those who permit kingship without qualification, without adhering to the practice of the caliphs, as do tyrants, antinomians, and certain members of the Murji’ah. This is a sound distinction, whose full explanation will follow.

The matter may be precisely stated as follows: the transition from the prophetic caliphate to kingship may result from people’s inability to maintain the prophetic caliphate, from legitimate independent judgment, or occur despite their having the requisite knowledge and practical ability. If it results from a lack of knowledge or practical ability, the king is excused, even though the prophetic caliphate is obligatory when one has the ability to maintain it. Other obligations likewise cease to apply when one is unable to fulfil them. Such was the situation of al-Najāshī when he embraced Islam but could not openly profess it among his people. Indeed, the situation of Joseph the truthful resembles this in certain respects. Kingship, however, was permissible for some prophets, such as David, Solomon, and Joseph.

If the requisite knowledge and practical ability are present, and it is supposed that the prophetic caliphate is recommended rather than obligatory, and that choosing kingship is permissible under our revealed law just as it was under other revealed laws, then—assuming this supposition is correct—the just king likewise bears no sin.

Judge Abū Ya‘lā mentioned this argument in al-Mu‘tamad when discussing the legitimacy of Mu‘āwiyah’s caliphate. He based it on the clear evidence of his Islam, uprightness, and good conduct, and on the fact that his leadership was established after Ali’s death, when al-Hasan conferred it upon him. That year was called “the Year of Unity.” He also cited the hadith of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd: “The millstone of Islam turns at the end of five