among scholars of speculative theology and juristic reasoning who wrote on fighting rebels. They held that fighting alongside him was obligatory, because obedience to him and fighting rebels were obligatory. This formulation originated with the jurists of Kūfah, whom others followed.

Others maintain that, rather, the prescribed course is to refrain from fighting during civil strife, as indicated by numerous well-known texts and practised by those who abstained from fighting. For the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, taught that:

“Refraining from fighting during civil strife is better,”

and that:

“Escaping civil strife by keeping sheep on mountaintops is better than fighting in it.”

He also forbade a man to fight in it and instructed him to take a wooden sword. Moreover, ‘Alī did not condemn those who refrained from fighting alongside him; indeed, he may even have envied their position in the end. Because of these texts, our scholars do not disagree that it would have been better for ‘Alī to have refrained from fighting. The texts explicitly state that one who remains seated during such strife is better than one who stands, and that keeping away from it is better than becoming involved in it.

They argue: The superiority of an action is shown by the superiority of its outcome. It is well known that, if they did not initiate fighting against him, then, had he not fought them, nothing more would have occurred than their withdrawal from obedience to him, which had already taken place. Yet the fighting intensified the affliction, blood was shed, hearts became estranged, the Kharijites rebelled against him, and the two arbitrators were empowered to adjudicate, until his rival came to be called Commander of the Faithful. Thus, harms arose that had not existed before the fighting, while no outweighing benefit was achieved through it. This indicates that refraining from it was better than engaging in it, for the merits of actions are determined only