So long as there is doubt...

So long as there is doubt, then it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. The doubt in this matter is possible, logical, and reasonable. I will now hand it over to my colleague, the lawyer representing the Third defendant. Lawyer of Third defendant Umar Ibn Sa’d: Your Honor, respected judges and jurors. Based on what the prosecutor himself presented, it is clear without a doubt that my client, the Third defendant, did not want the fight and was forced to do so by direct threat.

Rather, he always sought to find a positive solution to the conflict. But the callers of mischief / fitna tried otherwise and my client was just a military commander who was forced under threat to lead a war when he did not desire that. He tried to avoid that and at the end, he did not have any other option except to obey the order of the governor Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. So what responsibility does he carry on his shoulders?

He was only a soldier who obeys the orders of his supreme command in the battlefield after he tried his best to avoid the fight. So I request the respected judges and jurors to keep that in mind. I will now hand it over to my colleague, the lawyer representing the Fourth defendant.

Lawyer of Fourth defendant Shimr ibn Dhil Jawshan: Your honor, respected judges and jurors…my client, the Fourth defendant, was not the governor of Al-Kufa, nor was he the commander of the army, nor was he the ruler of the state (caliph). He did not hold any position in the Islamic state and he was only an intermediate who simply shared his opinion. He did not force his opinion on anyone so there is no responsibility on him. At the end, he was only a soldier who simply carried out the orders.

Thank you. Chief Justice: Mr. Prosecutor, would you like to respond to the defense?! Prosecutor: Yes your Honor, the Defense representative wants to doubt all the historical references which stand as witnesses in front of you while they are the same sources which they themselves approved and acknowledged its authenticity before!

By doubting these sources, he is by the same token doubting all its writers and insinuating that they wrote carelessly and propagated narrations which they did not verify its authenticity. Not only that, but they also copy from each other without any investigation or searching! Is this the opinion of the defense regarding those who wrote these books?!