The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The Islamic State is the Khilafah as it is the position in which the one who supervises it possesses all the competence of ruling and authority, and adopts all the rules without exception. It is the general leadership over all Muslims in the world to implement all the Islamic Shar’a rules, by the thoughts it came with and the rules it legislated, and to carry the Islamic da’wah to the world, by informing them of Islam, calling them to it and jihad in the way of Allah. It is also known as the Imamah and the leadership over the believers. It is a human role not a divine one, which exists to implement the deen of Islam over human beings and to spread it among them. It is definitely not the Prophethood as the Prophethood and Messengership conotates to the Prophet or the Messenger the Shar’a from Allah (saw) via the means of revelation to deliver it to the people without paying attention to his implementing it. Allah (swt) says:

And:

And:

This is different from the Khilafah which is the implementation of Allah’s Shar’a upon human beings. It is not a condition upon the Prophet (saw) or Messenger (saw) to implement what Allah (swt) revealed to him in order to be a Messenger, rather the condition to become a Messenger or Prophet is that Allah reveals a Shar’a to him and commands him to convey it. Musa (as), Isa (as) and Ibrahim (as) were Prophets and Messengers though they did not implement the Shariah they came with nor were they rulers. Therefore the post of Prophethood and Messengership is not the post of Khilafah. Prophethood is a divine post which Allah gives to whomever He wills, while the Khilafah is a human post in which the Muslims pledge whomever they wish over them from among the Muslims. Our master Muhammad (saw) was a ruler who implemented the Shari’ah he came with, so he would be in charge of the Prophethood and Messengership while at the same time he would be in charge of the post of leadership of the Muslims in establishing the Islamic rules. Allah (swt) commanded him to rule just like He commanded him to convey the message as He said to him:

And:

Just like He (swt) said to him:

And:

And:

Except that when he was in charge of conveying the message by speech like conveying Allah’s saying:

or by action like the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, he would be decisive in conveying and command decisively to undertake the action; nor would he consult but would rather reject all opinion if he was advised anything different from what the revelation came with. And when he was asked of a rule for which no revelation had descended yet, he would keep silent and not reply until the revelation descended. Whereas when he would undertake an action he would consult people and act according to the opinion of experts or the opinion of the majority even where it differed from his opinion, and when he would judge between people he would not be decisive saying that what he judged with conformed with the reality rather he was judging according to what he heard of the evidence. When Surah Bara’ah was revealed, he (saw) commanded Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) to go meet Abu Bakr and commanded him to announce inculpability “Bara’ah to the people during the Hajj period. So he read it to them Arafah and went around to the people until he had conveyed it. When he signed the Treaty of Hudaybiyya he rejected the opinion of all the Sahabah (ra) and compelled his opinion upon them as it was revelation from Allah (swt). When Jabir asked him: “How should I judge over my wealth?", He did not answer him until the revelation descended with the rule. Al-Bukhari narrated via bin al-Munkadir who said:

This was in the undertaking of the burden of Prophethood and Messengership and conveying to the people, whereas in undertaking the burden of rule he would behave differently. In Uhud he collected the Muslims in the mosque, consulted over whether to fight inside Madinah or outside; the opinion of the majority was to fight outside while the Messenger’s opinion was to fight inside. He acted upon the majority opinion, left and fought outside Madinah. Similarly when he judged between people, he would warn them from causing him to judge for them against someone else’s due right. Al-Bukhari narrated from Umm Salamah about the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he heard a dispute at the door of his house so he went to them and said:

Similarly he narrated from him that he (saw) said:

This goes to indicate that he would undertake two roles: the position of Prophethood and Messengership, and the position of leading the Muslims in this world in establishing the Shari’ah of Allah (swt) which was revealed to him. He would dispose in undertaking each role according to what it required, so he would conduct one differently from the other. He took the pledge of the people in ruling, taking it from both women and men but not from young children who had not yet reached puberty, which emphasises that it was a pledge upon ruling not upon Prophethood. From here we find we find that Allah (swt) never censured him in anything to do with conveying the message or undertaking its burden, rather he would request him not to be troubled due to people’s failure to respond to him as the undertaking of the burden of the message was conveying alone; so there was no duty upon him except to convey. Allah (swt) said:

And:

And:

However Allah (swt) censured him over his undertaking of the burden of ruling in the actions he performed in implementing rules previously revealed to him and already conveyed. Allah (swt) censured him over doing something contrary to what was better. Allah (swt) said:

And:

All this is clear that the role of leading Muslims in the rule was different from the role of Prophethood. From this it becomes clear that the Khilafah, which is the general leadership over all Muslims in the world, is a human post not a divine one. Since it is a role which the Messenger (saw) used to be in charge of and he left it while obliging that a Muslim should take it over for him so that he takes the place of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and be his Khalifah in ruling but not in Prophethood. It is a Khilafah to the Messenger in leading the Muslims to implement the Islamic rules and conveying the message not in receiving revelation or taking a Shari’ah from Allah.

As for the Messenger (saw)’s infallibility, it comes from his being a Prophet not from his being a ruler. This is because infallibility is an obligatory attribute for all Prophets and Messengers, irrespective of whether they themselves were the ones to rule over people by their Shari’ah and implement it or whether they were merely restricted to conveying it without ruling with it or implementing it. Our master Musa (as), our master Isa (as) and our master Ibrahim (as) were infallible just like our master Muhammad (saw) was infallible as the infallibility is for Prophethood and the Message not the rule. As for his (saw) not doing any haram action during his undertaking the burden of ruling nor leaving any obligatory action, this came from his being infallible in relation to Prophethood and the Message not in relation to his being a ruler. So his (saw) undertaking the rule did not require his being characterised with infallibility, but practically he was infallible due to his being a Prophet and Messenger. Accordingly, he would undertake the rule in his description as a human being ruling over human beings. The Qur’an has come explicitly stating that he is a human being. Allah (swt) said:

Then it clarified distinguishing him from the rest of humanity (by saying):

The distinction from the rest of humanity is that he is revealed to i.e. in the Prophethood. Apart from that he is a human like the rest of mankind. So he is in the rule a human like other people so whoever becomes Khalifah after him would doubtless be a human being like the rest of the people since he is his Khalifah in the rule not in Prophethood or the Message. Therefore infallibility is not a condition for it since it is not one of the matters which require infallibility which is only required for Prophethood. He is a ruler, nothing else, so there is no place for requiring infallibility for those who are in charge of it. In fact, it is not allowed to require infallibility for the one undertaking it as infallibility is restricted to Prophets and it is not allowed for other than Prophets as its existence for the Prophet and Messenger (saw) is required for conveyance. So it is infallibility in conveyance and its acquirement in never performing a haram naturally follows the infallibility in conveyance as the infallibility in the latter cannot be complete save with the infallibility from performing haram. The matter which requires it is the conveyance, The Islamic Personality Vol 2 95

not the people’s belief or non-belief or the error in actions or its absence; rather the matter requiring it is the conveyance of the message, nothing else. This is because were he not made infallible from Allah (swt), it would be possible for him to conceal the message, add to or reduce in it, lie against Allah (by saying) what He had not said or made a mistake and convey other than what he had been commanded to convey. All this is negated in a message from Allah (swt) and negated in his being a Messenger who must be believed. Therefore it is inevitable that the Messenger be characterised with infallibility in conveying the message, so the infallibility from committing haram naturally comes due to this. Due to this, the scholars differed in respect to the infallibility of Prophets from committing haram; some said he is infallible from committing the greater sins (kabair) only and the small sins (saghair) are acceptable from him, while some said he is infallible from committing both greater and smaller sins. They said this according to whether the actions are consequent upon the completion of the conveyance or not. If the fulfilment of the conveyance is consequent upon them, then the infallibility in conveyance covers them such that the Prophet becomes infallible from (committing) them as the conveyance is not completed save with his being infallible from them. Whereas if the completion in conveyance is not consequent upon them, then the infallibility does not cover them so he is not infallible from them as the conveyance is accomplished without it. Accordingly there is no difference among the Muslims that the Messenger (saw) is not infallible in committing actions which are contrary to what is better, as the conveyance of the message is not dependant upon them. Thus the infallibility is specific to conveyance and therefore it does not exist except for Prophets and Messengers nor is it possible in anyone other than them.

Verily the evidence for infallibility is rational not textual as there has not come any Shari’ah texts, whether a clear text in the Qur’an or Hadith, upon the existence of infallibility for anyone whether the Prophets, the Messengers or others. As for Allah’s statement:

Its meaning is that He intends to remove from you any doubt and accusation. This ayah is a piece among three ayat. Allah (swt) said:

"O wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other woman. If you fear (Allah) then be not too complaisant of speech lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire but speak a speech (that is) just. And stay quietly in your houses and make not a dazzling display like that of the former times of ignorance, and establish prayer and give the zakat and obey Allah and His Messenger. Verily Allah only wishes to remove filth from you, O family of the house, and purify you completely. And remember what is recited in your homes of the signs of Allah and the Wisdom. Verily Allah is Courteous, All-Knowing" [TMQ 33:32-34].

There is no relationship between this ayah and infallibility in any way whatsoever. It is not possible to understand from His statement “to remove filth from you” i.e. to make you infallible. Rather the removing of filth is the removing of all dirt and the meaning here is metaphorical filth i.e. doubt and suspicion as is explicitly clear in the sentences before this sentence in the two ayat. The purification here is cleansing from doubt and suspicion because the meaning(s) of the word filth is material filth, metaphorical filth and even punishment as it has come in the Qur’an with these meanings. Allah (swt) said:

And:

In these two ayat, filth is metaphorical filth. And Allah (swt) said:

i.e. ritual impurity meaning physical filth. And Allah (swt) said:

So His statement in the ayah “to remove the filth from you” means to remove metaphorical filth i.e. suspicion. As for His saying: “And purify you completely” verily the word yutahirukum (to purify you) and the word purification never came with the meaning of infallibility, neither in the language, Qur’an or the Hadith. In the language, to purify (tahara) something purification (tatheera) means to remove impurity from it, and the woman is pure (tahir) from menstruation and (tahira) from impurity and defects, and (tahara) in the Shar’a is removing the (hadath). He (saw) said:

And it has come in the Qur’an with this meaning. Allah (swt) said:

And:

And:

i.e. from faults and also:

I.e from the impurity. The purification of the believers also came when Allah (swt) said:

All these texts specify that the meaning of the ayah is that Allah (swt) cleansed them from doubt and suspicion, and negates that its meaning is infallibility hence the ayah does not indicate infallibility.

Therefore there is no textual evidence for the existence of infallibility for anyone; there is only rational proof for it. The mind is what compels that there be infallibility in conveyance for the Prophet and Messenger as his being a Prophet and Messenger requires that he be infallible otherwise he cannot be a Prophet or Messenger. The mind is the one which compels that one not given the responsibility to convey a message from Allah (swt) is not allowed to be infallible as he is a human being, and his nature (fitra) with which Allah (swt) created him is that error and forgetfulness occur in him. And as long as he is not given responsibility with a message from Allah (swt), this means there is nothing which requires that he be infallible. If it is claimed that he is infallible, then this means that he is responsible with a message from Allah which is not permitted since there is no Prophet after Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw). Allah (swt) said:

Claiming infallibility means claiming Messengership since the Messenger is a conveyor from Allah, and there is within him due to his attributes as a human being the potential of error and misguidance in conveying from Allah, protecting the message of Allah from error and change in the conveyance requires that the Messenger be infallible from error and misguidance. For this reason alone, infallibility is an attribute of the Messenger and it alone requires infallibility. If it is claimed for anyone other than him while being known that the only matter requiring it is conveying the message from Allah then it is equivalent to claiming for this other person what requires infallibility and its cause i.e. conveying the message. Thus it would be claiming that he is responsible to convey a message from Allah (swt). Therefore it is not allowed to require infallibility for the Khalifah as requiring it means that he is responsible to convey a message from Allah (swt) thus requiring him to be infallible, and this is not permitted.

This makes it clear that the Khalifah is a human being who can make a mistake or be correct, and it is allowed to occur from him what occurs from any human being of neglect and forgetfulness, falsehood, treachery, sins as he is a human being and not a Prophet or Messenger. The Messenger (saw) informed that it is possible for the Imam to err, and he informed that it may occur from him what may cause people the hate him and curse him due to injustice, sins etc. He even informed that clear disbelief may occur from him. Muslim narrated: Zuhayr bin Harb related to me that Shababa related to us that Warqa related to me from Aby Zayyad from Al- ‘Araj from Abu Hurayray from the Prophet (saw) who said:

This means that the Imam is not infallible and it is possible for him to command other than the fear of Allah. Muslim also narrated: Uthman bin Abi Sheeba related to us that Jareer related to us from Al-‘Amash from Zayd bin Wahhab from Abdullah who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Muslim narrated: Ishaq bin Ibrahim Al-Handhalee related to us that Isa bin Yunus informed us that Al-Awza’i related to us from Zayd bin Yazid bin Jabir from Zareeq bin Hayyan from Muslim bin Qurta from ‘Awf bin Malik from the Messenger of Allah (saw) who said:

Al-Bukhari narrated: “Ismail related to us that Bin Wahhab related to me from Amru from Bukayr from Busr bin Said from Junada bin Abu Umayyah who said: We entered to ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit who was ill and we said: May Allah improve you. Relate to us a hadith which you heard from the Prophet by which Allah will help you. He said:

And from Aisha who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Tirmidhi narrated this hadith which is clear that the Imam can err, forget and sin. Despite that, the Messenger (saw) commanded to continue obeying him as long as he rules by Islam and clear disbelief has not occurred from him and he has not commanded with sin. After the news of the Messenger (saw) about the Khulafaa that there will be some which the Muslims will dislike yet he commanded obedience, is there after that any possibility of saying that the Khalifah must be infallible and that it is not permitted from him what is permitted from human beings? This is from the reality of the Khalifah in relation to the absence of the condition of infallibility, rather even the absence of permission to even make it a condition. However, those who said it is required that the Khalifah be infallible have presented evidences for their view, so we must examine and clarify what is within them. These evidences are summarised in four evidences:

1. The Imam stands in the position of the Messenger in preserving the Shari’ah , conveying and teaching it, supervising the citizens’ affairs, establishing justice among them, assisting the oppressed, establishing the mandatory Islamic punishments (hudood) and discretionary punishments (ta’zeer) and implementing Islam in the Shari’ah way. Therefore it is inevitable that he be infallible and pure from all evil, large or small, whether they occurred deliberately or through forgetfulness, from the beginning of his life to the end.

2. If sin is possible from the Imam, it will require an infallible Imam to prevent him from committing sins and erring. And if it is permitted for the second to err and perform sins, then it would require another infallible Imam to prevent this from him, and it would continue in this manner until the matter ends with an infallible Imam against whom it is not possible to commit sins or errors. Therefore there must be an infallible Imam.

3. The Imam is a divine post to protect the Shari’ah rule revealed with the objective to be followed and acted upon, not a rule of the people. Nor is the Shari’ah a law and constitution among the (normal) constitutions of government possible to be played with. So the Lord of the people whose matter is glorified would not entrust a ruler over the people except one who is infallible such that the people are at ease with him and the rules from him upon their truly being the rules of Allah (swt) without any doubt entering into it which would prevent acting upon or following them. This is not possible except with the infallibility of the ruler supervising the Shari’ah’s preservation as the fallible person due to the possibility of sin and error upon him cannot be depended upon nor can one be definite that what he leads the people to is the rule of Allah (swt) in that which is indefinite before the people. The objective is not his establishment to preserve some of the rules (while) not (preserving) other (rules), but rather all that came from the Prophet (saw) Thus there must be someone who knows all the rules and a protector for all of them to act according to them as long as there is a world; were there to be appointed one who knew (only) some of the rules, or upon whom sin and error is possible, his appointment would be contrary to the objective of responsibility i.e. obedience to and acting upon all that the Shari’ah came with which is known to remain until the Day of Judgement. Since contradiction of the objective is impossible from the All-Wise (swt), then appointing one who is fallible or knowing only some of the rules is impossible.

4. The texts came indicating the obligation that the Khalifah be infallible. There are Qur’anic ayat which came announcing this which is clear from three ayat.

a) Allah (swt) says:

The statement from Allah (swt) is an evidence upon the obligation of an infallible Imam who is a protector of Shari’ah. This ayah is in Surah Al-Baqarah. Allah (swt) said:

The words making him are those making him an Imam as the ayah coming after this ayah give sense to. When Ibrahim heard Allah’s statement:

And saw the greatness of this honourable post; he hoped that his descendants would have a share of it. So Allah (swt) said:

Its meaning is that this post will not be given to someone who is blemished or will become stained with injustice, which is more general than whether this one is unjust to his own soul or someone else even if only for a short time in his life. Rather it is given to someone who does not do any injustice in his life.

b) Allah (swt) said:

This is an evidence for the obligation of the infallibility of the Imam as he guides to the truth, and the one from whom an error is possible does not guide to it though it may happen that he achieves the truth.

c) Allah (swt) said:

This ayah is an evidence for the infallibility of those in authority i.e. infallibility of the Imam, because Allah (swt) commanded the obedience of those in authority in an unrestricted manner without specifying the obedience for a specific or period. This requires that the obeyed one is infallible as a fallible one can command with sin and error. If his obedience was obliged while this is (his) situation though it is forbidden, this obliges that the Lord whose matter is glorified has commanded to combine two opposites or contradictory matters which is impossible. The obeyed one must be infallible. Also, Allah (swt) linked obedience to those in authority with obedience to the Messenger (saw) whose obedience is linked to His (swt) obedience which requires exaltation. Those meant in authority here are the infallible Imams. These are the evidences of those who say that it is a condition that the Imam be infallible. The response to each one of this is summarised in the following:

Firstly: The Khalifah takes the place of the Messenger in rule by implementing the Shari’ah not conveying it from Allah (swt); he is his (saw) Khalifah in rule not in conveying from Allah (swt). This does not require from him that he be infallible as the office of rule does not require infallibility, whether rationally or by Shari’ah. True, there are some attributes required for the Khalifah which are: Islam, being a man, being free (not a slave), maturity (i.e. having attained puberty), sanity, uprightness and ability. Each one of these attributes has been required based upon evidence(s) the Shari’ah came with. However, requiring these conditions does not mean that the Khalifah is infallible from contradicting them; rather they mean that the one who is in charge of this post is obliged to have these attributes when he is appointed to it not that he is infallible from losing them. It is possible for him to lose them upon which either he deserves removal or he leaves the Khilafah (i.e. he no longer remains the Khalifah). Requiring these attributes from the Khalifah is like requiring justice from the witness in relation to his description with it in order to accept his testimony; this does not mean requiring him to be infallible from contradicting it. Therefore the Khalifah’s standing in the Prophet’s place in rule is not evidence that he must be infallible. As for conveying the Shari’ah by the Muslims, it is not conveying it from Allah (swt). Rather it is performing what Allah (swt) demanded from the Muslims to carry the da’wah to mankind, to teach them the thoughts of Islam and its laws and it cannot ever mean anything other than that. It is not conveyance from Allah (swt); rather it is one of the responsibilities which the Messenger (saw) came with and it is not like the conveyance of the Messenger (saw) from Allah (swt). Therefore it does not require infallibility; performing it is like performing the other Shari’ah responsibilities. It is not obliged upon the Khalifah in his capacity as Khalifah; rather it is obligatory upon every Muslim who knows the Shari’ah. The Khalifah is commanded to convey the Shari’ah in his capacity as a Muslim; this is in his capacity as a scholar if he is one, as conveying is obligatory upon the Muslim knowledgeable in the Shari’ah in what he knows. Infallibility is not obligatory upon the conveyors nor is it a condition for them. As for carrying the Islamic da’wah obliged upon the Khalifah in his capacity as Khalifah, this is obliged upon him in his capacity as a ruler in whose hands is the authority. It is obliged upon him to carry it via a specific method i.e. jihad, which does not require infallibility. Rather there is no place for requiring it.

Secondly: The Khalifah does not, when he sins require an Imam to prevent him from committing sins, rather he requires an Ummah that will account him and change it or him. The Messenger (saw) clarified that the Ummah will account him and requested it to reject (any munkar) from him; he made the one who is pleased with him and follows him upon his sin responsible before Allah. Muslim narrated: Both Abu Ghassan Al-Masma’iy and Muhammad bin Bishar from Mu’adh (with the words being from Abu Ghassan) who related to us (i.e. bin Hisham Al-Dastawai) that my father related to me from Qatadah that Al-Hassan related to us from Dhubbat bin Mahsin Al-‘Anziyy from Umm Salamah, wife of the Prophet (saw), from the Prophet (saw) who said:

Through this the Shar’a clarified the method to prevent the Khalifah form committing sins. It is not via the existence of an Imam who prevents him but rather the Ummah does that. The one who says that the Khalifah requires another Khalifah to prevent him from committing sins does not understand what ruling means and he does not have a vision of it because the Khalifah does not prevent another Khalifah but rather he fights him over for the rule. Or he follows him, thereby becoming a governor or Wali not the Khalifah, or he fights him for rebellion. So how can one imagine that a Khalifah prevents another Khalifah from committing sins?

Thirdly: The Imamah is not a divine post but a human one. It does not exist to protect the Shari’ah rule but rather to implement the Shari’ah which Allah (swt) revealed to our master Muhammad (saw). As for the protection of the Shari’ah, verily Allah (swt) guarantees to protect it when He (swt) guarantees to protect the Qur’an. Allah (swt) said:

The objective in establishing the Khalifah is not that he is appointed to protect all that the Prophet (saw) came with such that it is said that it is obligatory for him to know all the rules and be a protector for all of them. Rather the objective in establishing him is to establish the rules of the Book and Sunnah i.e. to implement Islam and carry its da’wah to the world which does not require from him to know all the rules and protect all of them. Therefore it is not required for him to be infallible so accordingly appointing him does not neccesarily mean contradicting the objective for which he was appointed. As for the people’s trust in him such that they take all rules from him as the rules of Allah (swt) in reality without any doubt which prevents acting upon and following them, this does not come from the Khalifah being infallible or fallible. Rather it comes from the evidence of the rule itself; if it is a Shari’ah evidence and has been deduced by a Shari’ah deduction, the people will trust that this rule is a Shari’ah rule and no doubt will enter into them in this situation preventing them from acting upon and following it without looking to who the Khalifah is, even if he himself differs from the rule they deduced. This is because a difference of opinion in deduction does not make a rule legitimate before a mujtahid and illegitimate before another. Rather it is a Shari’ah rule before all Muslims as long as there is (even) obscure evidence (shubha daleel) from the Shari’ah evidence before the deducer of the rule and it is possible according to the linguistic and Shari’ah knowledge's that one can deduce this type of deduction. As for his being fallible due to the possibility of sin and error upon him leading to lack of trust in him, and that one is not definite that what he leads to is the law of Allah (swt), the issue here is one of the rule and the ruler i.e. the rule he rules by and arrives at and the ruler who rules and arrives at. The trust sought is not whether the ruler arrives at Allah’s (swt) law or whether he rules by it or not. The consideration is only in the rule which he rules by and adopts in relation to it being an Islamic law or not. It is not in relation to the person who gives it as to whether he is infallible or not. That which makes the people implicitly trust the rule so as to prevent doubt entering into it which would prevent them from acting upon or following it is their consideration of the rule itself as to whether it is legitimate or not. It does not depend on whether the Khalifah from whom they take the rule is infallible or not.

Moreover as for the post of the Khalifah, the Lord of the Worlds does not appoint a Khalifah for His Messenger nor does the Messenger appoint a Khalifah for himself. Rather, the Muslims appoint a Khalifah over themselves whom they pledge upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). The evidence for this is the ahadith of the pledge, and their coming in general texts and their ascription to an unrestricted Imam not a specific one. Similarly the evidence for that are the general responsibilities upon the Khalifah in his relation with the Ummah. Therefore the post of Khalifah does not require infallibility in any way whatsoever.

Fourthly: As for the texts which came as evidence for the requirement of infallibility, there does not exist in them even one text which is related to infallibility. As for the first evidence which is the ayah:

The word Imam therein does not mean the Khilafah or the rule. The word Imam came in the Glorious Qur'an in many ayat. Allah (swt) said:

And:

The meaning of the word Imam in these two ayat is a guide. Imam Al-Bukhari said: “The statement of Allah (swt):

He said: Leaders who follow those before us and are followed by those after us.” The word Imam in Allah’s statement:

The meaning here is Prophethood and example as the ayat which are after it discuss about the Ka’abah, the people of Ismail then the granting of Prophethood to Ibrahim so the meaning becomes: We made you an Imam whom the people imitate and a Prophet whom people follow. It is not possible that the word Imam here means the Khilafah or rule, especially since Ibrahim was never in charge of the rule nor was he a ruler but was a Prophet and Messenger. So Allah (swt) said to him that this post which is the example and Prophethood is not for oppressors when he requested from Him (swt) to ordain for his descendants what He ordained for him. So there is no evidence in the ayah for the infallibility of the Khalifah. Moreover, the opposite meaning for the word oppressors is trustworthy not infallible persons. So those who are not oppressors does not mean that they are infallible; rather it means those who are characterised with the absence of oppression which is justice. As for the second text which is the ayah:

Its meaning and Allah (swt) knows best is: Is the one who is following the guidance i.e. the Messenger (swt) more worthy to be followed or the one who is misguided nor does he guide except if another guides him. The whole subject is guidance and following the guide, and it has no relationship with the rule or Khilafah. The Imam rules the people and his duty is ruling not guidance; he punishes the misguided and disobedient persons, and fights the disbelievers. The word guide is not used here except for the Messenger. The meaning does not apply upon the Khalifah, and there is no relationship between this ayah and Khalifah’s infallibility. Is the rule guidance or the implementation of the Shari’ah ?

As for the third text which is the ayah:

It is the command to obey those in authority, and linking this with obedience to Allah (swt) and obedience to the Messenger (saw). It is evidence that its rule is like the rule of obeying Him (swt) and obeying the Messenger (saw), nothing else. It came in practice generally within the ayah; it is, however, specified by other ayat and numerous ahadith. It was specified by those ayat and ahadith related to obedience in other than sin and other than disbelief; and it did not stop there but rather commanded fighting the Imam. The specifying ayat and ahadith are explicit upon this. Allah (swt) said:

And:

And:

And:

And:

The speech to the Messenger (saw) is the speech to his Ummah as long as there came no evidence that it is specific for him and among his specificities; no evidence came here that it is specific for him so it is a speech to his Ummah. Al-Bukhari narrated from Nafi’ from Abdullah (ra) from the Prophet (saw) who said:

And he (saw) said in the matter of obeying the Khalifahs and leaders according to what Muslim narrated:

He also narrated:

And Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated:

These ayat and ahadith specify the obedience to the Khalifah for other than sin or disbelief. Therefore the statement does not come that the fallible can command with sin and error such that if his obedience is obliged this would necessarily mean that Allah (swt) has commanded the joining between two contradictory matters by commanding obedience to the Khalifah and prohibiting sins. This statement does not come because there does not exist the joining between two contradictory matters as He commands obedience in other that sin and disbelief, commands with non-obedience in sin and disbelief, and commands the prohibition of sins. So there is no contradiction in His commands (swt) in this issue. This clarifies that this ayah is not suitable as evidence upon the requirement of infallibility so such deduction by it fails.

These are the evidences of those stating (the requirement) of infallibility. Each one of them has fallen from the rank of deduction and is not suitable as proof. Therefore from this it is clarified that it is not required from the Khalifah that he be infallible rather it is not allowed to entail this and that the Khilafah is a human post not a divine one. Thus the Islamic State is a human state and not a Theocratic state.