Imam Al-Sadiq

this world and the hereafter) would be without execution. In the meantime all those efforts
from which the Owner of the mission suffered would be useless.
As the Imamate is incumbent on the Muslim community on the account of necessity, then
who is the worthiest of this great function? I wonder: Is the worthiest one who was like the
Owner of the mission in knowledge and act, guided in himself and guides others, provided
evidence for his ideas and no weakness comes upon his evidence? If people asked him for a
miracle, acts in words and he would bring it easily and without hesitation, convinced easily
the stubborn, knew all that which the Owner of the mission brought and acted upon it, knew
the revelation and interpretation of the Koran, full of good qualities, rather the best of all men
in every quality, had no bad quality, generally speaking the model of the Prophet in all his
outstanding merits?
Or is the worthiest of it he who does not know the above- mentioned qualities and they do not
know him or has some of them and empty of the others? Without doubt, you will say: the first
person is worthier of the Imamate than the second person is.
But I (the author) think that you will say. Indeed, all the importance is to prove two matters in
this respect: the first matter it is obligatory to appoint an Imam according to the abovementioned
qualities. The second matter is that he is in the Muslim community and he has all
these qualities. If it is proved that the Imam should have these qualities and he is in the
Muslim community, then to refuse his Imamate and orders is stubbornness which the
possessor of religion and intellect does not accept.
I will prove these two matters for you hoping that you will hear and understand.
As for the first evidence, it maybe summarized as follows: Surely, the Prophet, may Allah
bless him and his family, was aware of what he declared. He was not ignorant of what he was
asked. His law is one. There is no disunity in it. It is immortal till the Day of Judgment. The
law of Mohammed is lawful till the Day of Resurrection and what he declared unlawful is
unlawful till the Day of Resurrection. If he had given a free hand to the Muslim community to
choose the Imam to carry out his obligations, we would have found the Muslim community
ignorant about the commandments of the law, and not distinguish between the lawful and the
unlawful, because the Muslim community had no sound judgment about the science of law to
refer to it, nor did it have a just ruler who had the ability to enforce the punishments to obey
him. For this reason, the Muslims divided into schools and sects. Each sect provided evidence
for their ideas and beliefs. Then the people chose one among themselves as a caliph and Imam
for themselves. They chose the caliphs who did not know all what the Prophet, may Allah
bless him and his family, brought, and had no knowledge of what they were asked about. As
those caliphs became, after they had been elected, the just ruler, and as people did not find
their purpose concerning the government and the commandments, every sect began showing
its beliefs and ideas. But no sect had assorted arguments and clear evidence to refute the
suspicions of those schools and the doubts of those ideas. The sects opposed each other. Each
sect attributed their beliefs to the Islamic Law and religion though the lawful and the unlawful
are unchangeable till the last hour of this existence and the Islamic law is one and immortal
throughout history. Nevertheless, after the Prophet of Islam, legislators, laws, beliefs, and
schools have entered Islam.