Examining the Possible Meanings of “Imāma”

There is disagreement among exegetes regarding the meaning of “Imām” in the verse under discussion. Therefore, the various interpretations that have been proposed will be examined:

First: Prophethood

Many exegetes have considered the meaning of Imāmate to be prophethood and have interpreted Imāmā as Nabiyyā (prophet)(42). This understanding stems from the attribution of the pronoun atamma to God the Glorified, albeit based on an unlikely interpretation. They view the sentence “Indeed I will make you an Imām for mankind” as an explanatory conjunction (ʿaṭf tafsīrī) for atamma and suggest that the manner in which God completed those appointed words was by raising Abraham (a.s.) to the station of Imāma (interpreted as prophethood): “He said, ‘Indeed I will make you an Imām for mankind.’”

In critiquing this view, two pieces of evidence from the noble verse can be highlighted—one literary and the other contextual:

The jaʿl (making) in this noble verse is a compositional jaʿl (jaʿl taʾlīfī), meaning that the active participle jāʿil has placed Imāmā in the accusative case as the second object. The active participle only operates in the present or future tense, not the past. Considering this point, and based on the interpretation of the aforementioned exegetes, if the meaning of “Indeed I will make you an Imām for mankind” is understood as “I will make you a prophet from now or in the future”, it would imply that Abraham (a.s.) was not a prophet prior to this moment. However, the very fact that this revelatory conversation is taking place serves as evidence of his prophethood at that time.

When God, the Glorified, said to His friend Abraham (a.s.): “Indeed, I will make you an Imām for mankind” [2:124], Abraham responded by saying: “And from my descendants” [2:124], meaning he requested that some of his children also be appointed to Imāma. From this request, it becomes evident that Abraham had descendants at that time or foresaw that he would have them. It is also clear that by divine grace, Abraham was blessed with children in his old age: “She said, ‘Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old man?’” [11:72]; and “All praise is due to God, who has granted me Ishmael and Isaac in my old age” [14:39].

Before this, not only did Abraham not have children, but he did not even foresee having them and was astonished by the prospect. Therefore, this conversation and request must have taken place during Abraham’s old age, meaning after many years of his prophethood. However, based on the assumption of the aforementioned exegetes, as explained earlier, the interpretation of the noble verse would imply that Abraham was not a prophet until this moment, which contradicts the timeline of his life.

Second: An Exemplar and Role Model

According to this view(43), an Imām is someone whose beliefs, character, and actions serve as the model by which human society can regulate all its beliefs, morals, and deeds. In other words, the Imām’s belief is the guide for beliefs, his character is the model for morals, and his actions are the exemplar for people’s actions. While the term Imām can indeed be used in the sense of an exemplar, this interpretation is incorrect when applied to the noble verse under discussion.

Abraham (a.s.) had already been a model and exemplar for society for many years before this scene, beginning from the time he received revelation and fulfilled his divine mission. It should be noted that Imāma (leadership) in this sense, though distinct from prophethood, is closely associated with it and is one of the characteristics of general prophethood. Therefore, Imāma as a model and exemplar is not unique to Abraham (a.s.), especially in his old age, but is a quality shared by all prophets (a.s.). This is because, if someone is infallible, their words, actions, and tacit approvals are authoritative. As such, human society can follow them in all aspects.

The Glorious God affirms this by saying: “We did not send any messenger but to be obeyed by God’s leave” [4:64].(44) Thus, the belief, character, and actions of every prophet serve as the model for the beliefs, morals, and actions of others.

Third: Imāma Over the Prophets

The Imāma in this noble verse refers to a special Imāma, meaning that Abraham (a.s.) attained a superior level of Imāma, through which he became the Imām of the prophets and Imāms (a.s.).(45) This point can be inferred from God’s command to the Seal of the Prophets (s.a.w.) to follow the religion of Abraham, the Friend of God: “Follow the creed of Abraham, a ḥanīf” [16:123]. The fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.) was commanded to follow Abraham’s path clearly shows that, a fortiori, all the prophets who came after Abraham, including the Prophets of Great Resolve (ūlū l-ʿazm), were followers of his path. Therefore, Abraham, the Friend of God, is the Imām of all prophets and the infallible Imāms (a.s.).

This idea is further supported by God’s statement: “And strive hard in God’s way, a striving that is worthy of Him. He has chosen you and has not placed for you any obstacle in the religion, the faith of your father, Abraham” [22:78]. Additionally, the verse “Then We revealed to you [saying], ‘Follow the creed of Abraham, a ḥanīf’” [16:123] shows that all prophets (a.s.) are addressed with the phrase “the faith of your father, Abraham.” Just as Lot (a.s.), despite being a prophet, believed in Abraham, the Friend of God, and followed him: “And Lot believed in him” [29:26].

While this is a subtle point, it faces criticism in terms of the evidence used to support it and is incomplete due to two internal clues and an external issue.

1. The first internal clue is that God, the Glorified, said: “I am making you the Imām of mankind,” meaning “I have made you the Imām of the people,” not the Imām of prophets and messengers.

2. The second clue is that Abraham requested the same Imāma for his descendants: “And from among my descendants,” and God responded positively in relation to his infallible descendants. However, this type of Imāma over all prophets cannot apply to Abraham’s descendants because the greatest of them include the Seal of the Prophets (s.a.w.) and the Seal of the Successors (may our souls be sacrificed for him), and they were not the Imāms of prophets.

Accepting the interpretation that the verse refers to Imāma over the prophets is only possible if we make a distinction and say that Imāma for Abraham meant leadership over all prophets and Imāms (a.s.), while for his descendants, it meant being an exemplar or similar roles. Although this distinction is not impossible, it contradicts the apparent meaning and context of the noble verse, as Abraham clearly requested the same Imāma for his descendants that he himself had attained.

Imāma is a comprehensive concept with many instances. Every prophet, messenger, successor, or caliph is an Imām. Abraham requested the same type of Imāma for his descendants that had been realized for him. The problem with this distinction is that if it were correct, we would have no way to prove that Moses (a.s.) and Jesus (a.s.) were Imāms over the prophets. The Qur’an does not explicitly mention their Imāma, despite their leading roles among the prophets of the Children of Israel. For instance, God mentions Isaac and some of Abraham’s children: “And We gave him Isaac and Jacob...” [21:72], “and We made them Imāms” [21:73], “...and We made him a guide for the Children of Israel” [17:2], and “We appointed from among them Imāms...” [32:24]. However, many prophets from the Children of Israel followed Moses and Jesus (a.s.), and these two great prophets bore the primary responsibility of prophethood and establishing the tradition for the prophets of Israel, though they are not explicitly referred to as Imāms in the Qur’an.

The point is that the principle of Imāma for Moses (a.s.) and Jesus (a.s.) is established through the acceptance of Abraham’s (a.s.) supplication, but their Imāma over the prophets, as in the case of Abraham, cannot be proven based on the aforementioned distinction.

The external issue with the aforementioned view is that Abraham occupies a position in the middle of history, not at its beginning. Although the Qur’an refers to him as the “father of the Muslims” and an Imām for those who came after him [22:78], he himself is a follower (maʾmūm) of Noah (a.s.) and is counted among his shīʿa: “And indeed, among his shīʿa was Abraham” [37:83]. While the Qur’an does not explicitly mention Noah’s Imāma, it describes Abraham (a.s.) as a follower, and the term shīʿa is used to signify someone whose following of an Imām spreads the thought and leadership of that Imām.

This idea is further supported by God’s special salutation upon Noah, which is unique compared to His salutations upon other prophets. Noah is given the qualifier “among the worlds” (fī l-ʿālamīn): “Peace be upon Noah among the worlds” [37:79]. This distinction is specific to him. The esteemed ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī (may his soul be sanctified) regarded this worldwide salutation as reflecting Noah’s status as the originator of all religious laws. His book is considered the first heavenly scripture containing divine law, as no religious law existed before him.(46) Moreover, Noah was the first to rise and call to monotheism and the eradication of polytheism, enduring nearly a thousand years of the harshest trials along this path. In this regard, he has no partner or equal, and therefore, he shares in the reward of every good act humanity performs until the Day of Resurrection.(47)

Consequently, if Imāma is understood as it has been explained in this context, then Noah (a.s.) should also be recognized as the Imām of the prophets and nations. He should be referred to by this title, just as he is known as the “Elder of the Prophets” (shaykh al-anbiyāʾ). Based on this understanding, Abraham’s Imāma—since he is counted among the shīʿa of Noah (a.s.)—is relative, not intrinsic.

Regarding the supporting aspect mentioned in “Follow the religion of Abraham, the upright” [16:123], it is important to clarify that the noble Prophet of Islam and the infallible Imāms after him (may God’s blessings and peace be upon them all) were not followers of any of the previous prophets. To explain, a person can either follow a prophet directly or follow the religion that prophet conveyed. In this case, God, the Glorified, commanded the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) to follow the religion and path of Abraham, not Abraham himself: “Follow the religion of Abraham, the upright” [16:123].

Similarly, in a more comprehensive directive, the Prophet (s.a.w.) was commanded to emulate the common guidance shared by all prophets: “Those are the ones whom God has guided, so from their guidance take an example” [6:90]. Here too, God instructs the Prophet to follow the guidance of the prophets, not the prophets themselves. This is not a matter of being a direct follower of any individual prophet, but rather of following a religion and guidance that was common to all the prophets (a.s.).

Fourth: Socio-political Leadership

Another interpretation of Imāma is that it refers to leadership in the socio-political sense—the establishment of governance to manage the religious and worldly affairs of the people.(48) According to this view, Abraham (a.s.) did not possess Imāma in this sense until that specific time. Based on this interpretation, Amīn al-Islām Ṭabarsī (may his soul be sanctified) distinguished between prophethood and Imāma in the sense of leadership, stating: “It is possible for God, the Glorified, to choose someone for prophethood, but not to command him to Imāma and leadership”(49). In this sense, God may command the prophet to convey jurisprudential rulings and socio-political boundaries, without necessarily commanding him to implement and enforce them as a leader.

A Critique of Interpreting Imāma as Referring to Socio-Political Leadership:

A. The Inseparability of Prophethood from Leadership:

The rational argument for the necessity of prophethood and messengership, which has also been alluded to by the infallible Imāms (a.s.), can be s_umma_rized in the following points:

1. Human beings need society to survive and thrive.

2. Preventing chaos and ensuring order in society is impossible without laws.

3. These laws must be established by God, the Glorified, for them to be just and effective.

4. The mere written existence of laws, buried in codified books, is insufficient to prevent societal chaos.

5. Preventing oppression and transgression cannot be achieved solely through the explanation of rulings or the delivery of glad tidings and warnings.

Based on these five premises, God legislates a complete religion and specifies the person responsible for implementing it. If religion lacks a program for penal matters and enforcement, or if it does not anticipate how these matters will be carried out, then it would be incomplete. Therefore, the prophets (a.s.) are not merely responsible for explaining rulings; they are also tasked with implementing them. Implementing divine rulings requires socio-political leadership over the people.

Of course, in some cases, prophets were unable to fully implement these rulings due to resistance from tyrants, such as Nimrod or Pharaoh, or due to the people’s aversion to guidance, as was the case with Prophet Lot (a.s.), to whom only one family believed: “Except the family of Lot—indeed, We will save them all. Except his wife” [15:59-60]; “And We found not within it other than a [single] house of Muslims” [51:36].

Thus, every prophethood and messengership carries with it some level of Imāma, understood as socio-political leadership. However, the extent to which people have benefited from this leadership has varied across different periods. Therefore, it is rationally unacceptable for a prophet not to be an Imām—meaning that he would be detached from the people and their social affairs. It would also be unacceptable for a prophet to have no responsibility in governing, leaving the people to manage their affairs independently. Furthermore, it would be irrational for a prophet to be elected by the people to govern without having a divinely appointed mission to manage society.

The point is that while it is unacceptable for a prophet not to have an executive role, it is possible that his socio-political responsibility may not be realized due to external obstacles. There is evidence supporting this idea, some of which is outlined below:

1. The Uprising and Practical Actions of the Prophets Against Polytheism and Disbelief:

If the duty of the prophets (a.s.) was solely to propagate divine rulings without the responsibility of enjoining good and forbidding evil,(50) or implementing those rulings, then there would be no need for them to confront the polytheists or express disavowal and disgust toward them. Yet, the prophets often took bold political stances, sometimes alone and sometimes with their followers, by disavowing idolatry and falsehood. These actions were akin to issuing resolutions against those who rejected proper guidance, as seen in the case of Prophet Abraham (a.s.). When scientific arguments failed to sway the idolaters, he took practical action by wielding an axe against their idols. This was not merely a symbolic gesture but a bold confrontation, exposing himself to the harshest punishments, including the threat of being burned alive: “They said, ‘Burn him and support your gods’” [21:68].

Rising against disbelief, atheism, and oppression—and taking practical steps to uproot corruption and injustice—are clear examples of socio-political leadership. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that once the proof is complete and one of the prophets (a.s.) is appointed to Imāma and socio-political leadership, other prophets may still be tasked with propagation, clarification, and teaching rather than direct leadership.

2. The Armed Defense of the Prophets for the Religion of God, the Glorified:

In addition to describing the specific actions of individual prophets, the Qur’an outlines general guidelines and common attributes shared by all the prophets (a.s.). Among these is the dual responsibility of cultural and military leadership. The prophets were equipped with two essential forces: the Book, to invite people to justice, and iron, to prevent chaos and confront aggressors. As the Qur’an states: “We have certainly sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, so that mankind may maintain justice; and We sent down iron, in which there is great might and benefits for mankind, so that God may know those who help Him and His messengers in the unseen” [57:25].

All prophets (a.s.) were either given a divine book or were preservers of it. The iron, represented by the sword in the hands of some prophets and by the axe in the hands of others—such as Prophet Abraham (a.s.)—was used to protect the book and defend the divine message. The mention of “iron” in the same verse as the call to support God’s religion and His messengers is clear evidence that this iron represents the means of defense and warfare. The phrase “in which there is great might” encourages resistance, defense, and jihād.

Although iron has many industrial benefits for mankind, its primary “great might” is manifested in defending the religion and repelling aggressors who attack the sanctity of the divine message.

Of course, as mentioned previously, while some prophets rose to the duty of socio-political Imāma, it is possible that other prophets were only commanded to propagate the divine message and teach the Book and wisdom, without assuming a direct leadership role. However, they never acted contrary to the general guidelines established by the leading prophet of their time.

3. The Martyrdom of Many Prophets (a.s.) in Battles:

The Qur’an explicitly mentions the conflict and battles between many prophets and the leaders of disbelief, oppression, and the wealthy elite, as well as the killing of prophets by tyrannical criminals: “And how many a prophet fought with whom were many worshippers of the Lord” [3:146]; “Say, ‘Why then did you kill the prophets of God formerly?’” [2:91]; “...and they kill the prophets unjustly” [3:21]; and “Whenever a messenger came to them with what was not to their liking, they would impugn a part of them, and a part they would kill” [5:70].

If the responsibility of the prophets (a.s.) was only to explain the divine laws and offer admonition—while refraining from involvement in worldly affairs and governance—then their actions would not have led to such violent conflicts or their eventual martyrdom. After reaching a sufficient level of argumentation and advice, and once they despaired of its impact, the prophets would take up the axe or sword to defend the sanctuary of religion and protect the rights of the oppressed.

It is important to note that while the sword holds great might—“We sent down iron, in which there is great might” [57:25]—the greatest might belongs to the highest form of jihād, which is intellectual ijtihād and cultural struggle: “and wage jihād against them with it, a great jihād” [25:52].

Therefore, prophethood and messengership are always accompanied by socio-political Imāma, and every prophet was also an Imām. Some have argued against this statement by pointing to Saul (Ṭālūt) as an example of someone who was an Imām but not a prophet, claiming this demonstrates no necessary correlation between the two roles. However, this objection is flawed for two reasons.

First, assuming that Saul’s Imāma is accepted, it does not contradict the principle that every prophet was also an Imām. The relationship here is one of necessity, not correlation—just as the infallible Imāms (a.s.), whose infallibility, leadership, and authority are established, are not prophets. To disprove the necessity of this principle, evidence must be presented that someone was a prophet but not an Imām.

Second, establishing Saul’s (Ṭālūt’s) Imāma is difficult, as his infallibility has not been proven. From the verses: “...They said to a prophet of theirs, ‘Appoint for us a king, that we may fight in the way of God.’... And their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed God has appointed Saul as king for you.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us, when we have a greater right to kingship than him, and he has not been given ample wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed God has chosen him over you, and enhanced him vastly in knowledge and physique...’” [2:246-247], it can only be deduced that Saul held military command.

Therefore, the socio-political Imām of the era was the prophet who, by God’s command, appointed Saul to this position. Saul himself was under the leadership and guidance of that prophet and relied on him for intellectual and spiritual support.

Reminder:

The codified program of the prophets must be implemented, and it is not reasonable to expect the execution of their devotional, economic, political, social, and defensive rulings without governance and systematic organization.

In the case of multiple prophets present at the same time, it is possible for some to hold socio-political responsibilities while others are tasked only with propagation and explanation of divine law.

If religious scholars during the era of occultation engaged in armed uprisings, it was based on their deputyship from the infallible Imām (a.s.). Furthermore, if righteous believers who were not at the level of jurisprudential or legal deputyship engaged in legitimate armed uprisings, it was because the political and divine religion explicitly states that in the absence of the infallible Imām, the fully qualified jurist assumes the responsibility for implementing the religious limits (ḥudūd). In the absence of such jurists, just believers take on this responsibility. All of these matters are clearly anticipated in the text of codified religious law.

B. The Incorrectness of Limiting the Imāma of Abraham (a.s.) to Leadership:

While socio-political leadership and governance can be considered functions of Imāma, limiting the Imāma mentioned in the verse to this meaning is problematic for two reasons:

1. It would imply that Abraham (a.s.) did not hold this position earlier in his life and only attained it in old age.

2. As a result of his supplication, his infallible progeny would have also attained this same position, since God, the Glorified, answered the prayer of Abraham, His Friend (khalīl), regarding all his infallible descendants.

It is also untenable to argue that Imāma for Abraham (a.s.) meant socio-political leadership, while for his infallible descendants, it referred to prophethood, thereby creating an abstract commonality. First, Abraham requested for his progeny the same Imāma that he himself had been granted. Thus, even if it is in a lesser form, the same type of Imāma must be conferred upon his infallible progeny. This is similar to the concept of prophethood—if someone is included among the prophets, they must possess some degree, however small, of prophethood and messengership. Just as prophets differ in their ranks, the general course of prophethood, messengership, and Imāma is unified but varies in degree.

Second, accepting the notion that Abraham’s Imāma was limited to leadership while his progeny’s Imāma referred to prophethood disrupts the unity of context and the apparent meaning of the noble verse.

Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that Abraham (Ibrāhīm al-Khalīl, a.s.) was already a leader and guide before his old age, or if it is shown that he neither established a government in the past nor in the future, or if only Abraham attained the position of leadership but not all of his infallible progeny, then Imāma cannot be reduced to socio-political leadership alone. To clarify this point, it is beneficial to consider the following:

As discussed in the context of the relationship between prophethood and Imāma, it is inconceivable that God, the Glorified, would grant prophethood, messengership, and revelation to a prophet like Abraham (a.s.) without making him responsible for implementing divine limits (ḥudūd) and fulfilling the legislated rights. If his responsibility were limited to explaining rulings, issuing warnings, and giving glad tidings, without actual implementation, he would not have exposed himself to so many dangers, nor would he have taken up an axe against the idols. God, the Glorified, even refers to Abraham’s idol-breaking as guidance (rushd): “And We had certainly given Abraham his guidance before” [21:51]. Therefore, it is inconceivable that Abraham did not already possess leadership over the umma in the past.

The Qur’an presents the way and tradition of Abraham (a.s.) as a model for others to follow. Thus, even if his formal appointment to Imāma came in old age, as indicated in the verse, there should be some mention of his socio-political rule and leadership for it to serve as a practical example for others. For instance, in the case of David (Dāwūd, a.s.), the Qur’an clearly mentions, “We strengthened his kingdom” [38:20] and “O David, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth” [38:26], while also relating his judgments and arbitration. However, there is no trace in the Qur’an of Abraham’s rule or governance in his old age, despite the Qur’an recounting his prayers during that time, including his request for a child and the subsequent birth of Ishmael and Isaac (a.s.).

In justifying the absence of any report on the effects of Abraham’s (a.s.) government in his old age, some may argue that the lives and governments of predecessors were simple, and therefore, history remains silent about them. However, this justification is problematic for several reasons:

1. It is difficult to accept that the Qur’an reports Imāma with such grandeur but remains silent about its practical outcomes. If Imāma is mentioned with such significance, its effects should also be noted.

2. The Qur’an’s role is to provide a general outline of historical events in s_umma_ry form, leaving the detailed accounts to aḥādīth and historical sources. Even if the details are not fully recounted, we would still expect the Qur’an to mention the major effects of Abraham’s leadership.

3. The Qur’an itself indicates that the lives of past peoples were far from simple. For example, God, the Glorified, refers to civilizations with extraordinary material wealth and grandeur. He mentions the people of Iram, saying: “Iram of the pillars, the likes of which had never been created in the lands” [89:7-8], and He recounts the immense treasures of Qarun, which were so vast that even a group of strong men struggled to carry their keys: “And We had certainly given him of treasures whose keys would burden a band of strong men” [28:76]. Furthermore, God states that before Qarun, there were people more powerful and wealthier than him, whom He destroyed: “Indeed, God had already destroyed before him generations who were greater than him in power and greater in accumulation [of wealth]” [28:78].

4. God also reminds the Prophet (s.a.w.): “Have they not considered how many generations We destroyed before them, whom We had established upon the earth as We have not established you?” [6:6]. He emphasizes that the wealth and power of the disbelieving leaders of Quraysh pale in comparison to what was granted to earlier generations: “And those before them denied, and they [i.e., the disbelievers] have not attained a tenth of what We had given them” [34:45].

Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the lives of the predecessors were simple and that this is why the Qur’an does not elaborate on their governments.

In support of the argument that the infallible progeny of Abraham (Ibrāhīm al-Khalīl, a.s.) attained the Imāma and leadership to which he was appointed and which he requested for his descendants, the noble verse “And We had certainly given the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom and conferred upon them a great kingdom” [4:54] has been cited as evidence. It is said that the “Book” and “wisdom” refer to prophethood, and the “great kingdom” refers to Imāma.(51)

However, this interpretation is incomplete. The Qur’an does not place much emphasis on the essence of worldly kingdom and kingship, even though it acknowledges that they are blessings from God. The Qur’an does not highlight great kings and sultans in such a way that Imāma would naturally be understood to mean kingship. Material kingdom and worldly sovereignty are transient and trivial positions that God, the Glorified, grants as a test: “Say, ‘O God, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will’” [3:26].

This type of kingdom is granted to both the virtuous and the unworthy. For example, it was given to Prophet David (Dāwūd, a.s.): “And David killed Goliath, and God gave him kingship and prophethood” [2:251], but it was also given to tyrants like Nimrod: “Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because God had given him kingship?” [2:258]. Just as kingdom and sultanate can be divided into two types—the kingdom of truth and justice, and the kingdom of falsehood and oppression—Imāma is also of two types: there are leaders (aʾimma) of faith, justice, and obedience: “And We made them leaders guiding by Our command” [21:73], and there are leaders of disbelief, polytheism, and disobedience: “So fight against the leaders of disbelief” [9:12], and “And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire” [28:41].

The general concept of kingship is on the same level as the general and universal concept of Imāma, not the specific Imāma referred to in the verse under discussion, which is exclusive to the infallible. This specific Imāma is God’s covenant, which only reaches the infallible. If we interpret “great kingdom” as Imāma in the verse, then all of Abraham’s infallible progeny should have attained this Imāma. The phrase “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers” [2:124] clearly limits Imāma to those who are not wrongdoers, indicating that every descendant of Abraham who was not a wrongdoer is included in God’s covenant.

However, not all of Abraham’s family attained this “great kingdom.” Some, like Prophet Job (Ayyūb) and Prophet John (Yaḥyā), did not attain it, while others, like Joseph (Yūsuf), David (Dāwūd), and Solomon (Sulaymān, a.s.), did possess this great kingdom.

It is important to mention that the “great kingdom” mentioned in the noble verse does not refer to conventional worldly rule and governance. Rather, it signifies a divinely granted station where, if someone attains it, obedience to them becomes obligatory for the people. This is why the infallible Imāms (a.s.), even those in isolation, confinement, or imprisonment, still possess this “great kingdom.” Despite their circumstances, they remain individuals whose obedience is obligatory upon the people.(52)

The Lack of Prophet Yusuf’s (a.s.) Control Over the Government:

Exegetes who cite the verse “We had certainly given the family of Ibrahim the Book and wisdom and conferred upon them a great kingdom” [4:54] to support their interpretation of Imāma have pointed to the kingship of Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) as an example of the fulfillment of Prophet Ibrahim’s (a.s.) prayer for his offspring. They interpret the term mulk (“kingdom”) in the verse “My Lord, You have certainly granted me [something] of sovereignty and taught me the interpretation of narratives” [12:101] as referring to Imāma.

However, in critiquing this view, it should be noted that the only event from Prophet Yusuf’s (a.s.) ministry that the Qur’an narrates is how he facilitated the relocation of his family to Egypt. In order to keep his brother from leaving Egypt, Yusuf accused him of theft. According to the official religion of the time—namely, the religion of the Egyptian king—an accused thief would be detained: “They said, ‘The penalty for it is that he in whose bag it is found shall himself be its penalty. Thus do we recompense the wrongdoers.’... He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that God willed” [12:75-76]. This reveals that Yusuf’s religion was not ruling Egypt. The reins of government remained in the hands of the Egyptian king, and Yusuf’s responsibility was primarily limited to justly distributing provisions in an executive capacity, akin to a Minister of Economy and Finance.

If Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) had been an Imām in the sense of implementing divine laws, he would have been obliged to enforce the divine religion. However, due to taqiyya (dissimulation) and similar circumstances, he was compelled to act in accordance with the official laws of Egypt, as is evident from the aforementioned example.

Moreover, interpreting Yusuf’s mulk (“sovereignty”) as Imāma faces another issue: if Yusuf (a.s.), who was a Minister of Economy and Finance, is considered an Imām, then the King of Egypt would logically be seen as more deserving of Imāma—thus making him the Imām of the Imām.

The key point is that, although Prophet Yusuf’s (a.s.) position carried special spiritual grace and greatness compared to the despotic, colonial, enslaving, exploitative, and oppressive governments of the tyrants of his time, it did not constitute the Imāma described in the verse under discussion.

Fifth: Inner Guidance of People to the Realm of the Unseen

The esteemed scholar ʿAllāmahṬabāṭabāʾī (may his soul be sanctified) interpreted Imāma in the noble verse “Indeed, I am making you an Imām for mankind” [2:124] in a way that distinguishes it from prophethood and does not make it a necessary consequence of it. To clarify, God, the Exalted, when outlining the criterion for the inclusiveness of His covenant, says that Imāma does not extend to the wrongdoers: “My covenant does not extend to the wrongdoers” [2:124]. Therefore, Imāma is a status reserved for the righteous.

The descendants of Abraham (Ibrāhīm, a.s.) fall into two categories: some are virtuous and righteous, while others wrong themselves: “And among their descendants are those who are virtuous and those who clearly wrong themselves” [37:113]. After mentioning some of the righteous descendants of Abraham (a.s.)—“And We granted him Isaac and Jacob as well, and We made each of them righteous” [21:72]—God responds to Abraham’s prayer by affirming the fulfillment of His promise that His covenant will reach the righteous: “And We made them Imāms” [21:73].

In this verse, God highlights the attributes of the righteous Imāms, stating that “guidance” is one of the key characteristics of the true and just Imāms: “And We made them Imāms, guiding by Our command” [21:73]; “And We made some of them Imāms, guiding by Our command” [32:24].

The concept of guidance (hidāya) mentioned here goes beyond merely “showing the way” and involves “delivering people to the desired goal.” This type of inner guidance is distinct from managing or taking responsibility for executive affairs.

In the sense of showing the way, all prophets and even their disciples participate in guidance, and there is no need for the position of Imāma for this task alone. For example, the believer from the people of Pharaoh, as a spiritual and committed scholar, guided his people: “And the one who believed said, ‘O my people, follow me, I will guide you to the way of right conduct’” [40:38]. Similarly, faithful scholars, by the command of God the Glorified, guide others and show them the way: “There has to be a nation among you summoning to the good, bidding what is right, and forbidding what is wrong” [3:104]. Thus, guidance in the sense of directing is not exclusive to the Imāms. Consequently, the guidance mentioned in the verse “And We made them Imāms, guiding by Our command” [21:73] does not merely refer to showing the way.

To clarify the special guidance attributed to the righteous Imāms, two points in the phrase “guiding by Our command” need to be considered: the meaning of “by” (Arabic: bāʾ), and the understanding of “Our command.”

The bāʾ in “by Our command” could either indicate accompaniment or connection, meaning the Imām’s guidance accompanies God’s command, or that the Imām’s guidance is inseparably connected to God’s command, clothed in it. The “command of God” here refers to a fixed, non-gradual command.

To explain, all beings in the natural world have two dimensions: a temporal, gradual aspect, and a fixed, celestial aspect that is free from gradation. Regarding the temporal aspect, God, the Glorified, says: The creation of the heavens and the earth and everything within them took place in six stages: “He created the heavens and the earth in six days” [7:54], “He created the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them in six days” [25:59]. Similarly, concerning the determination of sustenance in the four seasons, He says: “And He determined therein its sustenance in four days” [41:10]. For the stages of an infant’s growth, He says: “And the bearing of him and the weaning of him is thirty months” [46:15].

In contrast, when discussing the celestial, timeless aspect of creation, God declares that the reins of all things are in His hand: “There is no creature but He takes it by its forelock” [11:56]. The mention of the moving creature’s reins does not imply that God does not hold the reins of non-moving things; time, place, gradation, movement, and everything else have reins, and as God is the active cause of everything, He holds the keys and reins of all things. The fixed, non-gradual aspect of creation is referred to as the malakūt: “His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. So exalted is He in whose hand is the malakūt of all things, and to Him you will be returned” [36:82-83].

In the Qur’an, God’s mulk (kingdom), which is connected to the realm of gradation and change, is associated with blessing: “Blessed is He in whose hand is mulk” [67:1]. Meanwhile, God’s malakūt, the fixed and timeless dimension connected to His command, is associated with glorification: “So exalted is He in whose hand is the malakūt of all things” [36:83].

God’s command is encapsulated in the word “Be”. When God wills the existence of something, He says to it, “Be,” and to whatever He commands to exist, “it is.” The divine command “Be” is not a mere directive but an act of creation, giving existence to the subject. The phrase “and it is” is not the response to “Be,” as it would be if it were in the jussive mood, but rather the consequence of it. The verb “to be” in both “Be” and “it is” is complete, implying that it only requires a subject to create.

This concept is further clarified in the verse: “And Our command is but one, like the twinkling of an eye” [54:50]. The phrase “like the twinkling of an eye” indicates that the divine command is not bound by time, even though time itself is an extensive and gradual entity. The malakūt__ī (celestial) aspect of time is fixed and entirely under the control of God, who is free from change. Everything has a heart, a malakūt, which is referred to as “the command of God.” Therefore, the phrase “We made them Imāms, guiding by Our command” [21:73] means that the guidance of the righteous Imāms is directly linked to the command of God, or clothed in the garment of this divine command, as they guide the community to God’s command.

In this sense, the Imāms become manifestations of the Turner of Hearts (Muqallib al-Qulūb) in the natural world. They guide everything based on its malakūt by interacting with the inner essence or “heart” of all things. Just as the Imām has a mulk__ī (worldly) station for managing the affairs of people, he also possesses a malakūt__ī (spiritual) station through which he guides the hearts of the people with the divine decree of “Be, and it is” and connects to their spirits.

If such a status is granted to a prophet, it is due to his Imāma and not his messengership. Based on this analysis, Imāma transcends worldly affairs like governance or mere guidance, which are functions of prophethood.

The fact that Abraham (a.s.) attained this station in his old age, after many years of prophethood and messengership, serves as evidence that Imāma in the verse under discussion refers to the same type of divine guidance mentioned in other verses—guidance by God’s command.

Note: The word “command” (amr) in the Qur’an can refer to two distinct meanings: the “legislative command,” which involves God’s directives and laws, and the “creative command,” which refers to God’s will and His instantaneous creation. For example, the verse “Indeed, God commands to justice...” [16:90] represents the legislative command, while the verse “His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is” [36:82] illustrates the creative command. This shows the various uses of the word amr in the Qur’an.

Response to Two Objections:

1. Objection: The phrase “guiding by Our command” [21:73] is merely a description of the Imāms, not a definition of them.(53)

Response: This interpretation contradicts the apparent meaning of the verse. Just as God, the Glorified, introduces the messengers with “messengers as bearers of good tidings and warners” [4:165], He similarly introduces the righteous Imāms with “And We made them Imāms, guiding by Our command” [21:73]. Therefore, “guiding by Our command” defines the role and status of the righteous Imāms rather than being a mere description.

This phrase signifies three key elements: first, the clarification of the position of guidance; second, the divine command for the Imāms to guide the community; and third, the obligation upon the Islamic nation to follow their leadership. Although this sentence appears to be informational, it carries a deeper message, implying a command. It establishes that the Imāms’ guidance is by God’s decree, that they are divinely instructed to lead, and that the Islamic nation is likewise commanded to obey them.

The interpretation of Imāma as political and social leadership was critiqued on the grounds that this role is a necessary implication of prophethood. A similar objection applies to the view that Imāma represents inner guidance, as ʿiṣma (infallibility) and guiding people towards the truth are also attributes of the prophets. Thus, if God, the Glorified, granted Imāma to Abraham (a.s.) in his old age, even though he was already an Imām in the sense of guiding people from the beginning of his prophethood, it would lead to redundancy.

Response: From the phrase “My covenant does not extend to the wrongdoers” [2:124], we can infer that every Imām must be infallible, and conversely, that no non-infallible person can attain Imāma. However, it cannot be deduced from this that every infallible person must also be an Imām or an inner guide. It is possible for someone to be infallible and a prophet who provides guidance in the sense of showing the way, yet lack the capacity for inner guidance and the ability to influence hearts—meaning they may not have attained the station of celestial Imāma (Imāma__t-i malakūt__ī). Of course, if such a person is from the progeny of Abraham (a.s.), it is possible that they might be included in the spiritual covenant and celestial Imāma.

The outcome of the previous discussions is that the most prominent meaning of Imāma in the verse under discussion refers to inner and celestial guidance, or guidance in the sense of delivering people to the ultimate, desired goal.

Note: The discussion regarding Abraham (a.s.) pertains to celestial Imāma. The phrase “does not extend to the wrongdoers” [2:124] refers to the absolute divine covenant, encompassing prophethood, messengership, caliphate, and both earthly and celestial Imāma. Since the phrase is expressed in the context of limitation, it implies that God’s covenant certainly reaches the infallible progeny of Abraham, but the inclusion is partial, not total. In other words, the divine covenant extends to them in a limited way, meaning that some infallible descendants may attain only certain types of God’s covenant, while others may not attain all aspects of it.