The More Realistic Example of the evidence in the determination of the competencies of the scholar:

We can present several clearer points as evidence for this determination and framing of the competencies of the scholar-leader:

1-  The same evidence for the leadership of the scholar such as the accepted narration of Omar Ibn Handhala: It has, “If he rules with our rule.” There is the also the famous narration of Abu Khadija, “Entrust among you a man who knows our right and wrong.” There is also the honorable signature, “Refer to the narrators of our tradition.”

 These all include an evidence from the renowned sharia texts to what the scholar-leader rules. Other traditions can be added, like the saying of Imam Ali (P) to Ibn Abbas, “By Allah, this worn out shoe is better for me from your leadership unless I would grant a right, i.e. the sharia and rules of Allah, or defer the wrong.”([1])

Whatever deviates from this is mere doubts that do not prove anything.

2-  The origin: When there is doubt on the implementation or not of the leadership of the scholar in a certain aspect, the original case is the negation since originally no one is responsible for anyone else unless what Allah has made, which is supposed not to be proven.

3-  Disposition without a rationale from sharia, i.e. the implementation of the leadership just for the interest might be not permissible under a sub-category.

Our teacher, Shahid Al Sadrsaid, “For example, if an action produces an act of public corruption or if there is doubt in the creed or a severe personal damage, then there is no legal or rational justification, and that would be impermissible.” He imposed an indemnity if there were no justification. He said, “If we said the scholar-leader may damage the belongings of others without justification we cannot issue a clearance from the scholar for the guaranteed money [by indemnity], but he should rather pay the equivalent or the value to the owner.”([2])

4-  If the benefit would rectify the action, this leads us to establish rules and branches that are devoid as a law (The end justifies the means), which we have proven to be illegal. The science of foundations has made it evident that the preference and the extended interests are invalid as a basis for a sharia rule.

However, the interest may be made the principle for work if it were rectified by one of the following procedures:

A- To grant a correct meaning such as the words of our teacher, the second Shahid Sadr, “We mean by the public interest: Those public and social matters that individuals may not do independently or at least without a centralized, or leadership direction or public administration such as the army, police, prisons, public health, schools and many more.”([3]) However, this meaning is different from the apparent.

B- Public interests must be decisive and not intuitive and thought of.

C- The consideration must be the procedural and executive matters and not the basis of the principle decision such as the consultation of the Prophet (P) with his companions prior to Uhud Battle if it were better to stay in the fortification in Madina or leave to meet the pagans of Quraysh in combat.