banished [forever] (1). Rather, the maximum prescribed term of banishment is one year; this is the banishment imposed on a fornicator, whereas an effeminate man is banished until he repents of effeminacy. If a ruler’s discretionary punishment for an offense is to continue until the offender repents, then once he repents, the punishment comes to an end. If, however, it is imposed for a past offense, that is a matter of juristic judgment for which neither a fixed measure nor a fixed term has been prescribed.

Accordingly, the banishment took place late in the period following the Hijra, so it had not yet lasted long during the caliphates of Abū Bakr and Umar. By Uthmān’s time, however, it had lasted a long time. Uthmān had previously interceded with the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—on behalf of Abd Allah ibn Abī Sarh. He had been a scribe of revelation and had apostatized from Islam, and the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had declared his blood forfeit along with that of others. Uthmān then brought [him] (2), whereupon the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—accepted Uthmān’s intercession on his behalf and accepted his pledge of allegiance. How, then, could he not accept his intercession for al-Hakam?!

They have also related that Uthmān asked the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to allow al-Hakam to return, and he granted him permission to do so. We know that al-Hakam’s offense was less grave than that of Abd Allah ibn Saīd ibn Abī Sarh. The account of [Abd Allah] is established (3) and known through a sound chain of transmission. As for the account of al-Hakam, most of those who mention it relate it without a connected chain of transmission. It has also been recounted by historians whose reports contain much falsehood and whose transmissions seldom escape addition or omission. Thus, there was no sound report here (4) that would warrant impugning even someone of lower standing than Uthmān.