who impugned Alī was obligatory, then it is all the more necessary (1) to repel the wrongdoers [who impugned] (2) Uthmān, since (3) Uthmān was far more removed from deeming Muslim blood lawful than Alī was—by far, far more (4). Anyone who disparaged Uthmān on the grounds that he deemed it lawful to shed Muslim blood by failing to enforce the prescribed punishments had thereby opened the door to an even graver disparagement of Alī, and had given anyone who hated Alī [and opposed and fought him] (5) license to say: “Alī failed to enforce the prescribed punishments due against Uthmān’s killers.” If those punishments were indeed obligatory, failing to enforce them entailed greater corruption than failing to enforce a punishment that became due for the killing of al-Hurmuzān.

If it is obligatory (6) to defend Alī on the grounds that he was excused (7) because of independent judgment or inability, then Uthmān should, all the more, be defended on the grounds that he was excused.

As for his statement:

“Uthmān sought to suspend the prescribed punishment for drinking wine in the case of al-Walīd ibn Uqba, until the Commander of the Faithful administered the punishment to him.”

This is a lie about both men. Rather, it was Uthmān himself who instructed Alī to carry out the prescribed punishment upon him,