the people were not all so incapable that not one of them could speak a word of truth; indeed, they were more capable (1) of changing matters far graver than this.
Abū Bakr was not unwilling to listen to any of them, nor was he known for injustice or tyranny. That all these people, despite their manifold motives (2), should have agreed to hate Fātimah when there were compelling reasons to love her is necessarily known to be impossible. The same holds true of Alī—may Allah be pleased with him—especially since Alī had (3) never wronged anyone among the great majority of Quraysh, the Ansār, and the Muslims, whether in the Age of Ignorance or in Islam, nor had he killed any of their relatives. Those whom Alī (4) killed were not members of the largest tribes, and there was no Companion who had not also killed (5).
Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—was harsher toward the unbelievers and more hostile to them than Alī was. Their denunciations of him and their hostility toward him (6) were well known. Nevertheless, he assumed authority over them, and he did not die (7) until they were all speaking well of him, praying for him, and grieving over the loss that the Muslims had suffered through his death.
This and other evidence demonstrates that the matter was the very opposite of the lies fabricated by the Rāfidah, and that the people knew Fātimah had not been wronged in the least. How, then, could they have defended Uthmān to the point of shedding their own blood, yet failed to defend one who was