he would have done so; for otherwise, it is not ordinarily conceivable that a man would do something he knows he will be punished for, from which he derives no benefit either in religion or in worldly life(1). Indeed, he would not pursue something in which he had no purpose whatsoever while neglecting what he needed for his religion at the approach of death, despite having a sound [and fully present](2) mind and ample time.

Even supposing—Allah forbid—that he had been an enemy who harbored the utmost hatred for the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—there is no doubt that it was through the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—that he attained whatever good fortune he enjoyed. Umar could not have failed to recognize that the Messenger of Allah was truthful and confirmed as such(3), for he was among the most intelligent of men, and the proofs of prophethood are among the clearest of all matters. He therefore knew(4) that if he persisted in opposing him, he would be punished in the Hereafter. At the time of his death, he had no personal interest in Uthman or anyone like him assuming authority. Why, then, would he divert authority from its rightful claimant for no purpose?

If it is said:

“He feared that people would say he had recanted and repented, just as Abu Tālib refrained from embracing Islam at the time of his death out of fear of what people would say.”

The reply is:

He could have placed Alī in authority without openly professing repentance. Had he appointed Alī or anyone else, the people would have listened and obeyed, and there would have been no dispute whatsoever. A person may be liable for wrongs done to others yet restore their rights in a way that does not reveal that he had acted unjustly. Thus, he may leave instructions at the time of