or through benevolence and incentives. In reality, both are indispensable.

One scholar was asked: “If the only candidates available for judicial appointment are a learned but morally corrupt man and a devout man lacking knowledge, which should be preferred?”

He replied: “If the need for religious integrity is greater because corruption is widespread, the devout man should be preferred. If the need for knowledge is greater because the cases are difficult to resolve, the learned man should be preferred.”

Most scholars give preference to the person of religious integrity, for the leading scholars agree that the appointee must be upright and qualified to give testimony. They differ, however, over the requirement of knowledge. Must he be qualified to exercise independent legal reasoning? May he instead follow the legal opinions of others? Or is the obligation to appoint the best available candidate, then the next best, as circumstances permit? These are three positions. This matter has been discussed at length elsewhere.

Although necessity permits appointing someone who does not meet the qualifications when he is the best available candidate, one must nevertheless genuinely strive to improve conditions, so that people possess all that they need in matters of public office, leadership, and the like. Similarly, an insolvent debtor must strive to repay his debt, even though, for the time being, he is required to do only what he can. Likewise, preparations for jihad must be made by mustering strength and keeping horses ready, even when incapacity suspends the obligation to fight. Whatever is indispensable to fulfilling an obligation is itself obligatory. This differs from acquiring the means to perform Hajj and similar conditions: one is not required to acquire them, because the obligation itself arises only when they are present.