The provisions of the Shariah safeguarded by appointing the seizure-holder are seven. First: preserving the office of the Imamate as the succession to prophethood and administering the affairs of the religious community. Second: the open manifestation of obedience, whereby the legal status of defiance is removed and the sin of secession is averted. Third: uniting the community through mutual affection and support, so that Muslims may stand as one hand against all others. Fourth: ensuring that appointments to religious offices are valid and that the judgments of judges are enforceable in them. Fifth: ensuring that revenues are collected lawfully and in a manner that absolves those who pay them of liability. Sixth: ensuring that the prescribed punishments are duly carried out. Seventh: protecting the religion, commanding the fulfillment of Allah’s rights, and calling those who disobey to obedience.

If he fully meets the conditions for appointment by choice, appointing him becomes obligatory, both to call for obedience to him and to ward off opposition to him. Once authorized, he has effective authority to act concerning the rights of the religious community and the legal rulings governing the Muslim community. He may also appoint both a minister of delegation and an executive minister.

If the seizure-holder does not fully meet the conditions for appointment by choice, it is permissible to make his appointment public in order to secure obedience to him and put an end to opposition and defiance. His authority to act in matters of rights and legal rulings, however, is contingent upon the caliph appointing someone to act on the people’s behalf in these matters who fully meets the requisite conditions. Thus, the complete qualifications of the person appointed as his deputy compensate for what the seizure-holder himself lacks. The appointment, therefore, belongs to the seizure-holder, while implementation belongs to the deputy, for necessity dispenses with whatever conditions of capability are lacking.

Once the emirate of seizure is legally valid, it differs from the emirate of istikfaʾ in four respects. First: the emirate of seizure is vested specifically in the seizure-holder, whereas the emirate of istikfaʾ is confined to the person selected for it. Second: the emirate of seizure encompasses the lands conquered by the seizure-holder, whereas the emirate of istikfaʾ is confined to the lands included in the mandate of the person appointed to it. Third: the emirate of seizure encompasses both ordinary and exceptional matters within its purview, whereas the emirate of istikfaʾ is confined to ordinary matters. Fourth: a minister of delegation may properly be appointed under the emirate of seizure, but not under the emirate of istikfaʾ. This is so that there may be a distinction in administrative authority between the seizure-holder and his minister: the minister’s authority is limited to ordinary matters, while the seizure-holder may address both exceptional and ordinary matters. Since the emirate of istikfaʾ itself is limited to ordinary matters, a ministry possessing the same authority over such matters cannot properly coexist with it, for the respective positions of the minister and the person who appoints him would then be indistinguishable.