The answer to this question is clear for the following reasons...

The answer to this question is clear for the following reasons: this act is feasible only if (1) all people were completely aware of the Islamic principles and the practical laws and capable of the recognition of both Islamic legal and illegal affairs, and (2) if they were so brave and courageous as not to be scared of the governor's despotism and could obey him if he were just and openly oppose him if he were a tyrant.

Unfortunately, however the common man does not have full command over the Islamic principles so that he could give his views and not the commands of “those in authority. The majority of people want to get familiar through them, with the divine laws. Furthermore opposition to the governing body is not an easy job and there are few who are willing to do so and suffer the consequences.

Besides bestowing such authority upon the powerful men would enliven the spirit of aggression among them which would definitely destroy social disciplines and as a consequence each level of society would refrain from obeying “those in authority”. As a result the leader would suffer a lot. That is why we could conclude from this verse that the position of “those in authority” could be bestowed upon only a selected group who would never engage in wrongdoings and is clean at all times.

My covenant does not include the unjust, He replied” [^3]. Imamat, like prophethood is a divine position, which is bestowed upon only the worthy and deserving people. In this verse Ibrahim wishes his children could benefit from such a magnificent divine position; however he is opposed by Allah who would not consent to give such a position to the tyrants. Definitely by the word “unjust” in the above verse is meant, the sinners.

This is because committing any sin is a tyranny against oneself and an aggression against divinity. Here, we should find out which group of tyrants according to the Quran should be deprived of such a position.