In any event, this was a matter of juristic reasoning (1). Since it was a matter of juristic reasoning, and a sizable group (2) of the Companions held that he should not be executed while others held that he should, Uthmān cannot be censured for what he did on the basis of his juristic judgment, nor can Alī be censured for what he said (3) on the basis of his juristic judgment (4).

We have already mentioned the scholars’ disagreement concerning [the killing of (5)] rulers: does it fall under the category of spreading corruption, whose perpetrator must invariably be executed, as with those who kill in order to seize wealth? Or is killing them like killing private individuals, one of whom kills another for a personal motive, such that the killer of any one of them is liable to retaliation? We mentioned two positions on this matter, both of which are held within the school of Ahmad and elsewhere. They were mentioned (6) by Judge Abū Ya'lā and others.

Those who hold that execution in such a case constitutes a prescribed punishment argue that the perpetrators’ offense causes [a degree of] (7) civil strife and corruption greater than that caused by the offense of [some] (8) highway robbers seeking to seize wealth. Thus, anyone who kills a ruler is among those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land.

This is indicated by what Muslim related [in his Sahīh] (9) from the Prophet—may Allah