had attacked first.” Each side therefore fought [in self-defense]. Neither ʿAlī (1) nor Talha and al-Zubayr had any desire whatsoever to fight; rather, the trouble (2) came from ʿUthmān’s killers.

[If he will not secure justice for us—whether because of an interpretation on his part or because he is unable to support us—we are under no obligation to pledge allegiance to someone under whose rule we would be wronged, regardless of whether this is due to his interpretation or his inability] (3).

They argued that those who deemed it permissible to fight them claimed that they were rebels, and rebellion is wrongdoing. If mere wrongdoing makes fighting permissible, it should all the more surely make withholding the pledge of allegiance permissible, for fighting causes greater harm than withholding allegiance without fighting.

If it is said that ʿAlī—may Allah be pleased with him—did not deliberately wrong them, but rather exercised independent judgment in administering justice both in their favor and against them, they replied that they likewise had not deliberately rebelled, but had exercised independent judgment in administering justice both in his favor and against him. If they were rebels, their rebellion arose from interpretation. Allah Most High did not command that a rebellious party be fought from the outset, and mere rebellion does not permit fighting. Rather, He Most High said:

“If two groups of believers fight one another, make peace between them.” Surah al-Hujurāt.

Thus, He commanded reconciliation once fighting had occurred. Then He said:

“But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight the transgressing group until it returns to the command of Allah.”

This refers to transgression after fighting has begun: it is the transgression of one of the two groups already fighting, not transgression in the absence of fighting. Thus, mere transgression