It is human nature to take account of whoever is being considered for office and to curry favor with him, fearing that he might retaliate against them if appointed and hoping to benefit from him. This is indeed something that occurs. Yet these men showed no partiality to Umar or Abū Bakr while they held office. How, then, could they have shown partiality to Uthmān when he had not yet assumed office [and possessed no power]? (1)

Had those men not known that Uthmān had the strongest claim among them to the office, they would never have appointed him. This is a matter that only increases an informed person in insight and knowledge the more deeply he reflects upon it. No one doubts it except one of those versed in inferential reasoning who has failed to reflect upon it, (2 or one who is ignorant of the facts or of the method of examination and inference 2)(2).

Ignorance of the evidence, or of how to examine it, gives rise to ignorance. By contrast, whoever knows what occurred and the evidence, and knows the method(3) of examination and inference, will be absolutely certain—beyond all dispute—that Uthmān had the strongest claim among them to the caliphate and was the best of those who remained after him. Their agreement(4) to pledge allegiance to Uthmān, without any objection, proves that they regarded no alternative as more appropriate. Even if some of them inwardly disliked it, whether from independent judgment or personal desire, this does not impugn it, just as such dislike does not impugn other appointments, such as the appointment of Usāma ibn Zayd and the accessions of Abū Bakr and Umar.

Moreover, during Uthmān’s caliphate, [there were](5) benefits and blessings whose full extent is known only to Allah. As for the matters that occurred during it which they disliked, such as appointing some members of Banū