called him Commander of the Faithful. But those who fought against him alongside Muāwiya did not acknowledge him as such or submit to his authority, even though they recognized that no one among the people was superior to him. Rather, they alleged that certain impediments prevented them from obeying him.

Even so, they did not fight him on that basis, nor did they call upon him and his companions to pledge allegiance to Muāwiya. Nor did they say:

“Although you are superior to Muāwiya, Muāwiya has a greater right to the imamate than you do. You must therefore follow him, or else we will fight you.”

This is akin to what many leading Zaydi Shia say:

“Alī was superior to Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān, but the welfare of the religion required that these men hold the caliphate. Many Muslims harbored an aversion to Alī because he had killed some of their relatives, so they could not have united in obedience to him. It was therefore permissible, for that reason, to appoint one of lesser merit.”

This view is held by many leading members of the Shia. They believed that Alī was superior, yet knew that the caliphates of Abū Bakr and Umar were legitimate and could not be impugned, so they reconciled the two positions in this manner.

Their excuse lies in reports they had heard and considerations they presumed to establish Alī’s superiority over them. Similar things occur throughout the disputed issues within the Muslim community: the correct position is one of the two, yet those who hold the other position possess transmitted reports they thought were true, without knowing that they were false. They also have interpretations of Quranic verses and authentic hadiths that they supposed were intended by the texts, though this was not so. They likewise have a form of analogical reasoning and opinion that they thought was sound, although it is false.