The choice of the wealthy Uthman is often explained as intended to guard the interests of the Quraysh and to follow the practices of the first two caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr and Umar.

[5] Umar is shown in early Sunni sources as concerned that the disagreements in the committee would split the community,[5][23] and he reportedly warned Ali, Uthman,[5][23] and possibly also Ibn Awf about favoring their kin if they are elected.

[28] Some early reports indicate that Umar vocally opposed the combination of the prophethood and the caliphate in the Banu Hashim,[29][30][31][32] and he thus prevented Muhammad from dictating his will on his deathbed,[33][34][35] possibly fearing that he might expressly designate Ali as his successor.

[39] Ayoub extends this attitude of Umar to other government posts,[40] basing his conclusion on a report by al-Mas'udi (d. 956) in which the caliph hesitated to install the Hashemite Ibn Abbas (d. c. 687) as the governor of Homs, saying that Muhammad had not given the Banu Hashim any share in the power.

[40][41] The committee was reportedly threatened with death to reach an agreement in three days,[42] possibly reflecting an anxiety to avoid civil unrest and discord,[42][5][43] something that later became the anathema to Sunni Islam.

[47] The Ansari Abu Talha and his men were reportedly ordered by Umar to stand guard and enforce these rules:[5] The Ansar (early Medinan converts) were absent from this committee, either because of their pro-Ali sympathies at the Saqifa after Muhammad's death in 632, as suggested by Jafri and Abbas,[4][53] or to keep the caliphate within the Quraysh, as implied by others.

[51] Possibly with the same calculations, Ali is shown as reluctant in the version of the events in which Ibn Awf proposed to cast the deciding vote in return for giving up his claims to the caliphate.

[46] Ali later referred to this voting bloc, complaining that the committee was stacked against him,[58] as reported by the Sunni al-Baladhuri (d. 892) and al-Tabari, among others,[58] and also in the Shia Nahj al-balagha.

[59] Jafri suggests that Umar deliberately blocked the chances of Ali by granting the chairmanship of the committee to Ibn Awf, possibly fearing discord and civil unrest.

[39] In Jafri's view, the inclusion of Ali in the committee simultaneously recognized his claims,[39] blocked his chances,[58] and removed his freedom to independently seek the caliphate.

[61] The candidates could not reach an agreement and the decision was soon in the hands of Ibn Awf, who had the deciding vote,[50] and ultimately played a key role in the accession of his brother-in-law, Uthman.

[25] Madelung and Jafri also believe that Zubayr supported Uthman, even though the former had earlier advocated for Ali against Abu Bakr after Muhammad's death.

[16] Alternatively, Crone and Keaney present another (Sunni) version in which Ali replies that he would follow Abu Bakr and Umar to the best of his ability, whereas Uthman simply answered affirmatively and received the mandate from Ibn Awf.

[60] The Shia Nahj al-balagha reports that Ali agreed to go along with the committee's decision "so long as the affairs of [the] Muslims remain intact and there is no oppression in it save on myself.

"[66][81] Reza Shah-Kazemi interprets this statement as Ali's tacit approval of the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar, adding that he nevertheless viewed himself as the rightful successor to Muhammad,[81] and gave up his claims to the caliphate for the unity of Islam.

[82] In contrast, Hamid Mavani and Maria M. Dakake suggest that Ali viewed the succession of Abu Bakr as a digression which turned into a full-blown deviation with the rebellion of Mu'awiya during his own caliphate.

[86] Laura Veccia Vaglieri (d. 1989) suggests that the caliphate of Ali would have endangered certain well-established interests because he did not view Abu Bakr and Umar as entirely aligned with the Quran and the Sunna.

[26] Shaban notes that Ali's refusal made him a rallying point for the opposition movement, adding that the wealthy Uthman was possibly selected to guard the Meccan interests.

[89] Likewise, Kennedy suggests that Ali refused to follow the precedent of Abu Bakr and Umar because he might have realized that the Quraysh's domination was dividing the community and wished to open the leadership for other groups, especially the Ansar, with whom he had links.

[49][53][16][65] For Afsaruddin, however, the (Sunni) accounts of Uthman's appointment convey that the third caliph was expected at the time to follow Abu Bakr and Umar.

[68] According to Jafri, Uthman is often portrayed as a weak-minded man,[49][90] and he suggests that Ibn Awf and the committee (except Ali) hoped that he would serve their interests, as representatives of the Quraysh aristocracy.

[91] Cateani (d. 1935) thus rejects Umar's committee altogether as a later fabrication to justify the prevailing practice of the Abbasids,[92] whereas Jafri,[10] Madelung,[93] and Keaney[80] defend the credibility of the accounts in this regard.

[64] Alternatively, Madelung believes that the related historical accounts are partly contradictory and fictional, though he contends that some conclusions can be made from them with reasonable certainty.