The well-established facts concerning Uthmān’s virtues—the Prophet’s love for him, his praise of him, his giving him both of his daughters in marriage, his testimony that he would enter Paradise, his sending him to Mecca and pledging allegiance on his behalf when he sent him there, the Companions’ freely choosing him for the caliphate, and the testimony of Umar and others that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—died while pleased with him, among other such things—yield certain knowledge that he was one of Allah’s foremost righteous allies, with whom Allah is pleased and who are pleased with Him. This cannot be overturned by a report whose chain of transmission is unestablished and whose circumstances are unknown, nor can Uthmān be deemed sinful on account of a matter whose true nature is unknown. Rather, this is like the conduct of those who set ambiguous texts against unequivocal ones. This is the conduct of those whose hearts harbor deviation and who seek discord. (* There is no doubt that the Rāfidah are among the most wicked of the deviants who seek discord. *) (1) They are those whom Allah and His Messenger condemned.

In sum, we know with certainty that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—would not have ordered someone to be permanently banished, only for Uthmān then to bring him back in disobedience to Allah and His Messenger without the Muslims denouncing him for it. Uthmān—may Allah be pleased with him—was far too mindful of Allah to undertake such a thing (2). Rather, this was a matter open to juristic judgment. Perhaps Abū Bakr and Umar—may Allah be pleased with them both—did not allow him to return because he had not requested it of them, whereas he requested it of Uthmān, who granted his request. Or perhaps his repentance had not become evident to them, but it did become evident to Uthmān. At most, it may be supposed that this was an error of juristic judgment or a sin, and that matter has already been discussed.