if he neglects an obligation incumbent upon him—such as enforcing a prescribed penalty (1) or securing a right—or commits an act of aggression or the like (2).

Even assuming that a sin occurred, the preceding discussion concerning it is already known.

[Reply to the Rāfidī’s claim that Uthmān—may Allah be pleased with him—appointed Ibn Abī Sarh governor of Egypt until its people lodged grievances against him]

The same applies to his statement:

“He appointed Abd Allāh ibn Sad ibn Abī Sarh governor of Egypt, until its people lodged grievances against him, and secretly instructed him in writing to remain in office, contrary to what he had written to him publicly.”

The response is:

This is a lie against Uthmān. Uthmān swore that he had written nothing of the kind, and he was truthful and upright even without an oath.

At most, it has been alleged that Marwān wrote it without his knowledge, and that they demanded that he hand Marwān over to them so that they could kill him, but he refused. If killing Marwān was impermissible, then he fulfilled his duty. If it was permissible but not obligatory, then he did what was permissible. If killing him was obligatory, then that (3) was a matter open to juristic judgment, for it had not been established that Marwān had committed any offense warranting his execution under Islamic law. Mere forgery does not warrant death. Even assuming that Uthmān neglected an obligation, we have already given the general response (4).

[Reply to the Rāfidī’s claim that Uthmān—may Allah be pleased with him—ordered the killing of Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr]

The same applies to his statement:

“He ordered the killing of Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr.”

This is one of the well-known lies against Uthmān. Anyone who knows Uthmān’s character and judges him fairly knows that he was not the sort of man to order the killing of Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr or anyone like him. Nor was he ever known to have killed anyone of this kind. Indeed, they had sought to