Then one of these men killed him, considering it lawful to do so and seeking to draw closer to Allah by killing him, while holding an even worse opinion of him than ‘Uthmān’s killers held of ‘Uthmān.

Those who rebelled against ‘Uthmān did not openly declare him an unbeliever; they merely accused him of injustice. The Khārijites, however, were (1) openly declaring ‘Alī an unbeliever, and they outnumbered the band that came to Medina to besiege ‘Uthmān until he was killed.

If this were grounds for disparaging ‘Uthmān, then that would be even stronger grounds for disparaging ‘Alī. The truth, however, is that both (2) arguments are invalid. Yet the argument of someone who disparages ‘Uthmān on account of those who killed him is even less tenable than that of someone who disparages ‘Alī on account of those who fought him. Those who opposed and fought ‘Alī outnumbered those who fought ‘Uthmān many times over. Indeed, by the agreement of the Muslims, those who fought ‘Alī were better than those who besieged and killed ‘Uthmān. Among those who fought (3) ‘Alī were men of asceticism and worship. ‘Uthmān’s killers were not their equals either in religious devotion or in openly declaring him an unbeliever. Nevertheless, ‘Alī is a rightly guided caliph, and those who deemed his blood lawful were unjust aggressors. This applies with even greater force to ‘Uthmān than to ‘Alī.

Third: It may be said that it is known through numerous independent reports that all the Muslims agreed to pledge allegiance to ‘Uthmān, and no one withheld allegiance from him. Yet Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah withheld allegiance from Abū Bakr al-Siddīq and died without pledging allegiance to either him or ‘Umar. He died during the caliphate of