Said he...

Said he, “Had not ‘Ali (‘a) fought Mu’awiyah because of his oppression, we would not have been guided to fighting those who oppress.”[^2] Sufyan al-Thawri has said, “Whenever ‘Ali (‘a) fought anyone, he was on the right track versus the other.”[^3] Imam al-Shafi’i has said, “Silence with regard to those who were killed during the Battle of Siffin is commendable, although ‘Ali (‘a) was more right than anyone whom he fought.”[^4] Abu Bakr, Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali al-Razi al-Jassas (who died in 370 A.H/981 A.D.), has said, “‘Ali was right in fighting the oppressive gang.

Nobody maintains a contrary view. He was accompanied by many senior Sahabis , those who participated in the Battle of Badr, as well as by those who appreciated their status.”[^5] Abu Bakr Ibn al-’Arabi, the judge, who died in 546 A.H/1152 A.D., has said, “‘Ali was the Imam because they all regarded him as such, and he could not have abandoned people because he was the most worthy among them of receiving the oath of allegiance.

He accepted such an oath out of his concern lest some in the nation should be killed due to chaos and disorder and even the distortion of the creed and the demise of Islam as a religion.” The people of Syria asked him to seek revenge on those responsible for ‘Uthman's murder, so he (‘a) said to them, “First of all, you should swear the oath of allegiance as others have, then you can ask for justice; it is only then that you will achieve justice.” ‘Ali (‘a) was the most wise among them in his view and speech.

Had he pursued those killers, their tribes would have rallied behind them, thus igniting a third tribal war. So he waited till law and order were established and the general public had sworn the oath of allegiance to him. It is then that he directed his attention towards the court of justice to effect equity without discriminating between anyone in the nation and the other.

There is no disagreement among the nation that a leader is justified in postponing effecting retribution if doing the opposite may cause dissension and disunity. In the latter scenario, anyone who disobeyed ‘Ali (‘a) would be regarded as an oppressor killing whom is mandatory, so that justice will be served and reconciliation is achieved.

His waging a war against the Syrians who refused to swear the oath of allegiance to him, as well as his having fought those who reneged from such an oath in the Battles of the Camel and al-Nahrawan, was justified.