So, if a man is both strong and trustworthy, these are the very qualities that entitle him to be an amir. But if he is strong without being trustworthy, or trustworthy but not strong, or weak and untrustworthy at the same time, none of these three states qualify him for leadership. Still, we must remember that matters are determined by the extent of the need. If the only candidates available are a weak leader or one who lacks trustworthiness, and no one else on the scene possesses the full set of qualities, then the office is given to the best available person—one after another in descending order—because affairs must not be left without a leader. People need a governor, a judge, and someone to handle their collective interests. Thus, whenever it is possible to find someone who meets the conditions completely, appointing him is obligatory; but if such a person cannot be found, the most suitable candidate is chosen, in light of Allah’s statement, “So be mindful of Allah as much as you are able” (Q 64:16).

Scholarly opinions diverge when two men stand before us: one is trustworthy but lacks strength, and the other is strong but not trustworthy. Each is flawed in one respect, yet in the sphere of governance the strong man is preferred, even though his trustworthiness is wanting, because a strong person may become trustworthy, whereas weakness is a natural disposition that seldom changes. Accordingly, if we face two men—one weak yet trustworthy, the other strong yet deficient in trustworthiness—we appoint the strong one, for this is of greater benefit to the people. They need authority and power; if there is no strength, especially when religious commitment is weak, society’s affairs will collapse.