if [Alī] (1) had been able to prevent him from doing those things for which he was criticized, yet failed to prevent him from what he himself deemed objectionable despite having the power to do so, this would have reflected adversely upon Alī. Since Uthmān obeyed Alī when he instructed him to carry out the prescribed punishment, that (2) demonstrates Uthmān’s religious integrity and justice.

It was Uthmān who appointed this same al-Walīd ibn Uqba governor of Kufa, although they hold that this was impermissible. If it was unlawful and Alī was able to prevent it, then Alī was obliged to do so. Since he did not prevent it, this indicates either that Alī considered it permissible or that he was unable to prevent it. If he was unable to bar him from office (3), how could he not also have been unable to administer the prescribed punishment to him? It is therefore known that Alī would have been unable to punish al-Walīd had Uthmān not wanted it done. Since Uthmān did want it done, this demonstrates his religious integrity.

Yet the person making this claim alleges that prescribed punishments were continually left unenforced while Alī was present. They even claim (4) that during his own rule he refrained from enforcing them out of fear and dissimulation. If (5) he did make this statement, he only made it because he knew that Uthmān and his entourage agreed with him that the prescribed punishments should be enforced. Otherwise, had he feared them and practiced dissimulation toward them, he would not have said it.

Nor may it be said, “He had greater power to do so than they did,” for the person making this claim alleges that Alī was powerless and could not proclaim the truth among them (6).