seeking it is not disliked, because the people of consultation competed for it. How, then, are we to resolve their competing claims when their qualifications are equal? By analogy with Ahmad’s position, lots should be drawn between them, and allegiance should be pledged to whichever of them is chosen by lot. For he said, in a report transmitted by ʿAbdullah—concerning a mosque in which two men disputed over calling the prayer—that lots should be drawn between them, citing the practice of Saʿd. The wording of the hadith, as al-Akbari transmitted with his chain of transmission from Ibn Shibrimah, is: “The people vied with one another over calling the prayer on the day of al-Qadisiyyah, so Saʿd drew lots among them.” He also transmitted, with his chain of transmission from Abu Hurayrah, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “If people knew the merit of the call to prayer and the first row, and then found no way to secure them except by drawing lots, they would draw lots.”
The form of the contract is for them to say: “We pledge allegiance to you with a mutually accepted pledge: to establish justice, uphold fairness, and fulfill the duties of the imamate.” No handclasp is required in addition to this. It is not permissible to contract the imamate for two imams in two lands at the same time.
If the imamate is contracted for two men who both possess the requisite qualifications, the matter must be examined. If they are appointed through a single contract, the contract is invalid with respect to both of them. If each is appointed through a separate contract, then if it is known which of them was appointed first, the second contract is invalid. If it is unknown which of them was appointed first, the ruling follows one of two narrations: according to one, both contracts are invalid; according to the other, lots are drawn. This is based on the case in which two guardians give a woman in marriage and it is unknown which of them acted first; that matter is likewise subject to two narrations.
The imam may designate a successor, and he does not need the testimony of the people of authority and influence for this. Abu Bakr designated Umar, and Umar designated six of the Companions, and neither of them required the testimony of the people of authority and influence at the time of the designation. Moreover, an imam’s designation of another is not itself a contract conferring the imamate. Were it a contract, it would result in two imams existing in the same era, and this is impermissible. Since it is not a contract, their presence is not required; rather, the designation becomes effective after the death of the imam who made it.
If he designates a man, he may remove him before his own death, since, as we have explained, the imamate of the designated person is not established so long as the designating imam remains alive and in office. Since it is not yet established, he may remove him from it, just as a testator may remove an executor, because a bequest is not binding so long as the testator is alive.
He may also designate someone related to him as a father or son, provided that the designated person possesses the qualifications of the imams. This is because the imamate is not established for the designated person by the designation itself; rather, it is established through the pledge of the Muslims, and the suspicion of favoritism is thereby removed. The designated person’s acceptance is required, and that acceptance takes place after the death of the appointing imam, because his imamate is then established. The conditions of the imamate must be present in the designated person at the time of his designation and must continue to be present until after the death of the appointing imam.