impugn any of them; for we testify that all three are in Paradise and rank among the foremost God-fearing allies of Allah. We have already explained that an ally of Allah may (1) do something for which he deserves a punishment prescribed by Islamic law—then what of a discretionary punishment? (2)

Umar ibn al-Khattāb once struck Ubayy ibn Ka‘b with his staff when he saw people walking behind him. Ubayy asked:

“Why did you do this, O Commander of the Faithful?”

He replied:

“This is a humiliation for the follower and a temptation for the one being followed.”

If Uthmān disciplined these men, then either Uthmān was correct to impose discretionary punishment upon them because they deserved it; or it may be (3) that they repented of that for which they were punished; or that it was expiated for them through the punishment and other afflictions, through their immense good deeds (4), or through some other means.

Alternatively, if it is said that they were wronged outright, then the response concerning Uthmān is the same as the response concerning them—with even greater force—for he was superior to them and even more deserving of forgiveness and mercy.

The ruler may exercise independent legal judgment in imposing a punishment and be rewarded for it, while those men may likewise have exercised independent legal judgment in what they did, incurring no sin for it; rather, they too are rewarded for their judgment. This is like Abū Bakrah’s testimony against al-Mughīrah: Abū Bakrah was a righteous man and one of the finest Muslims. He gave his testimony seeking Allah’s reward and believing that he would be rewarded for it. Umar likewise sought Allah’s reward in carrying out the prescribed penalty and was rewarded for doing so.