The aforementioned are the contractual conditions necessary for the Khaleefah to be appointed. Any other condition, apart from the seven mentioned above, does not constitute a necessary prerequisite for contracting the Khilafah. Such conditions however, constitute conditions of preference if the texts relating to them are confirmed, or if they are listed under a rule that has been confirmed by a sound (Sahih) text. In order for the condition to be a contractual one it should have evidence that includes a decisive command (Talab Jazim) to indicate that it is obligatory. If the evidence does not include a decisive command then the condition becomes only one of preference. No evidence containing a decisive command has been found except for those seven conditions; therefore they alone constitute the contractual conditions. As for the other conditions, whereby a rule has been confirmed as sound, these would constitute conditions of preference only. Therefore, the stipulation that the Khaleefah must be a Mujtahid is not a contractual condition because this has not been confirmed by a text indicating a decisive command. Moreover, the duty of the Khaleefah is to rule, so He is not in need of his own Ijtihad, as He could ask about a verdict or follow the opinions of a Mujtahid and adopt opinions on the basis of his imitation (Taqlid), thus it is not necessary for him to be a Mujtahid. It is, however, preferable for him to be so, but if He is not his Khilafah would still be contracted. The Khaleefah does not have to be brave, nor a shrewd politician or an expert in managing the affairs of the people because there are no evidences to back these conditions, nor do they come under a divine rule that makes them contractual conditions. It is, however, preferable for the Khaleefah to be brave with vision and opinion . The Khaleefah does not also necessarily have to be from Quraysh. As for what has been reported by Al-Bukhari from Mu’awiya that He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

“Verily this matter is within Quraysh. As long as they implemented the Deen, if anyone were hostile to them, Allah would throw him on his face.” And what Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Ibnu ‘Umar that He said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“This matter would still be within Quraysh even if only two of them remained.” These and other Ahadith, proved sound and related to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) that the authority is amongst the people of Quraysh, they have actually come in an informative form and not an imperative one. Not one Hadith actually carries a command even though they carry a request. Such a request, however, is not a conclusive command because there is no evidence to qualify them for this. No Hadith has been linked to any connotation (Qareena) that makes it a conclusive command, which indicates that it is Mandub (desirable) and not obligatory. It is, therefore a condition of preference and not a contractual condition. As for Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) saying:

“if anyone were hostile to them, Allah would throw him on his face.” This indicates prohibition of being hostile to them and not confirmation to his saying:

“this matter is within Quraysh.” The Hadith says that the matter (ruling) is within them, and it then proceeds to forbid hostility to them. Besides, the word Quraysh is a name and not a description. In Shari’ah terminology it is known as a title. And the meaning derived from the title is never considered, because the title has no meaning (Mafhoom) at all. Therefore, the mention of Quraysh does not mean that the position of ruling cannot belong to other than Quraysh. So when Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said: “Verily this matter is within Quraysh...” and his saying:

“This matter would still be within Quraysh...” He (pbuh) did not mean that it is wrong for it (the ruling) to be in other than Quraysh. He (pbuh) meant that it is within Quraysh and, as well, it is valid to be in the hands of others who are not from Quraysh. Thus specifying the people of Quraysh as rulers does not necessarily mean that others are not valid to rule. Therefore, it is a condition of preference and not a contractual condition.

Indeed the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed ‘Abdullah Ibn Ruwahah, Zayd Ibnu Harith and Usama Ibnu Zayd to positions of authority and all three were not from Quraysh. Thus the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did appoint people from other than Quraysh to positions of ruling. In this phrase “this matter” (Amr), means the authority, i.e. the authority to rule, and this does not only apply to the post of Khilafah. The fact that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did appoint people from outside Quraysh in posts of authority indicates that authority is not exclusively confined to the people of Quraysh, and prevented from others. Therefore, the Ahadith have mentioned some of the people who are worthy of the Khilafah post, to indicate their preference and do not indicate that it is exclusively confined to them or prohibited for other than them.

The Khaleefah does not also have to be Hashemi or ‘Alawi because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed people who were not from Banu Hashim nor from Banu ‘Ali to positions of authority. When He (pbuh) went out to Tabuk, He appointed Muhammad Ibnu Maslama as Wali over Madina and He was neither a Hashemi nor ‘Alawi. He (pbuh) also appointed Mu’az Ibnu Jabal and ‘Amru Ibn al-‘A‘as over Yemen, neither were of the Hashemi or ‘Alawi. In any case, it has been definitely proven that the Muslims gave the Bay’ah to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and that ‘Ali gave the Bay’ah to the three of them despite the fact that they were not from Banu Hashim. The Sahabah did not object giving the Bay’ah to them, and it was not reported that anyone had actually objected giving Bay’ah to them, because they were not Hashemites or ‘Alawis. This is considered a consensus of the Sahabah, (Ijmaa’) including ‘Ali and Ibnu Abbas and Banu Hashim’s entire household, that the Khaleefah could be from other than a Hashemi or an ‘Alawi. As for the Ahadith expressing a preference of ‘Ali and the Messenger of Allah’s household, these do not indicate that the Khilafah can’t be contracted except to them, they rather indicate that they are more favourable to it.

The above clearly indicates that there is no evidence whatsoever stating that there are other contractual conditions apart from the seven previously outlined. Any other condition constitutes a condition of preference and not a contractual one if the text expressing such a condition has been proven genuine or such a condition has come under a rule (Hukm) derived from a sound text. Under Shari’ah law, what is required is the contractual condition for the Khilafah to be contracted to the Khaleefah. Apart from this, the Muslims will be told about it when the candidates are presented to them, so that they can elect the one whom they prefer. Any man whom the Muslims choose would be appointed Khaleefah if the contractual conditions were fulfilled regardless of the other conditions.