The Sunni Position

The Sunni position is clear that the ruler (Imam) is not infallible, and is not divinely appointed through the line of Imams from the Prophet ﷺ through the lineage of Ali (ra) and Fatima (ra). Al-Mawardi says in response to the claim that the Imams from Ahl e Bait are more suitable to rule than the Abbasids of his time, “If it seems to the electors (ahlul hali wal-aqd) that one of the two [candidates] is the more excellent and they make the bay’ah to him for the Imamate but then someone more excellent than him appears then this first Imamate stands and it is not permitted to abandon it for someone who is more excellent than him.”[1]

As-Subki says, ‘According to the consensus of the Companions after the death of the Prophet ﷺ, men should appoint an imam who will look after their interests. They gave this precedence over all other obligations and people have been abiding by this over the ages. Even if the appointed imam is not the most suitable, nevertheless the mere act of appointing him is sufficient to discharge the obligation.’[2]

Al-Qurtubi says, “It is not a precondition that he (the Imam) be protected from slips and errors or that he should know the Unseen.”[3] He also says, “It is permitted to appoint a less excellent candidate when there is someone better if there is fear of civil unrest and that the affairs of the community will not be in order. That is when the ruler is appointed to repel enemies, protect territory, block gaps, deliver rights, establish the ḥudūd, and collect revenue for the Treasury and distribute it to its people. If it is feared that appointing the better person will result in bloodshed and unrest and that things will be disordered because of the appointment of that leader, that is a clear excuse for turning away from the better man for the lesser one. That is also indicated by the knowledge shown by ‘Umar and the rest of the Community at the time of the Shūrā. The six of them included those who were better and those who were less qualified. It was permitted to give the leadership to any of them when the best interest lay in that choice. They agreed on that and none of them objected to it. Allah knows best.”[4]

The Shī‘i position

The Shī‘i position regarding the necessity of the Imam being infallible (ma’sum) is well-known. They state, “If a divinely appointed leader is not infallible, he would be liable to errors and to deceive others as well. In such a case, no implicit confidence may be placed in his sayings/commands/actions. A divinely appointed Imam is the most liable person to rule as the head of the community, and people are supposed to follow him in every matter.”[5]

In response to this condition that the ruler must be infallible, Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says: “As for the infallibility (‘Isma) of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, this results from the fact that he is a Prophet and not from being a ruler. This is because infallibility is an attribute of all the Prophets and Messengers, regardless of whether they themselves ruled people with their shari’a and implemented it or whether they just conveyed their shari’a without holding the post of ruler or managing its implementation. Musa, ‘Isa and Ibrahim (as) were all infallible, as was Muhammad ﷺ. Therefore, infallibility is for Prophethood and the Messengership, not for ruling. The fact that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ never committed a forbidden act (Haram) nor neglected a duty (wajib) whilst executing the functions of ruling resulted from the fact that he was infallible with respect to Prophethood and Messengership and not because he was a ruler.

Thus his execution of ruling does not require infallibility as such, but in reality he ﷺ was infallible because he was a Prophet and a Messenger. He ﷺ, therefore, assumed his duties as a ruler just as any other human being, who rules over other humans, does. The Qur’an has clearly stated this, Allah ta’ala says:

قُلْ إِنَّمَآ أَنَا۠ بَشَرٌۭ مِّثْلُكُمْ

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “I am only a man like you”[6]

Allah’s saying in the same verse outlines the difference between him ﷺ and other humans:

يُوحَىٰٓ إِلَىَّ

˹but˺ it has been revealed to me[7]

The distinction, therefore, lies in the fact that he ﷺ received revelation, namely the Prophethood. Other than that, he ﷺ was a man like any other man. Therefore, in ruling he ﷺ was human, and undoubtedly his successors (caliphs) would also be humans just like any other human, because they would only be successors to him in ruling, not Prophethood and Messengership.

Infallibility does not therefore apply to the Caliph, as this is not required in ruling but it is a requirement of Prophethood. The Caliph is only a ruler no more, so the condition of infallibility is irrelevant to those who take up this post. It is even forbidden to stipulate infallibility as a precondition incumbent upon whoever takes up the post of Caliphate. This is because infallibility is restricted to the Prophets and it is forbidden to claim it on behalf of anyone other than a Prophet.”[8]

An interesting development occurred within Shī‘i political thought when Ayatollah Khomeini turned the concept of infallibility for the ruler on its head with the introduction of the concept of Velayat-e Faqeeh (Governance of the Jurist), where a fallible scholar would take the place of the infallible Imam in governing the nation. In doing so, the Shī‘i and Sunni positions on authority and government in the modern era are now almost identical. This means in a future Caliphate the seeds of division being sown by corrupt regimes between Shī‘i and Sunni are not the major obstacle to political unity that some may think.

Khomeini says “From the time of the Lesser Occultation[9] down to the present (a period of more than twelve centuries that may continue for hundreds of millennia if it is not appropriate for the Occulted Imām to manifest himself), is it proper that the laws of Islam be cast aside and remain unexecuted, so that everyone acts as he pleases and anarchy prevails? Were the laws that the Prophet of Islam labored so hard for twenty-three years to set forth, promulgate, and execute valid only for a limited period of time? Was everything pertaining to Islam meant to be abandoned after the Lesser Occultation? Anyone who believes so, or voices such a belief, is worse situated than the person who believes and proclaims that Islam has been superseded or abrogated by another supposed revelation.”[10]

Notes

[1] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.15

[2] Aisha Bewley, ‘Democratic Tyranny and the Islamic Paradigm,’ Diwan Press, 1st edition, 2018, kindle edition, p.7

[3] Al-Qurtubi, ‘Tafsir al-Qurtubi,’ Vol.1, Translated by Aisha Bewley, Diwan Press, p.157

[4] Ibid

[5] https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/leadership-and-infallibility-part-1

[6] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Kahf, ayah 110

[7] Ibid

[8] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.132

[9] A period of about 70 years (872-939CE) when, according to Shī‘i belief, Muhammad al-Mahdi, the Twelfth Imām, absented himself from the physical plane but remained in communication with his followers through a succession of four appointed deputies.

[10] Imam Khomeini, ‘Governance of the Jurist,’ translation of Velayat-e-Faqeeh, Iran Chamber Society, p.19 https://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/books/velayat_faqeeh.pdf