Moreover, the fact that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was distressed at kingship following the prophetic caliphate indicates that it entails neglecting some obligatory part of the religion. Those who permit kingship may invoke texts such as his statement to Mu‘āwiyah, “If you become a king, rule well,” and similar reports. This argument, however, is open to question.

It is also argued that, when Umar visited Syria, he acquiesced in the royal pomp he observed around Mu‘āwiyah after the latter explained its benefit to him. Umar said, “I neither command you nor forbid you.” It may be said in response that Umar did not forbid him, but neither did he authorize him to do this: Mu‘āwiyah explained why it was needed, but Umar was not convinced of that need. The matter was therefore, broadly speaking, open to independent judgment.

There are thus two moderate positions: either that the caliphate is obligatory and departure from it is permissible only to the extent required by need; or that one may accept from kingship what facilitates, rather than hinders, the fulfilment of the purpose of governance. Whatever is required to bring that purpose within reach must be permitted. As for kingship, whether it should be obligatory or recommended is a matter for independent judgment.

There are two extremes here. The first consists of those who insist upon this in every circumstance and age, and for everyone, condemning anyone who departs from it, whether without qualification or because of a need. Such is the position of the people of innovation among the Khawārij and Mu‘tazilah, and certain groups who profess adherence to the Sunnah and asceticism.

The second: