It is not possible for all Muslims to appoint a just ruler since...

It is not possible for all Muslims to appoint a just ruler since, however wise or conscientious they may be, and they can only judge a man by appearance. They cannot read his heart or know the degree of his faith. Leaders of Israel selected by Moses were considered worthless Obviously Muslims cannot claim to possess better understanding than the Prophet Moses. He selected seventy men out of several thousand for their apparent integrity and took them with him to Mount Sinai.

But all of them, on examination, proved worthless because their faith was not firm. This fact has been referred to in the Holy Qur'an, verse 154 of sura 7. If those selected by Moses proved to be unbelievers at heart, it is obvious that common people would be less competent to choose able rulers for themselves. It is quite possible that those selected for their apparent piety may eventually turn out to be unbelievers. Surely obedience to such rulers would weaken religion.

The words 'Uli'l-amr' do not refer to rulers Certainly Allah would not require his servants to obey a sinner as they would obey Him or His Prophet. Moreover, if the appointment of the 'uli'l-amr' were made through a true consensus, an election would have to be held for each new appointment. All citizens of all Muslim nations would have to agree on the choice in every election. During 1300 years of Islam we find that, after the Holy Prophet, no such consensus ever occurred.

At present it is impossible to secure such a consensus because the Muslim world has been split up into numerous countries, each with a ruler of its own. Moreover, if every country should elect an 'uli'l-amr' for itself, there would be numerous 'uli'l-amr,' each to be obeyed within his own country, and the people of one country would not obey the uli'l-amr' of other countries.

Of course then there is the question of allegiance when differences arise - as they often have in the last 1300 years - between two 'authorities.' We then have Muslims killing other Muslims in the name of Islam. But true Islam does not require such absurd behavior which would lead to mutual strife among Muslims. It follows, therefore, that the 'uli'l-amr' whom we are commanded to obey has gained his authority by consensus.

A ruler who takes power by forcecannot be called Uli'l-amr' It is equally absurd to suggest that obedience to a tyrant is compulsory.