—that is, following his appointment of a successor—his release is then considered: if it occurs after hope of his release has been abandoned, he does not return to the imamate, since abandoning hope of his release removed him from it, and the imamate has become established in his designated successor. If he is freed before hope of his release is abandoned, he remains imam, and the designation of his successor remains valid.

If he is held captive by Muslim rebels, then if hope remains that he will be freed, he remains imam. If no hope remains, the rebels must be considered: if they have not appointed an imam for themselves, the captive imam in their hands remains imam over them, because their pledge of allegiance to him is binding upon them and obedience to him is obligatory for them. His being among them is therefore like his being among the people of justice when he is placed under restraint. Those vested with the right to choose must appoint an administrator on his behalf to act in his stead if he is unable to appoint one; but if he is able to do so, he has the greater right to choose from among them whom he will appoint as his deputy.

If the person so charged relinquishes office or dies, the person appointed as his deputy does not become imam, because this is a deputyship from an existing person and therefore ends when he is gone. This differs from the designated successor: that is an authority succeeding a missing person, and it is not established while he is present. Hence the two cases differ.

If the rebels have appointed an imam for themselves, they pledge allegiance to him and submit to obeying him. The captive imam in their hands is then removed from the imamate once hope of his release has been abandoned, because they have withdrawn into a territory whose rule has become separate from that of the community and have thereby departed from obedience. The people of justice can no longer aid him against them, nor can a captive held among them exercise authority. Those vested with the right to choose in the territory of justice must conclude the imamate contract for whomever they approve. If the captive later escapes, he does not return to the imamate, since he had already left it.

If the person chosen is the best of the community and they pledge allegiance to him, but someone superior to him subsequently emerges, it is not permissible to turn away from him in favor of the superior. Even at the outset, it would not be permissible to pass over the superior without an excuse. If there is an excuse—such as the superior’s being absent or ill, or the less excellent candidate’s being more readily obeyed by the people—it is permissible.

The imamate is established in one of two ways: first, through the selection of the people of authority and influence; and second, through the designation made earlier by the previous imam. As for its establishment through the selection of the people of authority and influence, it is not established except through the majority of them. Ahmad said, according to the report of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim: “The imam is the one upon whom all the people of authority and influence agree.” He says, “This is an imam.” The apparent meaning of this is that the imamate is established by their collective agreement.

Another report from him indicates that it is established through coercive force and dominance, and does not require a contract. In the report of Abdus ibn Malik al-Attar, he said: “Whoever gains power over them by the sword, until he becomes caliph and is called Commander of the Believers, it is not permissible for anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day to go to bed without recognizing him as imam, whether he is righteous or wicked.”

He also said, in the report of Abu al-Harith, concerning an imam against whom a claimant to power rises, with some people supporting one and some supporting the other: “The Friday prayer is with the one who prevails.” He cited Ibn Umar’s leading the people of Medina in prayer during the time of al-Harrah. He said, “We are with the one who prevails.”

The basis of the first report is that when the Muhajirun and the Ansar differed, the Ansar said, “From us.”