If he is a minor at the time of the designation, his designation is invalid. Although the imamate takes effect only after the death of the designator, its qualifications must nevertheless be considered at the time of the contract, just as we said regarding an executor: the qualifications required of him are considered at the time of the contract, even though his appointment becomes binding only upon death. If an absent person known to be alive is designated, this is valid, but remains suspended pending his arrival.
If the appointing imam dies while the designated person’s absence has become prolonged, and the Muslims are harmed by delaying the administration of affairs, the electors shall appoint a deputy, to whom they pledge allegiance as deputy, not as caliph. When the absent person arrives, the deputy’s office ends. If the caliph abdicates, whether because an excuse has arisen or because we hold that he may voluntarily abdicate, authority passes to his designated successor, and his abdication takes the place of his death.
If the caliph designates two or more successors without giving one precedence over the other, and the electors choose one of them after his death, this is valid. The precedent for this is the shūrā council. When the imam refers the succession to consultation among a number of people, the electors may not choose one of them during the lifetime of the designating imam unless he gives them permission, for he has the greater right by virtue of his imamate. If they fear that affairs will fall into disorder after his death, they should seek his permission. If he reaches a state of hopeless incapacity, the matter is to be reconsidered. If his authority is removed and he is deprived of the ability to exercise judgment, his status, with respect to the permissibility of choosing, is the same as it would be after his death.
May the caliph designate the electors, just as he designates successors? It has been said that this is permissible, because it is among the rights of his caliphate. By analogy, however, our school’s position is that it is impermissible, for two reasons. First, the matter depends on the choice of all the people of authority and influence. Second, the imamate of the designated successor is established after the caliph’s death through the choice of the people of that time.
If he says, “I have entrusted authority to so-and-so: if so-and-so dies before I do, or his condition changes, then the imam after him shall be so-and-so”—and names another person—this is valid, and constitutes a conditional designation of the latter. If the first remains sound until the death of the designator, he is the imam, not the second. But if he dies before the imam or his condition changes in one of three ways, then the second is the designated imam. Likewise, if he says, “If the second dies or his condition changes, then the caliph shall be so-and-so,” this is valid, and the succession follows that order.
The basis for this is what al-Dāraquṭnī narrated in al-Afrād through his chain of transmission. He said: When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ dispatched the troops to Muʾtah, he said, “Zayd ibn Ḥārithah is your commander. If Zayd is killed, then Jaʿfar; and if Jaʿfar is killed, then ʿAbdullah ibn Rawāḥah.”
Sayf also narrated through his chain of transmission: When ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, dispatched the army to Nahāwand, he said, “I have appointed Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān to remain in command until he reaches al-Nuʿmān ibn Muqarrin. I have written to al-Nuʿmān: If anything happens to you, command of the people belongs to Ḥudhayfah; and if anything happens to Ḥudhayfah, command of the people belongs to Nuʿaym ibn Muqarrin.”
It was also mentioned that Abū ʿUbayd designated a successor for the people, saying, “If I am killed, then Jabr will command the people; and if he is killed, then you are to follow …”