Re: A question about Hz. Ali 
…
Respected Lajawab
Assalam-o-Alaikum
I sincerely hope and pray that you and your family are all fine by the grace of Allah Almighty.
Regarding your question, I can smell the sincere love for the Sahaba (RA) and a great respect for Ahl-e-Bait (RA). No doubt it is a very important question. Brother Anwar is also quit right. But let me share my humble views as well.
Before that, let me confess that I have a deep respect and love for Ahl-e-Bait (RA) and Sahaba (RA). Moreover, I respect the views of every sect and faction of our Religion. It is not my intention to start a controversy or to hurt anybody’s feelings. If God forbade, anything of this sort happens, I hereby offer my appologies in advance. Here are my humble deliberations.
First of all, worldly achievments and conquests are not absolute measures of one’s greatness. Had it been so, then Chengiz Khan, Hulago, Atilla the Hun etc would have been greater than so many. They could have been great for their own people, but infact, most of the historians have labelled them as destroyers and ruthless, reckelss and heedless wariors.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that a good reformer can be successful. Had it been so, then Muhammad Tughlaq would have been probably the most successful ruler of India. He introduced reforms, which were way ahead of his time, but none worked for him and eventually he was labelled as an unfortunate failed ruler. Most of his reforms were adopted by later rulers and even British, but they were lucky to get away with the label of being unfortunate.
Thirdly, if the appearance of civil wars in a regime is considered to be a sign of one’s wekness, then proabably Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb was the weakest, who spent all his life as a ruler, fighting these civil wars and mutinies throughout India. On the contrary he is considered as role model among Indian rulers.
Fourthly, if number of dead is directly proportional to ones in-effectiveness, then probably, Sir Lord Winston Spencer Churchill was the most ineffective leader in the history of Britain who made millions of Bitish soldiers die for the Crown.
Fifthly, if the appearance of a famine is considered to be a sign of a soft leader without any grasp on state affairs, then probably Hazrat Umar (RA) was also a soft leader without any grasp on the Khilafat (Maáz Allah).
And Sixthly, if the absence of any conquest is betoken as a sign of ineptness on part of a ruler, then my brother, what would we consider of the life of our Holiest of all the Prophets, Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh), before the conquest of Makkah? (Maáz Allah).
Sir, let me share another thing with you. Similar questions were also put to Hazrat Ali (RA). He was asked to respond on these differences and difficulties which were not faced by his equally great predecessors. He was asked to come up with any plausible explanation for this. His reply is one of the most important in order to understand the appearance of these difficulties. His reply to the question askers was, “My predecessors were lucky and successful, becuase they had advisers like me, I am unlucky to have advisors like you”.
My brother, at many times, Hazrat Umar (RA) one of the most successful Khalifa-e-Rashid, asked for the advice of Hazrat Ali (RA) and each time confessed, “Had Ali (RA) not been there, behold, Umar (RA) would have perished”. One of the occasion was at the time of war with the Romans, when Hazrat Umar (RA) wanted to go along with the army but was advised to stay back in Madina-e-Munawara by Hazrat Ali (RA). Another was at the time of famine in Madina-e-Munawara, when a person hungary for several days, accused of stealing wheat was sentenced for the amputation of his hand. When being asked from Hazrat Ali (RA) about the legitimacy of the verdict, he annulled it saying thereby that there is no Hadd on a hungary person during a famine on stealing wheat. Subhan Allah. So my friend, how come a man, who helped a great Sahabi like Hazrat Umar (RA) not to perish, and led to the strengthening of the Muslim Khilafat, be labelled as an in-effective ruler.
Sir, let me be very frank and open. If you study Islamic History, the conclusions reacehed in a book will depend upon the author and the school of thought behind the book, which ofcourse is quite natural. This includes all the historians, whether Muslim or not. There are books by non Shias labelling Hazrat Ali (RA) as a great leader and there are books by non Shias labelling Hazrat Usman (RA) as an ineffective ruler. In my opinion, none was in-effective. By the way Sir, I am not a Shia. I am just a plain, humble servant of the Holiest of all the Prophets Hazrat Muhammad, (pbuh), who respects both his Ahl-e-Bait (RA) and his companions (RA).
Now Sir, lets consider everything from an altogether different angle.
Lets assume, that the division in Islamic Khilafat, created by Hazrat Muawiah (RA), happened in the time of Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA).
Lets assume that the vice of Kharijites, who claimed to be Muslims appeared and made an army in the time of Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA).
What could have been his response? He waged a war on the infidels siding along the imposter prophet Musailama Kazab. Similarly he waged a war on those muslims who refused to pay Zakat. At the first instance, he was forbade by the Sahaba, not to send troops against Musailama Kazab. But he did, saying it to be manace for the Khilafat and a dis-respect for the Prophethood of Hazart Muhammad (pbuh). Second time again, he was advised not to send an army, still he sent it against the wrong interpretters of Shariah in the case of Zakat, saying that he would make sure that if anybody used to give even a tiny rope as Zakat, he would do the same again. Now please for one moment, juxtapose the great personality of Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) in the proposed assumptions. My friend, I am sure that Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) would have also done the same. Consider the time of choosing a Khalifa at Saqifa-e-Banu Saéda, when Ansars proposed to have two Khulafa, one from Muhajareen and one from Ansar. This proposal was strongly rejected by Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA), Hazrat Umar (RA) and Hazrat Abdul Rehman bin Auf (RA), the three representatives of Muhajareen. Similarly, anybody, trying to form an Emirate of his own in the Khiafat of Muslims, would have been fought with, by Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) in the same way like, to avoid division in the Khilafat, whether it was Hazrat Muawiah (RA) or any body else. Similarly he would have fought against the Kharijite in the same way he did against the refusers of Zakat. Since such incidents, did not happen in the Khilafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), Hazrat Umar (RA) or Hazrat Usman (RA), so naturally, anything good or bad, related with these incidents were labelled with the personality of Hazrat Ali (RA).
Please consider one more option. No Khalifa, faced as many difficulties as Hazrat Ali (RA). No Khalifa, faced as many problems as Hazrat Ali (RA). No Khalifa made as many difficult decisions as Hazrat Ali made. No Khalifa was faced with as much enemies as Hazrat Ali (RA). No Khalifa, was betrayed by his own men like Hazrat Ali (RA). Considering all this and the reponse of the Brother of the Prophet, the Son in Law of the Prophet, this fourth Khalifa of the Prophet stands miles above ordinary rulers of the world. All this infact proves that he was probably the most capable of all the Khulafa, because the true test of ones strength of character and ability is in difficult times, not the happy go lucky eras.
One thing more Sir, of all the four Khulafa, Hazrat Ali (RA) was the only one who was four in one i.e., A Ruler, A Faqih, An Alim and A General.
Sir I am not finished as yet. Let me relate something else as well. Out of all the four Khulafa-e-Rashideen (RA), only Hazrat Ali (RA) had the honour of leading a community as the Deputy of Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) on two different occasions. First was at the time of Ghazwah-i-Tabook when, Holy Prophet (mpuh), left Hazrat Ali (RA) behind in Madina saying “O ye Ali (RA), you are unto me, as Haroon (AS) was unto Musa (AS)”. Had he been in-capable, Holy Prophet (pbuh) would have never left a Lion of Allah (Assad Ullah), behind and would have taken him along in the battle field as before. Second was the time when Holy Prophet (pbuh), made Hazart Ali (RA) Governer of Yemen in his life. It was in Yemen, where Holy Prophet (pbuh), sent a message to Hazrat Ali (RA) about his last pilgrimage and told him to reach Makkah. And most of the Muslims even do not know that Hazrat Ali (RA), came all the way from Yemen to Makkah and not from Madina, to perform hajj and participate in Hajja-tul-Widda. My brothers in Islam, please do not consider that I am in anyway trying to bellitle the great companions of Holy Prophet (pbuh) like the first three Khulafa (RA). But what I am trying to do is to disprove the myth that (Maáz Allah) Hazrat Ali ul Murtaza, Asad Ullah, Yadd Ullah, Haider-e-Karar, Sahib-e-Zulfiqar was an in-effective ruler.
And lastly dear Sir, the following dictum was not coined by any Shia or any Persian. Infact this was a common Arabic Proverb in the days of Holy Prophet (mpuh) that
La fattah ila ALI (RA), la saif ila ZULFIQAR
There is no youth like ALI (RA) and no sword like ZULFIQAR.
May Allah Almighty give all the Muslims, the true respect and love of both the Ahl-e-Bait and Companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). May Allah Almighty unite all the Muslim brethern as one Ummah as envisaged by our Holy Prophet (mpbh). May Allah Almighty make all of us ONE, without the discrimination of SUNNI, SHIA, WAHABI, DEOBANDI etc. Ameen.
If at all, my Muslim brothers, I have inadvertantly hurt anybody’s feelings, please forgive me.
Regards for all of you especially worthy Lajawab.
Khuda Hafiz.
