An example of this is a ruler who has two men available to him and knows that if he appoints one of them, that man will be obeyed, conquer lands, conduct jihad, and subdue the enemy; but if he appoints the other, that man will not be obeyed or conquer any land whatsoever. Instead, turmoil and corruption will arise among the subjects. Every rational person knows [that he ought] (1) to appoint the man whose appointment he knows will bring about good and benefit, not one who, if appointed, will not be obeyed and between whom and the subjects war and turmoil will arise.

How, then, when Allah and His Messenger knew what the rule of the three would be like and what benefits it would bring the Muslim community in its religion and worldly affairs, could no explicit designation be made in their favor, while one was made in favor of a man who would not be obeyed, but would instead be fought and opposed until he was unable either to subdue the enemies or to set the affairs of his supporters aright? Would anyone who explicitly designated this man rather than the other be anything but ignorant, if he did not know what would happen, or an unjust corrupter, if he knew and nevertheless made that designation?

Allah and His Messenger are wholly innocent of ignorance and injustice, yet they attribute to Allah and His Messenger the abandonment of what serves His servants’ welfare in favor of what brings nothing but corruption.

If it is said:

“The corruption resulted from their disobedience to him (2), not (3) from any failing on his part,”

it is answered:

“Is it not better to appoint someone whom they will obey, so that the benefit is secured (4), than to appoint someone whom they will disobey, so that no benefit is secured but harm results instead?”

If a man had a son and there were two tutors, such that if he entrusted him to one of them, the boy would acquire good manners