Abu Abd Allah ibn Hāmid related these three views from the companions of Ahmad and others.
Among them are those who say:
“The correct course would have been for no fighting to take place, and refraining from fighting would have been better for both sides. There was nothing right about engaging in battle. However, Alī was closer to the truth than Muāwiya. The fighting was a conflict born of civil strife; it was neither obligatory nor recommended. Refraining from fighting would have been better for both sides, even though Alī had the stronger claim to the truth.”
This is the view of Ahmad, most hadith scholars, and most of the leading (1) jurists. It is also the view of the leading Companions and the Followers [who followed them in excellence] (2). It was the view of Imrān ibn Husayn—may Allah be pleased with him—who used to forbid the sale of weapons for that fighting, saying, “It is the sale of weapons amid civil strife.” It was likewise the view of Usāma ibn Zayd, Muhammad ibn Maslama, Ibn Umar, Sad ibn Abī Waqqās, and most of the surviving forerunners [the first] among the Emigrants (3) and the Helpers—may Allah be pleased with them.
For this reason, one of the positions (4) of Ahl al-Sunnah was to refrain from discussing the disputes that arose among the Companions,