there were men in the army who did not approve of ‘Ammār’s killing, such as ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās and others. Indeed, everyone condemned ‘Ammār’s killing, even Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Amr. It is related that Mu‘āwiyah interpreted the matter as meaning that the one who killed him was the one who brought him, not those who fought him; and that ‘Alī refuted this interpretation by saying, “Then we must have killed Hamzah.”

There is no doubt that what ‘Alī said was correct. Yet anyone who examines the statements of scholars engaged in debate, with neither warfare nor a struggle for power between them, will find that some of their interpretations of the texts are far weaker than Mu‘āwiyah’s. Whoever adopted this interpretation did not consider himself to have killed ‘Ammār and therefore did not believe himself to be a transgressor. Someone who does not believe himself to be a transgressor, though he actually is, is mistaken in his interpretation.

None of the jurists holds that one should fight alongside those who killed ‘Ammār. Rather, they hold two well-known views, both of which were held by leading Companions: some maintain that one should fight alongside ‘Ammār and his faction, while others maintain that one should refrain from fighting altogether. Both groups included a number of the earliest and foremost Companions. Those who held the first view included ‘Ammār, Sahl ibn Hunayf, and Abū Ayyūb. Those who held the second included Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Usāmah ibn Zayd, ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar, and others like them. Perhaps most of the leading Companions held this latter view. Apart from ‘Alī, no one in either army was superior to Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās, yet he was among those who abstained from fighting.