Indeed, they had sought to kill him, and Muhammad was among those who entered upon him, yet he did not order anyone to fight them in his defense. How, then, could he have initiated the killing of someone whose blood was inviolable? (1)

Even if it were established that Uthmān had ordered the killing of Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr, this would not constitute grounds for censuring Uthmān. Rather, if Uthmān had ordered his killing, Uthmān would have had a greater claim to obedience than those who demanded Marwān’s death. Uthmān was an imam of guidance and a rightly guided caliph, duty-bound to govern his subjects and put to death anyone whose evil could not otherwise be averted (2). Those who demanded Marwān’s death, however, were Khawārij spreading corruption throughout the land. They had no authority to kill anyone or to carry out a prescribed penalty. At most, they may have been wronged in certain matters; but not everyone who has been wronged is entitled to kill with his own hands everyone who wronged him, nor may he carry out a prescribed penalty.

Marwān was no more given to sedition and evil than Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr, nor was Muhammad more renowned than Marwān for knowledge and religion. Indeed, the compilers of the authentic hadith collections narrated several hadiths from Marwān, and his opinion was counted alongside those of the jurists who issued fatwas (3). Whether he had the status of a Companion is disputed (4).