among the ummah over his killing as was their denunciation of the killing of Uthmān. Nor did armies rise to support him as did the armies that rose (1) to support Uthmān. His supporters did not take vengeance upon his enemies as Uthmān’s supporters did upon his enemies; nor did his killing produce the turmoil, evil, and corruption that resulted from Uthmān’s killing. Neither was his killing more reprehensible in the sight of Allah, His Messenger, and the believers than the killing of Uthmān.

Uthmān was one of the eminent foremost Emigrants, belonging to the same generation as Alī, Talha, and al-Zubayr. He was the caliph of the Muslims, who unanimously pledged allegiance to him. Indeed, he never drew the sword against the ummah or killed anyone to preserve his rule (2). Rather, he led the Muslims in armed campaigns against the unbelievers. During his caliphate, as during the caliphates of Abū Bakr and Umar, the sword was drawn against the unbelievers but withheld from the Muslims. Then, while he was caliph, men sought to kill him; yet he remained patient and did not fight in self-defense until he was killed. There is no doubt that this merited a greater reward, and that killing him (3) was a graver sin, than killing one who held no authority, set out seeking rule, but could not attain it (4) because of the supporters of those from whom he sought to wrest power, and therefore fought in self-defense until he was killed.

There is also no doubt that the fighting of one who defends himself and his rule is more readily justified than the fighting of one who seeks to wrest authority from another. Yet Uthmān refrained from fighting in defense of his rule. His conduct was therefore better than that of al-Husayn, and his killing was more heinous than the killing of al-Husayn. Likewise, when al-Hasan—may Allah be pleased with him—did not fight for rule, but instead reconciled the ummah by renouncing warfare (5),