons in fighting them when there is no necessity to do so? There are two views within Ahmad’s school. One permits it; prohibition is al-Shāfi‘ī’s position, while permission is Abū Hanīfa’s position.

They disagreed over killing their captives, pursuing their retreating fighters, and finishing off their wounded