Similarities and Differences in the Conditions of an Ideal Ruler from the Perspective of the Imamiyyah and Sunni Schools

Abstract

This comparative study examines the “conditions of an ideal ruler” in two Islamic legal traditions: The Imamiyyah and the Sunni schools. It aims to provide an integrated view of the similarities and divergences in the requirements for leadership as found in linguistic, jurisprudential, and theological texts. The research employs a descriptive-analytical approach based on library studies. First, the meaning of “ruler” is clarified in its dual usage (judge or governor), and then the conditions are categorized and compared as “general” and “specific.” The findings indicate that both traditions emphasize common traits such as Islam, reason, maturity, manhood, sound senses and faculties, courage, trustworthiness, and insight or political competence. In contrast, meaningful differences emerge regarding justice, ijtihad, Quraysh lineage, faith in the more specific sense (Imamiyyah affiliation), and purity of lineage: justice is a prerequisite for the validity and continuity of authority in the Imamiyyah, while in some Sunni sources it is considered a condition of perfection or non-essential; ijtihad is obligatory in the Imamiyyah, whereas among some Sunnis, knowledge combined with the possibility of consultation suffices; Quraysh lineage is important in many Sunni sources but not considered relevant in the Imamiyyah during the Occultation; and faith in the specific sense and purity of lineage are prominent conditions in Imamiyyah literature. The study ultimately presents a matrix of “minimum common requirements” and “maximum doctrinal criteria,” which may serve as a guide for designing constitutional frameworks and contemporary policy-making in the Islamic world, clarifying the relationship between legitimacy, acceptance, and effectiveness in leadership models.