It is astonishing that such an uproar should be raised over the blood of al-Hurmuzān, who was accused of hypocrisy, waging war against Allah and His Messenger, and striving to spread corruption throughout the land, while Uthmān’s blood is treated as though it possessed no sanctity—despite his being the leader of the Muslims, one whose place in Paradise was attested, and one who, together with his brethren, belonged to the best of creation after the prophets!

It is established through mass transmission that Uthmān was among those most restrained from shedding blood and most forbearing toward those who impugned (1) his honor and those who sought his blood. They besieged him and sought (2) to kill him, and he knew that they intended to do so. Muslims came to him from every quarter to support him and advised him to fight them, yet he instructed the people to refrain from fighting and ordered those who obeyed him not to fight them.

It is reported that he said to his slaves:

“Whoever stays his hand shall be free.”

He was asked:

“Will you go to Mecca?”

He replied:

“I will not be among those who commit wrongdoing in the Sacred Precinct.”

He was asked:

“Will you go to al-Shām?”

He replied:

“I will not leave the city to which I emigrated.”

He was told:

“Then fight them.”

He replied:

“I will not be the first successor of Muhammad to take up the sword against his community.”

Uthmān’s forbearance until he was killed thus ranks among his greatest virtues in the eyes of the Muslims. It is well known that never before had a comparable amount of Muslim blood been shed to that which was shed through Alī’s exercise of independent judgment [and that of those who fought him] (3). If, then, what Alī did does not warrant disparaging him, and indeed [if] (4) repelling those who wronged Alī from among the Khārijites and other Nāsibīs