at all. To my knowledge, there is no disagreement about this among the Muslims. How, then, can such a thing be attributed to Alī?

It may further be said: If only I knew—when did [Alī] resolve (1) to kill Ubayd Allah? When was Alī ever in a position to kill Ubayd Allah? Or when did he have the opportunity to investigate his case?

Ubayd Allah was with Muāwiya amid many thousands of Muslims, among whom were those far better than Ubayd Allah. Yet Alī was unable to remove Muāwiya from office—which would have been a mere dismissal. Could he possibly have killed Ubayd Allah?!

When Uthmān died, the people went their separate ways. Abd Allah (2) ibn Umar, that righteous man, went to Mecca and pledged allegiance to no one. He continued to remain aloof from the civil strife until the people united under Muāwiya. This was despite his love for Alī, his conviction that Alī was the one entitled to the caliphate, his veneration of him, his loyalty to him, and his condemnation of anyone who disparaged him. He did not, however, believe that one should become involved in fighting between Muslims. The only matter in which he declined to follow Alī was the fighting.

Ubayd Allah ibn Umar joined Muāwiya (3) after Uthmān was killed, just as others who inclined toward Uthmān and away from Alī also joined him. Even so, Ubayd Allah was not known to have played the sort of role in the civil strife that Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr, al-Ashtar al-Nakhaī, and others like them did. Once the fighting broke out, all of them became embroiled in the civil strife; but before Uthmān was killed, those men had been among those who stirred up strife among the Muslims.