As for the authority to lead the Friday, Eid, and funeral prayers, the emirs have a stronger claim to it than the judges. Ahmad said, according to the narration of Ibn al-Qasim: “When the emir is present, he has the stronger right, based on what al-Husayn ibn Ali did.”
If this emir’s jurisdiction borders on a frontier territory, he may not initiate jihad against its inhabitants without the caliph’s permission. However, he must repel and fight them if they attack him without authorization, since repelling them is among the duties of protection and is required by the defense of the realm’s inviolable interests.
The conditions required for appointment to this emirate are those required for the executive ministry, together with two additional conditions: Islam and freedom. This is because the office entails authority over religious affairs, which cannot properly be exercised by one guilty of disbelief or enslavement. Knowledge and jurisprudential expertise are not required; if he possesses them, they constitute an additional virtue. Thus, the conditions of the general emirate are based on those of the delegated ministry, since both possess broad oversight, even though they differ in the particular scope of their functions. The conditions of the specific emirate fall short of those of the general emirate by one condition, namely knowledge, because one whose emirate is general may adjudicate, whereas this is not permitted to one whose emirate is restricted.
Neither of these two emirs is required to inform the caliph of what they have carried out within their jurisdictions in accordance with the authority granted to them, except as a precaution. If an unprecedented matter arises, they should refer it to the caliph’s attention and act according to his judgment. If they fear that suspending action would cause the breach to widen, they may take measures to prevent the dispute until the caliph’s directive reaches them concerning how they are to proceed. This is because the caliph’s judgment is more decisive in newly arising matters, given his oversight of all affairs.
As for the emirate of seizure, which is established under duress, it is when an emir seizes a territory by force, whereupon the caliph appoints him over it and delegates to him its administration and political governance. By virtue of his seizure, the emir then acts independently of the caliph in administering political affairs and enforcing the religious rulings, thereby bringing affairs from corruption to soundness and from prohibition into permissibility. Although this departs from the customary form of an unrestricted appointment, it preserves enough of the religious laws that it would not be permissible to leave them in a state of corruption. Accordingly, in such a case—despite the seizure and duress—what is impermissible in an appointment to an emirate of istikfaʾ made by choice becomes permissible.