وَوَاللهِ مَا صَنَعَ فِي أَمْرِ عُثْمانَ وَاحِدَةً مِنْ ثَلاَث: لَئِنْ كَانَ ابْنُ عَفَّانَ ظَالِماً ـ كَمَا كَانَ يَزْعُمُ ـ لَقَدْ كَانَ يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يُوَازِرَ قَاتِلِيهِ وَأَنْ يُنَابِذَ نَاصِرِيهِ، وَلَئِنْ كَانَ مَظْلُوماً لَقَدْ كَانَ يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ المُنَهْنِهِينَ عَنْهُ وَالْمُعَذِّرِينَ فِيهِ، وَلَئِنْ كَانَ فِي شَكّ مِنَ الْخَصْلَتَيْنِ، لَقَدْ كَانَ يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يَعْتَزِلَهُ وَيَرْكُدَ جَانِباً وَيَدَعَ النَّاسَ مَعَهُ، فَمَا فَعَلَ وَاحِدَةً مِنَ الثَّلاَثِ، وَجَاءَ بِأَمْر لَمْ يُعْرَفْ بَابُهُ، وَلَمْ تَسْلَمْ مَعَاذِيرُهُ.
By Allāh, he did not act in either of three ways about ‘Uthmān. If the son of ‘Affān (‘Uthmān) was in the wrong, as Ṭalḥah believed, it is necessary for him to support those who killed [1] him or to keep away from his supporters. If ‘Uthmān was the victim of oppression, then Ṭalḥah should have been among those who were keeping (the assaulters) away from him or were advancing pleas on his behalf. If he was in doubt about these two alternatives, then it was incumbent upon him to leave him (‘Uthmān) and retire aside and leave the men with him (to deal with him as they wished). But he adopted none of these three ways, and came out with a thing in which there is no good, and his excuses are not acceptable.
