was a caliph around whom the people had united, and he had not killed (1) even 1 Muslim. Yet they fought him to force him to relinquish (2) authority. His justification for remaining in office was therefore stronger than ʿAlī’s justification for demanding their obedience (3) to him. ʿUthmān remained patient until he was unjustly killed as a martyr, without defending himself, whereas ʿAlī initiated the fighting (4) against Muʿāwiyah’s supporters. They had not been fighting him; they had merely refused to pledge allegiance to him.

If it was permissible to fight someone who refused to pledge allegiance to an imam to whom half the Muslims—or most of them [or thereabouts] (5)—had pledged allegiance, then it was even more clearly permissible to fight someone who had fought (6)—in all the other manuscripts: “then it is said: one who fought”—and killed the imam to whom the Muslims had unanimously (7) pledged allegiance.

If it is said, “ʿUthmān did certain things of which they disapproved,” the response is: Those things did not make it permissible to depose or kill him (8). Even if they had made it permissible to depose and kill him, the objections they raised against ʿAlī would have been still more apt to justify refusing to pledge allegiance to him. If they accused ʿUthmān of showing a degree of favoritism toward the Umayyads, they likewise accused (9) ʿAlī of bias against them and of failing to deal justly with them. They also alleged that he hastened to dismiss Muʿāwiyah, even though he did not deserve (10) dismissal; for the Prophet