opponents assumed that Mu`āwiya was ahead of him in politics and so was his management.<sup>1</sup>
What shortly follows here is a general response to all criticisms raised regarding Imām Ali’s (a.s.) policies, and the detailed responses are presented in their appropriate places in the following chapters.
The most important point in response to this issue is emphasis on the way in which, politics and government is looked at. If politics is viewed as a means for ruling over the hearts or interpreted as ruling on the basis of people’s rights and real needs of society, and if we look at Imām Ali’s (a.s.) stances from such perspective, then we will realize that Imām Ali (a.s.) is the greatest statesman throughout history, second to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). But, if we consider politics and statesmanship as a means to achieve power and domination, or interpret it as taking advantage of the people and exploitative domination over them, then Imām’s stances are not defendable indeed.
It is evident that Imām was aware of these issues and knew how to employ them, but due to his commitment to Divine laws, ethical values and his stress on the people’s rights, he did not deem their use as permissible. The following narration quoted from him clearly elaborates this fact:
لَولا إنَّ المَكرَ وَ الخَديعَةَ فِي النّارِ لَكُنتُ أمكَرَ النّاسِ.“If it was not that plotting and deception have their place in Hellfire, I would have been the trickiest and craftiest person!”<sup>2</sup>هَيهاتَ! لَولاَ التُّقى لَكُنتُ أدهَى العَرَبِ. “Alas! Had it not been for God wariness, I would have been the craftiest of all Arabs!”<sup>3</sup>
He also had said:
“I swear by God, that Mu`āwiya is not cleverer than I, but he practices deception and commits debauchery; and if it were

prudence, and say that Ali (a.s.) was a brave and fearless warrior but not a political ruler!
They say that if Ali (a.s.) had been a man of politics, why had he not accepted the proposal of `Abdul Rahmān in the six-person electoral council (that was appointed by `Umar to assign a caliph after him) when he suggested that he would swear allegiance to him (a.s.) on the condition that Imām acts according to the conduct of Abu Bakr and `Umar? Political prudence suggests that he should have accepted the condition, and after the establishment of his government, act in his own way and follow his own path. Did `Uthmān who accepted the condition follow their (the caliphs) steps?!
If Imām had acted the way politicians do, he should not have treated the opposition the way he did, especially Talha and Zubair who were influential figures and Mu`āwiya who was very powerful in Shām (Syria). He should have compromised for a while and fulfilled their demands, and later, after the establishment of his government, he should have begun to extirpate them. There were many similar occasions where he took such problematic stances. Imām’s insistence on moral and Islamic values created problems in the establishment of his authority and dominance and made him encounter serious hardships. Before continuing, we will refer to the words of Ibn Abi al-Hadid in this respect:
وَاعلَم أنَّ قَوماً مِمَّن لَم يَعرِف حَقيقَةَ فَضلِ أميرِالمُؤمِنينَ(عليه السلام) زَعَموا أنَّ عُمَرَ كانَ أسوَسَ مِنهُ ، وإن كانَ هُوَ أعلَمَ مِن عُمَرَ.Know that a group of those who do not know the real virtue of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) claim that `Umar was more diplomatic than he was, even though [they considered] him as being more knowledgeable than `Umar.¹
Ibn Abi al-Hadid goes on to say:
Ibn Sinā [Avicenna] admits to this, in his book al-Shifā', and my teacher also inclines to this belief, in his book al-Ghurar, where he mentions it. Moreover, his (a.s.) enemies and