to the truth than those who parted from him, and even though ‘Ammār was killed by the transgressing faction, as the texts state. We must therefore believe in everything that has come from Allah and acknowledge the truth in its entirety. We must neither follow our own inclinations nor speak without knowledge; rather, we must follow the paths of knowledge and justice. This is what it means to follow the Quran and the Sunnah. Adhering to some of the truth while disregarding the rest is the source of division and disagreement.

Thus, when groups of jurists held that fighting alongside ‘Alī was obligatory, they made this a “legal rule”: if a faction rises against the ruler on the basis of a defensible interpretation, while it is with him, the ruler is to write to them. If they mention an injustice, he must remove it; if they raise a doubt, he must clarify it. If they desist, well and good; otherwise, fighting them becomes obligatory upon him and the Muslims.

They then brought “al-Siddīq’s fighting those who withheld zakat” and “‘Alī’s fighting the Kharijites who broke away from the religion” under this rule. When considering kings, caliphs, and others who govern the Muslims, they came to designate whoever they believed entitled to that position as the just side, and those fighting him as rebels. They do not distinguish between fighting in civil strife—which is forbidden, and which it is better to refrain from than to engage in, as occurs among kings, caliphs, others, and their followers, such as the fighting between al-Amīn and al-Ma’mūn—and fighting the Harūriyya “Kharijites,” apostates, and hypocrites, “such as the Mazdakites,” and others like them.

You will find that this view originated with some of the jurists of Kufa and their followers, then passed to al-Shāfi‘ī and his companions, and then to many of Ahmad’s companions who wrote the chapter on fighting rebels. They followed the model of those earlier jurists; this is how you will find them proceeding. For al-Khiraqī followed the model of