But that was not the case, for the fighting did not secure the desired obedience. Rather, it only increased the people’s disobedience toward Alī, to the point that Kharijites from his own army disobeyed him and rebelled against him. Many of his army commanders fought against him, and most of them (1) were never fully obedient to him. They had been more obedient to him before the fighting than they were afterward.

If it is said:

“Alī exercised independent legal reasoning in this matter, believing that he would secure obedience through fighting,”

it may be answered:

If an exercise of independent reasoning such as this is forgiven, even though it led to the deaths of thousands of Muslims, bringing about corruption without achieving the intended good, would not an exercise of independent reasoning concerning the killing of a single person likewise be forgiven, when killing him would have yielded some benefit by deterring people from gross immoralities? Furthermore, he did not kill him; he merely intended to do so and then refrained.

The ruler has greater need to know the rulings governing public affairs as a whole than the rulings (2) governing particular prescribed penalties. Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—was well aware that an insane person is not legally accountable. However (3), the difficult question is whether someone who is not legally accountable may be punished in order to ward off harm. This is a matter open to doubt, for the Sacred Law prescribes punishment for those who are not legally accountable in order to ward off harm in more than one instance, and reason likewise requires this because it serves the people’s welfare.

It has been said that the boy whom al-Khidr killed