evidence that fighting ‘Alī was not permissible. Accordingly, anyone who fought him was in error, whether acting on an interpretation or rebelling without one. This is the sounder of (the two views held by our scholars: namely, that those who fought ‘Alī were in error. It is also the position of the leading jurists, who derived from this the rulings on fighting rebels acting on an interpretation.

Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn objected to al-Shāfi‘ī’s use of ‘Alī’s conduct as evidence concerning the fighting of rebels acting on an interpretation. He said:

“Are Talhah and al-Zubayr to be regarded as rebels?”

Imam Ahmad replied:

“Woe to you! What else could he put forward in this matter?”

He meant that, unless al-Shāfi‘ī followed ‘Alī’s conduct in this matter, he would have no precedent from the Rightly Guided Caliphs concerning the fighting of rebels.

The second view is that both sides were correct. This rests on the position of those who say, “Every scholar exercising independent judgment is correct.” It is held by groups of speculative theologians among the Mu‘tazilah and the Ash‘ariyyah.

There is also a third view: that only one side was correct, without specifying which. Ibn Hāmid, al-Qādī, and others mentioned these three views.

This view resembles the position of those among the people of Basra, hadith scholars, and speculative theologians who withheld judgment regarding ‘Alī’s caliphate, such as the Karrāmiyyah, who say that both men were imams and permit the appointment of two caliphs.

However, Ahmad’s explicitly transmitted position is to declare anyone who withholds judgment regarding ‘Alī’s caliphate an innovator. He said:

“He is more astray than his family’s donkey.”

He ordered that such a person be shunned and forbade intermarriage with him. Neither Ahmad nor any of the imams of the Sunnah hesitated or doubted that no one had a greater claim to the truth than ‘Alī. Thus, declaring one of the two sides correct without specifying which allows the possibility that someone other than ‘Alī had a greater claim to the truth. Only a misguided innovator with an element of hostility toward ‘Alī would say this, even if acting on an interpretation. Yet it may be that