and they regard themselves as too exalted to attribute a matter to themselves in the singular, so they express it in the plural. Thus, his statement, “We have delegated it to you,” stands in place of saying, “I have delegated it to you,” and saying “the ministry” stands in place of saying “my ministry.”

If he says, “I have appointed you to my ministry,” or, “I have appointed you to the ministry,” he does not thereby become one of the ministers of delegation until he makes the appointment explicit in terms that confer delegated authority. Allah Most High says, relating what Moses said: “And appoint for me a minister from my family—Aaron, my brother. Increase through him my strength and let him share my task.” Moses did not merely mention the ministry; rather, he coupled it with strengthening his position and sharing in his affairs.

The minister of delegation must keep the imam informed of the administrative measures he has put into effect and the appointments and commissions he has made, lest, by acting independently, he become like the imam. The imam, for his part, must review the minister’s actions and his administration of affairs, approving whatever accords with sound judgment and rectifying whatever does not, because the administration of the community has been entrusted to the imam and left to his independent legal reasoning.

This minister may adjudicate cases himself and appoint judges, just as the imam may do so, because the qualifications for adjudication are required of him. He may also hear grievances and appoint deputies to enforce his rulings, because the qualifications for independent legal reasoning are required in that role. He may directly implement the affairs he has administered and may appoint deputies to implement them, because sound judgment and administrative ability are required of him.

Whatever the imam may validly do, this minister may likewise validly do, with the exception of three matters. The first is designating a successor: the imam may designate as his successor whomever he chooses, but the minister may not do so.

The second is that the imam may ask the community to relieve him of the imamate, whereas the minister may not. The third is that the imam may dismiss anyone whom the minister has appointed, whereas the minister may not dismiss anyone whom the imam has appointed.

Apart from these three matters, delegating authority to him entails that he may undertake the action and that it is valid and effective when carried out by him. If the imam opposes him by revoking something he has put into effect, then, if it concerns a judgment that has been executed as issued, or property that has been allocated to its proper recipient, it is not permissible to invalidate what the minister implemented on the basis of his independent legal reasoning.

If, however, it concerns the appointment of a governor, the outfitting of an army, or the planning of a military campaign, the imam may oppose him by dismissing the appointee, redirecting the army to wherever he deems appropriate, and managing the war in the manner he considers preferable. This is because the imam may rectify such matters in his own actions, and it is therefore even more appropriate that he may rectify them when they are the actions of his minister.

This differs from a judgment he has executed or property he has allocated to its proper recipient, because since the imam may not rectify such matters when they are his own actions, he likewise may not rectify them when they are the actions of his minister.

If the imam appoints a governor over a district and the minister appoints someone else over that same district, it must be determined which of the two appointments was made first. If the imam’s appointment was earlier, it prevails over the minister’s appointment. If the minister’s appointment was earlier, then, if the imam knew of the minister’s prior appointment, the imam’s appointment constitutes the dismissal of the first appointee and a fresh appointment of the second; thus, the second appointment is valid, not the first.

If the imam did not know of the minister’s prior appointment, the minister’s appointment prevails. The first appointment is therefore valid, not the second, because the imam’s appointment of the second person, while unaware of the first appointment, does not constitute dismissal. It would constitute dismissal only if he knew the first appointee’s status; in that case, the first appointee would be dismissed by the pronouncement itself, not merely by appointing someone else.

If the jurisdiction is one in which joint exercise is permissible, both appointments are valid, and the two appointees share authority. If it is a jurisdiction in which joint exercise is not permissible, their appointments remain contingent upon dismissing one of them and confirming the other. If the imam undertakes that matter, he may dismiss whichever of the two he wishes and confirm the other, and if