يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority among you. And if you dispute concerning anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you have faith in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more favorable in outcome – [4:59]
Verse 59 of Surah al-Nisa is often cited in support of the foundational belief of Shia Islam – The Quranic obligation to obey an infallible leader. It is claimed that the Shia ideology of Imamah after prophethood can be proved directly from this verse without recourse to external evidence. In this article we will examine some of these claims and present counter claims to them. At the end of the discussion we will provide our opinion on the matter.
Let us discuss individual claims point by point:
Claim 1: The order to “obey” appears without a qualifier – Therefore, it implies absolute and unconditional obedience. This means that obedience to the Ulu al-Amr must also be unconditional.
Some commentators have argued that Allah does not say “obey the Ulu al-Amr only if they are righteous” or “only when they act justly”; rather the order is absolute. Therefore this commands their unquestionable obedience (implying infallibility).
Counter argument: The Quran frequently gives “absolute” orders without linguistic qualifiers. But conditions are still implied and are understood from the context of the verse, other verses, or by other guiding principles (such as the intellect, or jurisprudence).
The claim that obedience to the Ulu al-Amr must be unconditional simply because the command appears without qualification assumes that every general command in the Quran is meant to be absolute. However, this is not how the Quran is normally understood. Many Quranic commands are stated in general terms, while their limits and conditions are clarified elsewhere through other verses, the Prophet’s teachings, reason, or context. Therefore, the absence of an explicit qualifier in 4:59 is not enough, by itself, to prove either unconditional obedience to the Ulu al-Amr or their infallibility.
At another place we read:
وَلَا تُطِيعُوا أَمْرَ الْمُسْرِفِينَ
And do not obey the orders of the transgressors [26:151]
There are two ways to view this. From the Shia perspective, Allah forbids obedience of transgressors but commands it in 4:59. This proves that the Ulu al-Amr never transgress and are thus infallible.
A Sunni on the other hand could interpret 26:151 as a qualifier to 4:59. In other words, when read together, the two verses imply ” Obey the Ulu al-Amr but not if they transgress”.
Claim 2 – The command to “obey” occurs twice : Once for Allah and once for the messenger and the “Ulu al-Amr”. This implies that obedience to the messenger and those in authority is of the “same level”.
This claim alludes to the notion of Imamah being an extension of prophethood – A separate order to “obey” the Ulu al-Amr does not appear in the verse. Therefore, the Ulu al-Amr must be obeyed absolutely, like the prophet.
Counter argument: A single use of “obey” does not indicate an extension of prophethood; rather it indicates a hierarchy. The prophet is more deserving of obedience than the Ulu al-Amr hence he is mentioned first.
The Quran frequently issues one command, followed by a sequence of entities to which the command applies. The sequence is relevant because it determines priority. For example:
وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ وَالْمِسْكِينَ وَابْنَ السَّبِيلِ وَلَا تُبَذِّرْ تَبْذِيرًا
Give the relatives their [due] right, and the needy and the traveler [as well], but do not squander wastefully.
A single order to “Give” is applied to the relatives, the needy, and the traveler. But the sequence indicates who is more worthy of receiving. The “giving” here is not understood as being on the same level for each group.
Such sequencing is seen repeatedly and abundantly in the holy Quran – so much so that it can be recognized as part of the eloquence of the words of Allah. Here is an example to further demonstrate this point:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ
Allah commands justice and kindness [16:90]
“Justice” appears before “Kindness” to indicate its higher priority. A single verb, “commands” is used, but the level to which the command applies is vastly different for justice and kindness – Showing kindness is optional (though preferred) but injustice is never tolerable. Being just is obligatory, absolute and unconditional, while showing kindness can be circumstantial. This analogy is not perfect, but it demonstrates a broader Quranic pattern: shared grammatical structure does not necessarily imply identical legal weight.
Therefore, a similar case may be made for the order to obey the Messenger and Ulu al-Amr. The prophet’s obedience is unconditional but the same may not be true for the Ulu al-Amr.
Claim 3: Allah would never order the Muslims to obey someone fallible. There is a contradiction between the forbidding of evil and commanding obedience to the sinful. Hence, the Ulu al-Amr must be infallible.
We have already discussed that we do not have to assume that the verse commands absolute obedience – But even if we assume that, it does not establish infallibility (including being free from error, as is claimed for the prophet and the Imams) of the one in authority.
Counter argument: The command for absolute obedience does not necessarily imply infallibility of the one in authority.
There are several situations where we know that a person issuing an order has erred but we still must obey the command. Take the example of the Judge of an Islamic state issuing a ruling. Even if you know that the judge has made an error in judgement, one is bound by that order and cannot object to it.
There is a well-known story regarding Imam Ali, while he was the caliph, and a Jewish man who falsely claimed ownership of Ali’s shield. The judge dismissed the court case in favor of the man. The Imam knew that the judge is mistaken and giving a “false” order, yet he submitted to it (the Jewish man was surprised and himself returned the shield).
Even Imam Ali, when acting as a private citizen before a judge, submitted to a ruling he knew to be erroneous. This illustrates that in Islamic governance, the execution of a command does not require the commander to be infallible—only that the system of justice is respected.
Therefore, while we must not obey clear transgressors, the command to obey those in authority absolutely, does not necessitate their infallibility.
Another counter argument: The second part of the verse excludes the Ulu Al-Amr. This significantly weakens the case for them to be infallible.
فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ
And if you dispute concerning anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you have faith in Allah and the Last Day [4:59]
The command to refer matters of dispute to Allah and the Messenger immediately after the command to obey Ulu al-Amr is striking.
Some commentators have attempted to restrict the nature of the disputes mentioned in the verse, suggesting, for example, that they refer to uncertainty among Muslims regarding the identity of the Ulu al-Amr. However, there is nothing in the text itself that supports such a limitation. On the contrary, the use of the word “شَيْءٍ” (“anything”) is especially noteworthy, as it places no restriction on either the subject matter of the dispute or the parties involved in it.
The natural implication is that disagreements may arise over any matter, including matters involving the Ulu al-Amr themselves. In such cases, the Quran instructs believers to refer the dispute back to Allah and the Messenger, who are presented as the ultimate authorities for resolving disagreement. This suggests that the Ulu al-Amr are not themselves the final and unquestionable source of judgment.
This reading poses a challenge to the interpretation that limits the Ulu al-Amr to the infallible Imams. Under the doctrine of infallibility, disputes with an Imam’s judgment would not be considered legitimate, nor would there be a need to refer such disputes to a higher authority. Yet the verse appears to present disagreements in the broadest possible terms and directs its resolution to Allah and the Messenger rather than to the Ulu al-Amr.
Claim 4: The Quran does order the believers to refer to Ulu al-Amr and the prophet in matters of dispute in another verse (4:83) . This upholds their authority, placing it on the same level as that of the prophet.
وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِّنَ الْأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُوا بِهِ ۖ وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَىٰ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ ۗ وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
When a report of safety or fear comes to them, they immediately broadcast it; but had they referred it to the Apostle and to those vested with authority among them, those of them who investigate would have ascertained it. And were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy, you would have surely followed Satan, [all] except a few. [4:83]
Counter argument: The verse should be viewed in context.
The immediate context of this verse pertains to incidents during the Prophet’s lifetime, when unverified reports and rumors were being circulated among the Muslims. The verse condemns the spread of such information and instructs believers to refer these matters to the Prophet and those vested with authority so that the truth may be properly determined.
The wording of the verse also suggests that “those in authority” referred to here were multiple individuals present during the Prophet’s time who held positions of authority and possessed the ability to investigate, evaluate, and clarify matters that were unclear or disputed.
The apparent meaning of the verse favors an interpretation where Ulu al-Amr are political leaders, heads of tribes or other individuals possessing the ability to resolve conflicts amicably.
Our Opinion on the nature of the Quranic text
A close examination of the Quranic text concerning Ulu al-Amr shows that it does not explicitly identify who they are or define their precise nature. In our assessment, both the mainstream Sunni and Shia interpretations can be accommodated within the apparent wording of the verse. However, the burden of proof rests on those who argue that Ulu al-Amr are infallible individuals and are therefore restricted to the Twelve Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt. Such a conclusion is not established by the Quranic text itself; rather, it must rely on evidence derived from sources external to the Quran, such as rational arguments or transmitted narrations.
Examining Narrations
Before engaging with the narrations, we wish to clarify that our aim is not to conduct a detailed examination of their chains of transmission (isnad) or to offer an exhaustive textual or historical critique. Having said this, the narrations cited herein are taken from sources that are generally highly regarded within the mainstream tradition and / or contain ideas that do not contradict well-established truth or the maxims of the Quran.
There is a well-known narration from the prophet, frequently cited by the Ahl al-Sunnah in support of their claim that obedience is conditional:
لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق
There is no obedience to the creation in (matters of) disobedience to the creator [1]
This narration appears in the Shia hadith corpus as well, with various chains of transmissions and in several flavors. One such narration is attributed to Imam Ali, where he describes this notion as a universal principle and includes himself and others in authority within its framework:
إِنَّهُ يَهْلِكُ فِيَّ مُحِبٌّ مُطْرٍ يُقَرِّظُنِي بِمَا لَيْسَ فِيَّ، وَ مُبْغِضٌ مُفْتَرٍ يَحْمِلُهُ شَنَآنِي عَلَى أَنْ يَبْهَتَنِي. أَلاَ وَ إِنِّي لَسْتُ نَبِيّاً وَ لاَ يُوحَى إِلَيَّ، وَ لَكِنْ أَعْمَلُ بِكِتَابِ اَللَّهِ
مَا اِسْتَطَعْتُ، فَمَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِهِ مِنْ طَاعَةٍ فَحَقٌّ عَلَيْكُمْ طَاعَتِي فِيمَا أَحْبَبْتُمْ وَ فِيمَا كَرِهْتُمْ، وَ مَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِهِ أَوْ غَيْرِي مِنْ مَعْصِيَةِ اَللَّهِ فَلاَ طَاعَةَ فِي اَلْمَعْصِيَةِ، اَلطَّاعَةُ فِي اَلْمَعْرُوفِ اَلطَّاعَةُ فِي اَلْمَعْرُوفِ
Indeed, (two kinds of people) will perish because of me: A loving one who goes to excess, praising me with what I do not possess, and a hateful one who fabricates lies about me, whose hatred drives him to slander me. Know that I am not a prophet, nor is revelation sent down to me. Rather, I act according to the Book of Allah to the best of my ability. So whatever I command you of obedience (to Allah), it is your duty to obey me in it, whether you like it or dislike it. And whatever I—or anyone else—command you that constitutes disobedience to Allah, then there is no obedience in disobedience. Obedience is only in what is right (al-maʿrūf). [3]
This narration supports the notion of conditional obedience to a ruler. Moreover, the description of the person in authority points to a fallible human being who is striving to uphold the principles of Islam.
Let us consider another tradition attributed to Imam al-Sadiq who quotes Imam Ali:
اِعْرِفُوا اَللَّهَ بِاللَّهِ وَ اَلرَّسُولَ بِالرِّسَالَةِ وَ أُولِي اَلْأَمْرِ بِالْأَمْرِ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَ اَلْعَدْلِ وَ اَلْإِحْسَانِ
Know God through God, the Messenger through the Message, and those in authority through enjoining what is good, justice, and kindness. [4]
This narration sheds light on the verse of obedience and outlines a general framework for recognizing the Ulu al-Amr—without restricting them to any particular designated group. Rather, it establishes clear criteria by which to distinguish rightful bearers of authority from false claimants. It seems to urge people to carefully evaluate the conduct of their rulers and to recognize them as legitimate only when they act justly. This perspective challenges the notion that the Ulu al-Amr are infallible, since fallible individuals are inherently incapable of scrutinizing or passing judgment on the actions of those who are considered beyond error.
However, we do come across several narrations in the Hadith corpus that specifically identify the Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt as the Ulu al-Amr. In one well-known tradition, Imam al-Sadiq is asked why the names of Ali and his family were not explicitly mentioned in the verse of obedience. He responds with an analogy, comparing the Quranic mention of Salah, Zakah, and Hajj—whose detailed explanations were left to the Prophet—to the mention of Ulu al-Amr. Just as the Prophet clarified the practical details of those acts of worship, he also explained that the Ulu al-Amr referred to in the verse were Ali, Hasan, and Husain. [5]
Mainstream Shia scholars use such narrations as evidence to argue that the designation of Ulu al-Amr is restricted to the infallible Imams. However, this notion appears to conflict with the understanding of Ulu al-Amr presented in the earlier narrations. In our assessment, a reconciliation between the two notions is not beyond reach, but before we lay out that perspective explicitly, it would be useful to first examine a key concept in Islamic theology: The Just Leader (الامام العادل).
The Just Leader (الامام العادل)
The need for the implementation of justice can be established solely by the intellect, without any recourse to the Quran or the narrations. Moreover, before we consult the narrations, the Quran itself verifies the intellect by stating that the establishment of justice is a human responsibility – It is not within the exclusive domain of the prophets or the Imams among the Ahl al-Bayt.
لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَنزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ
We have certainly sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, so that mankind may uphold justice. [57:25]
The prophets were sent so the people – as individuals and societies- would be able to establish justice – The responsibility is upon human beings to maintain their affairs with fairness. Additionally, the implementation of justice within communities and societies requires an enforcer — someone who would enforce the Islamic law. This is true universally and is not conditional on the physical presence of a prophet or an Imam who would implement the law.
When we turn to the narrations we find that the concept of a just leader / ruler is a recurring theme in the Shia Hadith Corpus. Both the Prophet and the Ahl al-Bayt have extensively elaborated on the duties involved in guiding a Muslim community, the esteemed position such a leader holds in the sight of Allah, and the associated rights and obligations. The depth and variety of these traditions, combined with the practical necessity of communal governance, suggest that this vision of leadership encompasses the broader public, rather than being reserved solely for a limited circle of infallible figures.
Let us examine some narrations on this topic:
Physical leadership is a reality:
The following is from Sermon 40 of Nahj-ul-Balagha – Imam Ali is reported to have mentioned this in the aftermath of battle of Siffin where the Muslims complained that the “Judgment is only from Allah”:
قَالَ عليه السلام: كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ يُرَادُ بِهَا بَاطِلٌ نَعَمْ إِنَّهُ لَا حُكْمَ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ وَ لَكِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ يَقُولُونَ لَا إِمْرَةَوَ إِنَّهُ لَا بُدَّ لِلنَّاسِ مِنْ أَمِيرٍ بَرٍّ أَوْ فَاجِرٍ يَعْمَلُ فِي إِمْرَتِهِ الْمُؤْمِنُ وَ يَسْتَمْتِعُ فِيهَا الْكَافِرُ وَ يُبَلِّغُ اللَّهُ فِيهَا الْأَجَلَ وَ يُجْمَعُ بِهِ الْفَيْ ءُ وَ يُقَاتَلُ بِهِ الْعَدُوُّ وَ تَأْمَنُ بِهِ السُّبُلُ وَ يُؤْخَذُ بِهِ لِلضَّعِيفِ مِنَ الْقَوِيِّ حَتَّى يَسْتَرِيحَ بَرٌّ وَ يُسْتَرَاحَ مِنْ فَاجِرٍ
He (peace be upon him) said: “A word of truth by which falsehood is intended. Yes, indeed, there is no judgment except for Allah, but these people say there is no authority. Yet people must have a ruler, whether righteous or wicked: the believer works under his rule, the unbeliever enjoys its benefits, Allah brings the appointed term to completion through him, the spoils of war are gathered by him, the enemy is fought with him, the roads are made secure by him, the weak are given their due from the strong through him—until the righteous one finds rest, and relief is gained from the wicked one.”
This narration clearly states the necessity of a ruler. Physical leadership is not relevant only during the time of the prophet or the Imam from the Ahl al-Bayt – It is a perpetual human necessity. In fact, this narration goes a step further by pointing to the natural order and stating that a leader must exist even if he is corrupt.
The merits of a just leader:
The prophet is reported to have said to Imam Ali:
أَرْبَعَةٌ لاَ تُرَدُّ لَهُمْ دَعْوَةٌ إِمَامٌ عَادِلٌ وَ وَالِدٌ لِوَلَدِهِ وَ اَلرَّجُلُ يَدْعُو لِأَخِيهِ بِظَهْرِ اَلْغَيْبِ وَ اَلْمَظْلُومُ
The supplication of four (types of people) is not rejected: A just leader, a parent for their child, a man (person) praying for his (or her) brother (or sister) in their absence, and the oppressed. [6]
In another narration from Imam al-Sadiq we read:
ثَلاَثَةٌ يُدْخِلُهُمُ اَللَّهُ اَلْجَنَّةَ
بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ إِمَامٌ عَادِلٌ وَ تَاجِرٌ صَدُوقٌ وَ شَيْخٌ أَفْنَى عُمُرَهُ فِي طَاعَةِ اَللَّهِ
Allah will admit three (types of people) in paradise without reckoning: A just leader, an honest trader, and an old man who spent his life in the obedience of Allah. [7]
Within the Shia Hadith Corpus, we find several other narrations along the same lines but these two suffice to convey our meaning. It is evident from the text of the narrations that the “Just leader” mentioned is not referring exclusively to a select, predetermined group of individuals (i.e. the twelve Imams) instead, it is a broad title suitable for “regular” people entrusted with the responsibility of managing and leading the affairs of the Muslims.
In another tradition from the holy prophet we find:
مَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ وَلِيَ شَيْئاً مِنْ أُمُورِ اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ فَأَرَادَ اَللَّهُ بِهِ خَيْراً إِلاَّ جَعَلَ اَللَّهُ لَهُ وَزِيراً صَالِحاً إِنْ نَسِيَ ذَكَرَهُ وَ إِنْ ذَكَرَ أَعَانَهُ وَ إِنْ هَمَّ بِشَرٍّ كَفَّهُ وَ زَجَرَهُ
There is no one who is entrusted with any of the affairs of the Muslims and for whom Allah desires good, but that Allah will appoint for him a righteous advisor: if he forgets, he reminds him; if he remembers, he assists him; and if he intends evil, he restrains him and rebukes him. [8]
This narration clearly places the one managing the affairs of the Muslims as a fallible human being who is assisted by Allah through a wise supporter who advises him towards goodness.
If there is any doubt about the applicability of just leadership to fallible human beings, we can dispel those by referring to a remarkable discourse between Imam Ali and the third Caliph Uthman. The following excerpt is from a narration preserved in Nahj al-Balagha:
فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ أَفْضَلَ عِبَادِ اَللَّهِ عِنْدَ اَللَّهِ إِمَامٌ عَادِلٌ هُدِيَ وَ هَدَى فَأَقَامَ سُنَّةً مَعْلُومَةً وَ أَمَاتَ بِدْعَةً مَجْهُولَةً وَ إِنَّ اَلسُّنَنَ لَنَيِّرَةٌ لَهَا أَعْلاَمٌ وَ إِنَّ اَلْبِدَعَ لَظَاهِرَةٌ لَهَا أَعْلاَمٌ وَ إِنَّ شَرَّ اَلنَّاسِ عِنْدَ اَللَّهِ إِمَامٌ جَائِرٌ ضَلَّ وَ ضُلَّ بِهِ فَأَمَاتَ سُنَّةً مَأْخُوذَةً وَ أَحْيَا بِدْعَةً مَتْرُوكَةً وَ إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ يَقُولُ يُؤْتَى يَوْمَ اَلْقِيَامَةِ بِالْإِمَامِ اَلْجَائِرِ وَ لَيْسَ مَعَهُ نَصِيرٌ وَ لاَ عَاذِرٌ فَيُلْقَى فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ فَيَدُورُ فِيهَا كَمَا تَدُورُ اَلرَّحَى ثُمَّ يَرْتَبِطُ فِي قَعْرِهَا
وَ إِنِّي أَنْشُدُكَ اَللَّهَ أَلاَّ تَكُونَ إِمَامَ هَذِهِ اَلْأُمَّةِ اَلْمَقْتُولَ فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ يُقَالُ يُقْتَلُ فِي هَذِهِ اَلْأُمَّةِ إِمَامٌ يَفْتَحُ عَلَيْهَا اَلْقَتْلَ وَ اَلْقِتَالَ إِلَى يَوْمِ اَلْقِيَامَةِ وَ يَلْبِسُ أُمُورَهَا عَلَيْهَا وَ يَبُثُّ اَلْفِتَنَ فِيهَا فَلاَ يُبْصِرُونَ اَلْحَقَّ مِنَ اَلْبَاطِلِ يَمُوجُونَ فِيهَا مَوْجاً وَ يَمْرُجُونَ فِيهَا مَرْجاً . فَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ لِمَرْوَانَ سَيِّقَةً يَسُوقُكَ حَيْثُ شَاءَ بَعْدَ جَلاَلِ اَلسِّنِّ وَ تَقَضِّي اَلْعُمُرِ
Know that the best of Allah’s servants in the sight of Allah is a just Imam who is guided and guides others. He establishes a known Sunnah and abolishes an unknown innovation. Indeed, the Sunnahs are luminous, with clear signs, and innovations are manifest, with their own signs. And indeed, the worst of people in the sight of Allah is a tyrannical Imam who has gone astray and leads others astray. He abolishes an established Sunnah and revives an abandoned innovation. I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) say: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, the tyrannical Imam will be brought forth, with no supporter and no excuse. He will be cast into the fire of Hell, revolving in it like a millstone revolves, then he will be bound in its depths.’
And I adjure you by Allah not to be the killed Imam of this Ummah. For it was said that an Imam will be killed in this Ummah, and that will open the door of killing and fighting upon it until the Day of Resurrection. He will confound its affairs and spread turmoil within it, so that they will not distinguish truth from falsehood. They will surge in it like waves and be in a state of confusion. So do not be a camel led by Marwan, driving you wherever he wishes, after the dignity of old age and the passing of your life.”
In his advice to Uthman, Imam Ali is evidently enjoining him to be a just leader (إِمَامٌ عَادِلٌ) by defining his qualities, and warning him from becoming an unjust leader by conveying his fate. [9]
Our conclusion with regards to the verse of obedience
We have attempted to take a holistic view in the analysis of the verse of obedience. Instead of deriving an answer from specific narrations and retrofitting it on to the verse, we have considered the intellect, the language and style of the quran, overarching Quranic principles, as well as narrations from the prophets and the Imams on this topic.
In our opinion, the Ulu al-Amr mentioned in the verse refer to pious and just leaders who have been entrusted with the task of managing the affairs of the Muslim Ummah. The just leader accepted by the intellect and described in the narrations is the same as the Dhu al-Amr (singular of Ulu al-Amr) mentioned in the Quran. Obedience to Ulu al-Amr immediately appears after the obedience to Allah and the prophet because it is the leader of the Muslim communities throughout times and across places who will ultimately ensure that divine law is established. In this regard, the Ulu al-Amr is the natural extension through which the laws of Allah and the Sunnah of the prophet is enforced. Nonetheless, this leader is not above scrutiny and should only be accepted and obeyed as long as he acts justly and sincerely.
In an ideal world, the Ulu al-Amr are the implementers and enforcers of divine law – we do not find sufficient evidence for the Ulu al-Amr to be infallible or to be restricted to the twelve Imams. Having said this, the twelve Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt were the most deserving among the Muslims to assume the role of Ulu al-Amr during their respective times. In other words, the Quran specifies the general principle of Just leadership and the Imams are the greatest and most luminous manifestation of the principles – this does not mean that they are the only possible manifestations of it.
This conclusion is in line with the logical / philosophical principle of وحدة المفهوم وتعدد المصداق (Unity in principle; multiplicity in manifestation). The holy quran is replete with examples where this notion can be applied – In fact it, is this very concept which keeps the holy quran relevant across all times and places. There can be multiple manifestations of the Ulu al-Amr mentioned in the Quran – The Ahl al-Bayt however are the most accurate, pristine and glorious manifestation.
Keen readers might notice that our final conclusions bear a resemblance to the views held by proponents of Wilayat al-Faqih—the theory that an Islamic jurist is entitled to rule as the head of a Muslim state. Nevertheless, we do not consider expertise in Islamic law to be a necessary condition for worldly leadership (this is a related but separate issue that deserves its own thorough discussion). In our view, the evidence supports justice as the fundamental prerequisite for a legitimate claim to leadership. A just person does not necessarily have to be a specialist in Islamic law; after all, that is precisely the role reserved for judges.
Who are the Ulu al-Amr today?
Who are the Ulu al-Amr in the present day? This question naturally arises, for if we are to act upon the verse of obedience, we must first identify the Dhu al-Amr of our time.
To begin with, the Dhu al-Amr referenced in the Qur’an must be at the head of a Muslim community—in modern terms, a Muslim state. This prerequisite excludes, by definition, the rulers of non-Muslim countries.
Secondly, the laws of that state must be derived from the Quran and the authentic traditions of the Prophet. This condition rules out so-called “secular” Muslim nations, as well as those whose legal systems contradict the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt. From a Shia perspective, this necessarily excludes states that do not recognize the authority of the Ahl al-Bayt as the only valid conduits of prophetic Sunnah.
Thirdly, the ruler must be known for striving to uphold justice in all circumstances. This is not meant to necessiate a robust critique of all actions of the ruler from a legal Islamic perspective – Rather, it is primarily the establishment of what is known Sunnah and shunning what is innovation in religion, as indicated by the narrations from Imam Ali (advice to Uthman).
Given these criteria, one might argue that no such Ulu al-Amr exist today. Alternatively, it could be said that the head of state of Iran—the al-Wali al-Faqih—is the only figure who arguably merits this designation, though this applies solely to the citizens of Iran. This is not to suggest that we regard the Faqih as the sole legitimate candidate for the role, nor that he is beyond accountability. Rather he could be the only potential candidate among all heads of state that exist today.
One might further ask: If obedience to the Ulu al-Amr has been commanded, why does it hold no relevance for the vast majority of Muslims today? The answer is straightforward—legal obligations only apply when their prerequisites are met. The absence of those prerequisites does not imply a deficiency in the law itself. This is self-evident, and numerous examples support it. For instance, the obligations pertaining to parent–child relationships only come into effect when both parents and children are living. Similarly, the same holds for the rules of inheritance, as well as the marital bond between husband and wife.
Views of Scholars
It is well-known that the vast majority of mainstream Shia scholars believe that the title of Ulu al-Amr can only be entrusted to an infallible individual. The vice versa is true for the mainstream Sunni scholarship. However, there are some notable exceptions in both schools of thoughts. Let us present some scholarly views that diverge from the majority opinions:
Fakhar al-Din al-Razi
The great Sunni scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi states in his exegesis of the verse of obedience:
أن الله تعالى أمر بطاعة أولي الأمر على سبيل الجزم في هذه الآية ، ومن أمر الله بطاعته على سبيل الجزم والقطع لا بد وأن يكون معصوما عن الخطأ ، إذ لو لم يكن معصوما عن الخطأ كان بتقدير إقدامه على الخطأ يكون قد أمر الله بمتابعته ، فيكون ذلك أمرا بفعل ذلك الخطأ ، والخطأ لكونه خطأ منهي عنه ، فهذا يفضي إلى اجتماع الأمر والنهي في الفعل الواحد بالاعتبار الواحد ، وإنه محال ، فثبت أن الله تعالى أمر بطاعة أولي الأمر على سبيل الجزم ، وثبت أن كل من أمر الله بطاعته على سبيل الجزم وجب أن يكون معصوما عن الخطأ ، فثبت قطعا أن أولي الأمر المذكور في هذه الآية لا بد وأن يكون معصوما
Indeed God, the Exalted, has commanded obedience to those in authority in an unequivocal and definitive manner in this verse; and whoever is commanded by God to be obeyed in such an unequivocal and definitive manner must necessarily be infallible. For if he were not infallible, and supposing he were to commit an error, God would have commanded obedience to him—which would amount to a command to commit that error, and since error is forbidden, this would lead to a command and a prohibition coexisting in a single action under a single consideration, which is impossible. It is therefore established that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded obedience to those in authority in an unequivocal manner, and it is established that whoever Allah has commanded to be obeyed in an unequivocal manner must be infallible. [10]
Remarkably, Fakhar al-Din presents the same argument as the mainstream Shia with regards to the nature of the Ulu al-Amr (though, he does not believe in infallible Imams and concludes that it is the collective opinion of the wise members and scholars of the Islamic community is protected form error).
Sheikh Asif Mohseni
Sheikh Asif Mohseni is among the greatest Shia hadith scholars of recent times. We consider him to be a wise reformer and a bold thinker. He states:
الائمة كلهم من أولى الأمر حسب دلالة الرواية وليس كل أولى الْأمر منحصرين في الأئمة فافهم ذلك
All the Imams are among the Ulu al-Amr based on what the narration indicates but the Ulu al-Amr are not limited to the Imams; this is what I understand. [11]
He further provides a lengthy discussion on this topic in one of his well-known works:
فالمناسب أن المراد بـأولى الأمر المفروضين في حضور الرسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلّم وحياته، وفي إرجاع التنازع إلى خصوص الرسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلّم، ومن فوض رسول الله إليهم منصبًا ومقامًا لإدارة الناس، وإصلاح الأمور، وقيادة الجيوش والحروب، فكل من ثبتت ولايته شرعًا على المسلمين، سواء كانت ولاية عامة أو خاصة، على جميع المسلمين أو بعضهم، فيجب إطاعتهم على المُوَلَّى عليهم، وأما أوصاف هؤلاء أولي الأمر فلا بد أن يؤخذ من أدلة أخرى، وليست الآية في مقام بيانها
It appears that the Ulu al-Amr are those, obedience to whom was mandated during the presence and life of the prophet. And the referring of disputes is specifically to the prophet and the ones he delegated with a position or a status to manage the people, setting their affair right, and leading armies and wars. So everyone whose authority over the Muslims is legally established — whether general or specific authority, over all Muslims or some of them — obedience to them is obligatory upon those under their authority. As for the descriptions of these “those in authority,” they must be derived from other evidences, and the verse is not in the position of explaining them. [12]
He goes on to discuss on how the infallibility of the Ulu al-Amr is not mandated per the verse itself and provides similar arguments to the ones we have presented.
Sheikh Baqir al-Behbudi
Sheikh Baqir is another giant among hadith scholars. The work that he has performed in the field of analyzing and validating narrations is revolutionary in many ways. Among his works is a textual interpretation of the holy Quran titled Ma’ani al-Quran. It was originally written in Farsi as a culmination of 30 years of research. The Farsi copy is rare, and we were not able to acquire it. However, an English translation of the Farsi has been published by the well known researcher Colin Turner titled “The Quran: A new interpretation”.
The textual interpretation can be thought of as something between a translation and exegesis of the quran. It flows like a translation, verse by verse, but with significant interpretation built into it. Sheikh Behbudi offers his own interpretation of the Quranic text.
Here is what we find with regards to the verse of obedience:
“O you who believe! Obey God and His Prophet and those among you who have been authorized by the Prophet to rule over you. If you have a disagreement with those authorized to rule over you, refer it to God and His Prophet – if you believe in God and the Last Day. Do not deviate from this path: to refer your disagreement to God and His Prophet is better than clashing acrimoniously with those who rule you, and the outcome will be better for you.” [13]
We can see that Sheikh Behbudi’s interpretation is similar to that of Sheikh Asif Mohseni’s.
References
[1] al-Suduq, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, vol. 4, p. 381
[2] Al-Quran, Surah 31, Verse 15
[3] Abu Ishaq, Al-Gharat, vol. 2, p.590
[4] al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, vol.1, p.85
[5] al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, vol.1, p.286
[6] al-Suduq, Al-Khisal, vol.1, p.197
[7] al-Suduq, Thawab al-A’mal wa ‘Iqab al-A’mal, vol.1, p.133
[8] al-Daylimi, ‘Ilam al-Din fi Sifat al-Muminin, vol.1, p.295
[9] al-Radi, Nahj al-Balagha, vol.1, p.234
[10] al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir, Tafsir 4:59
[11] Mohseni, Mu’jam al-Ahadith al-Mu’tabira, vol.2, p.40
[12] Mohseni, Mashri’a Bihar al-Anwar, vol.1, p.429
[13] Turner, The Quran: A new Interpretation, p.48
Leave a Reply