If such harm is inflicted in disobedience to Allah and His Messenger, then the punishments imposed by the ruler—whether a prescribed penalty or a discretionary punishment—are all the more deserving of serving as expiation for sins.

In Umar’s time, whenever one of them drank wine, he would go of his own accord to the ruler and say:

“Purify me.”

Mā'iz ibn Mālik and the Ghāmidī woman likewise came to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and asked him to purify them.

Since this is so, a man’s being an ally of Allah does not mean that he may not need something by which Allah expiates his sins, such as discipline administered by the ruler whom Allah has placed in authority over him, or other such means.

If it is said, “They acted on independent judgment and were excused regarding the matter for which Uthmān disciplined them,” then it is even more appropriate to say of Uthmān, “He acted on independent judgment and was excused regarding the matter for which he disciplined them.” For he was the ruler, charged with setting his subjects aright. Uthmān was further removed from personal desire and had a greater claim to knowledge and justice in disciplining them—may Allah be pleased with them all.

If someone were to impugn Alī ibn Abī Tālib on the grounds that he fought Mu'āwiya and his companions [and fought] Talha (1) and al-Zubayr, he would be told: Alī ibn Abī Tālib was superior and had a greater claim to knowledge and justice than those who fought him. It is therefore impermissible to regard those who fought him as the just party (2) while regarding him as unjust toward them.

Likewise, with respect to those upon whom Uthmān imposed a prescribed penalty or discretionary punishment, he had a greater claim to knowledge and justice than they did. If it is incumbent to defend Alī against anyone who wishes to speak against him in such terms, then it is all the more incumbent to defend Uthmān against anyone who wishes to speak against him in the same way.