As for appointing a minister, this is permissible, as Allah Most High related from His prophet Moses, peace be upon him: “And appoint for me a minister from my family—Aaron, my brother. Increase through him my strength and let him share my task.” If this was permissible in prophethood, it is all the more appropriate in the imamate, for the administration of the community entrusted to the imam is something he cannot personally undertake in its entirety except through deputization. Having a minister participate in administration is more effective in carrying matters through than handling them alone: it enables him to reinforce himself through the minister, makes error less likely, and better prevents shortcomings.
As for the derivation of the word ministry, some say that it is derived from wizr, meaning burden, because the minister bears the ruler’s burdens on his behalf. Others say that it is derived from wazar, meaning refuge. Allah Most High says: “No! There is no refuge.” That is, there is no shelter. The minister was so called because the ruler turns to his judgment and assistance. Others say that it is derived from azr, meaning back, because the ruler is strengthened by appointing a minister just as the body is strengthened by the back.
The ministry is of two types: the ministry of delegation and the ministry of execution.
The ministry of delegation is when the imam appoints as minister someone to whom he entrusts the administration of affairs according to his judgment and their implementation on the basis of the minister’s independent legal reasoning. In appointing such a minister, the conditions of the imamate must be met. He must be competent in the matters entrusted to him—namely, warfare and the kharaj—and knowledgeable in both. For he will sometimes undertake them personally and at other times appoint deputies to do so. He cannot appoint competent deputies unless he himself is among the competent, just as he cannot personally undertake these duties if he falls short of their competence.
His appointment requires the caliph’s express wording, because it is an office requiring a contract, and contracts are valid only through verbal expression. If, however, it is conferred upon him through an act of entrusting him with oversight, or permission is granted for it, then, according to the analogy of the school, the appointment is valid, based on the validity of effecting divorce in writing.
The ministry comprises two elements: general oversight and deputization. If the appointment is restricted to general oversight without deputization, the ministry is not constituted by it; and if it is restricted to deputization, it is likewise not constituted. When the two are combined, the ministry is constituted. They are combined by saying, “I appoint you over all that falls under my authority, as my deputy.” The ministry is thereby constituted because this combines general oversight and deputization.
If he says, “Act as my deputy in all that falls under my authority,” it may be that the ministry is constituted, since he has combined general oversight and deputization. It may also be that it is not constituted, because this is merely permission, which must be preceded by a contract; and permission, under the rules governing contracts, is not sufficient to conclude contracts.
If he says, “I have appointed you as my deputy in all that falls under my authority,” the ministry is constituted because he has departed from mere permission and used the language of contracts.
If he says, “Oversee all that falls under my authority,” the ministry is not constituted by this, because it could mean that he is merely to examine it, implement it, or take charge of it; and a contract is not bindingly concluded through an ambiguous expression.
If he says, “I have appointed you as my minister, relying on your acting as my deputy,” the ministry is constituted, because he has combined general oversight of what he assigns to him by saying, “I have appointed you as my minister”—for a minister’s oversight is general—and established deputization by saying, “relying on your acting as my deputy.” It has thereby ceased to be a ministry of mere appointment and become a ministry of delegation.
If he says, “I have delegated my ministry to you,” it may be that the ministry is thereby constituted, because mentioning delegation removes it from the ministry of execution. It may also be that it is not constituted, because delegation is among the legal effects of this ministry and therefore requires a contract through which it takes effect. The former view is more plausible. Accordingly, if he says, “We have delegated the ministry to you,” it is valid, because those who hold authority refer to themselves in writing using the plural form.